At most, we are apparently talking about abnormalities at a few precincts out of HUNDREDS. We are talking about a process where (in my own precinct, for example) in 2004 we had 12 people participate, and this year we had more than 100. Our neighboring precinct, who had exactly ONE caucus-goer in 2004 had about 150 this time.

I saw all this to point out that, with this kind of increase, mathematically, you are going to find abnormalities. They are going to happen. Whether it be leaders who were confused, participants who were paranoid and on edge, or the occasional questionable behavior by somebody like Crenshaw.

The math of it is such that it all washes out as it goes up the line. Mathematically, there is no person like Sandra Crenshaw who can win the election for her candidate, or steal it from another. She’s not that powerful.

I don’t even know the specifics of what she allegedly did that night…and in a way, I am pleased I don’t.

Because even without knowing what she did, I can tell you that its impact on the entire process is negligible…and I question yall posting THREE separate blog entries about it.

I do know that, overall, given the turnout, this could have gone a lot worse….that mathematically slight irregularities here and don’t make any different…and that nobody’s alleging widespread fraud by anyone.

In an age of cell phone video, and with the total number of caucuses, somebody was bound to see something somewhere. But nobody so far has found a pattern of widespread fraud by anyone…just glitches here and there.

From a macro-level, the process worked.

Gotta love Dallas people!!!

Nothing about her “correcting” any forms.

I’m hoping he’ll give it to CNN since that’s a good way Obama would see it, if that’s actually what he’s aiming for…