Hillary disses the Nevada caucus process and plays the "lowering expectations" game

[jefferson_dem]

...

"You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time -- they're disenfranchised. People who can't be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/clinton-lowers.html

[Deep13]

1. Is she wrong?

I've always found the caucus system to be really undemocratic.

[FormerDittoHead]

10. She's not wrong. It's called rope-a-dope.

...let her opponents use up their energy in these places where the voters each want to have dinner with you.

The voters in Iowa are a bunch of spoiled brats. I heard how much they all wanted to get stroked, that their vote was only changed after sitting down with someone for 1/2 hours, etc.

I'd love for these guys to get a taste of "your primary never makes a difference" pie...

The fact is that no candidate can win everywhere, and with this system of winner take all, it's best to spend your time and money in places where the win is more likely and more beneficial.

I think this goes in the Senator's "Asset" column...

She knows how to run a campaign...

[CoffeeCat]

12. Caucuses are transparent. Democracy in action...

Caucuses are transparent, open processes where your "votes" are made out in the open.

In nearly 2000 caucus sites, Iowans stood for their candidate. People counted the votes
by a show of hands. Those counts were recorded and displayed publicly. As a precinct
captain, I felt it was important to record our results, so I took digital pictures of
our precinct counts. The precinct chair said, "Good for you." I wasn't made to feel
like some kind of wack job, because I wanted the results documented.

What is more democratic than that? I know my vote counted. That's saying something.

Also, I'm sorry that you say that Iowans are "spoiled brats". We didn't all want to "get stroked"
or expect to "have dinner" with the candidates, as you stated. We feel humbled by this process
and we feel a sense of responsibility to the entire nation. So, we want to meet the candidates and
have an opportunity to ask them questions. No candidate should hide behind large speeches and
media events---and not be challenged.

That's all Iowans want. That's all anyone in America wants. I felt an obligation to see and
hear all of the candidates, so I could participate in the democratic process and make an informed
decision.

I'm sorry you have such disdain for Iowans. We certainly have complete respect for all of you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Yeah, Caucuses Are Transparent

You can stand up and announce your vote with your union boss standing over you who literally has the power to put food on your table or take it off...

That's transparent...

That's how voting is done to elect members to the Communist party in China...

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. so now you're dissing unions?

Perhaps, being a DemocratSinceBirth, you've never really examined your preferences.

Union, Good = Democrat. Union, Bad = Republican.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Clever But It Misses The Mark As With Most Sophistry

"In a caucus, supporters of a candidate literally stand together on one side of the room, demonstrating to everyone who is supporting whom. Many Strip shift workers, Culinary workers, will be voting at so-called “at-large” caucus sites on the Strip. This means Culinary members, for whom unity is a creed, will be able to enforce discipline. Clinton can no longer expect to win many delegates at those at-large sites."


If you think voters don't have a right to vote free of intimidation there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. And when that union boss is on one side and all the workers

on the other, which is the one about to be fired?

"The Union" may endorse one or another, but the union workers are free to caucus for whomever they please. Chances are probable that they will support the union's endorsee. If the union attempts to pressure anyone to vote against their conscience, and that pressure is reflected in the workplace, there are legal means to challenge that within the union.

Besides, aren't most union elections held the same way - by a show of hands of the members who show up at the meetings?

Caucusing for your candidate is NOT crossing a picket line.

If Clinton fails to get union votes, it's because the last Clinton administration heartily contributed to the destruction of union power. I'm frankly amazed that she got ANY union endorsements.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. If You Relied On Research And Not Your Own Biases To Inform Your Views They Might Carry More Weight

"If Clinton fails to get union votes, it's because the last Clinton administration heartily contributed to the destruction of union power. I'm frankly amazed that she got ANY union endorsements."


Here's how Hillary did among union members in New Hampshire:


Union Members

Hillary Edwards Obama

40% 23% 29%

http://www.latimes.com/la-exitpoll-nh-graphic,0,7161708.htmlstory?coll=la-home-center

Of course there are legal remedies if union members feel intimidated but the most prudent cause of action is to go along...

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. Then what's your arguement?

That Hillary is doing so well with the unions that you object to their potential influence in NV?

If the union endorsed Obama against the wishes of the members, the union leadership is going to face those members in upcomeing elections and be replaced.

You do know that a union is not a partisan political organization. Many members are actually republicans. THEY won't be caucusing for Obama, OR Hillary.

