and the caucus v primary results, which show that Clinton & Obama are very close in primaries, only reinforce the role of the obama supporters tactics in caucuses.
SD and MT primaries should confirm the difficulty with teh caucus system where these abuses can occur, as the margin being close.
Absolutely. I noticed that all traces of the "40 buses w. 20 people each" story seem to have vanished from popular consciousness. In early March, there was a lot more buzz about how Obama was sending volunteers from Illinois not only to help GoTV in caucus states, but to actually participate in the caucuses.
It seems several of these incidents are now hardcoded as documented by the Texas affidavits. It's not like we even need direct evidence at this point because we have so much circumstantial (which just as easily provides the basis of murder convictions).
When you have 30+% swings in primaries versus caucuses in the same state (Nebraska, Idaho, Washington, and the 18% swing in Texas), you know something is fundamentally wrong. 0-4% would be reasonable. 5% or over raises eyebrows. 10% is on its face, bizarre. 20% is presumptive wrongdoing. 30% is unambiguous fraud.
The beauty of this is the documenting of how the presence of safeguards and Hillary's legal team in the caucuses maintained results in near perfect alignment with the popular vote. Where there was no oversight, we had Chicagoans pretending to be Texans and writing "Obama" in blank spaces.
Without a doubt, this phenomenon isn't limited to Texas. This is every caucus having bizarre margins, which means every caucus aside from Nevada.