You're floundering here. You are merely trying to excuse the potential for an upcoming loss - lowering expectations, you might say.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Again

I am concerned that union members have to pick among Democrats with their superiors watching who have picked another Democrat, theoretical legal remedies nothwithstanding...Most folks will go along to get along...I cited an unbiased source that describes the intimidation inherent in the caucus process...That's why the secret ballot is sacred...We are back to where we began...If you don't think there is room for intimidation in a caucus where your superiors or people you are dependent on can monitor your choices there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

And if you feel that elevating this candidate or that candidate is more important than having folks vote free from fear and intimidation there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

The devotion I have to the process, to voting free from fear and intimidation, is more important to me than candidate preference...

[moriah]

35. Leave out "union" and I'll agree...

Part of the reason for a "secret ballot" is so that a person can vote their conscience without fear of repercussions.

I believe that the caucus system does allow for more accurate totals of the caucus-goers than secret ballots counted only by a computer that is only as good as the software it's running.

However, my grandmother may have been the person who instilled in me the importance of the secret ballot. She would never tell us who she voted for, but she was an Independent and voted in every primary and general election. Now that she has to vote absentee due to health reasons she has started to tell us who she picks, but before she would never say a word. But when I used to ask her she said "Who you vote for is secret for a reason. You should be able to speak by voting without anyone else hearing you but God and the vote counters." Perhaps that was to keep her from fighting with my grandfather if they disagreed -- she was not into "politics" per se insofar as she didn't talk about politics, but that may have been because my grandfather could hardly talk of anything else this time of year.

Hmmm, I wonder where I got it from... (the talking about it :) )

[CoffeeCat]

37. What you are suggesting is...

...absurd.

You are painting the entire caucus procedure with a very negative brush---with
horrendous, worse-case scenarios that have never been documented as happening
in the Iowa caucuses.

The truth is---thousands of media members were all over Iowa and documenting this
process. Many had tears in their eyes. The guy from Newsweek, who covered our
site, was amazed by how smoothly and democratic the process was.

People stand for their candidate---among friends, neighbors, family members and the people
they know. There is a general sense of respect for each person's opinion.

There is no evidence that scurrilous union bosses stand over their workers and mandate
that they vote for a certain person.

The people who are there caucusing offer lots of first-hand information about what a clean, open
and democratic process this is. It's even fun.

I'm sorry you are perpetuating such negativity--based on nightmare-scenarios of which there
is no evidence.

[suston96]

15. Not democratic. Not everybody who wants to vote can vote.

They require physical presence and physical movement.

And when nobody's looking you can raise both hands while being counted.

[CoffeeCat]

33. You could make that argument about going to the voting booth...

Not every person who wants to vote, gets to vote---even in a standard election.

Some people can't take off of work. Sometimes the weather
affects people getting to the polls. Does that mean the whole
process is a farce, as you are suggesting? No.

Every voting procedure has limitations and nothing is perfect.

That doesn't mean that the vote is not valid.

People in Iowa know the caucus date well in advance. People can take off
time from work. I might add that Iowa democratic caucus-participation increased
100 percent from 2004, which was a record year. People came out in droves.

And suggesting that the entire system is flawed because "when nobody's looking,
you can raise both hands while being counted" could only be said by someone
who has no experience at a caucus.

I was there at the caucus as a precinct captain. People raised their hands, and
we counted off, "One Obama...two Obama...". I went around the room and counted
TWICE. I was standing within two feet of people, as they were counted.

Furthermore, when people sign in---they are counted ONCE. We know how many total
people are in that room. The individual candidate totals must equal the number of
people who initially walked into that room. Being counted twice would be highly
improbable, if not nearly impossible.

[suston96]

36. Nope. Completely different.

You can vote ahead of time, absentee, from your wheelchair, in your house.

In Oregon there are no polling places. All done by mail. Anywhere else, you can also vote by mail.

No excuse. Sorry, but your argument doesn' fly. Caucuses are discriminatory. But hey, as long as your candidate wins.......

[CoffeeCat]

49. Then why do the caucus results reflect the polls?

The end result of the Iowa caucus--matched the pre-caucus "Which candidate do you support"
polls that were repeatedly conducted in Iowa.

The views and candidate choices of the caucus goers accurately reflected what many polls in
Iowa demonstrated in the days before the caucus.

If the caucuses are so "discriminatory" and keep people from voting who want to vote--as you
and others suggest---wouldn't the caucus results be different from the numerous Iowa polls
that also showed Obama, Edwards and Hillary running in that order?

[suston96]

53. Polls? You gotta be kidding....Pollsters compete with each other and try to match the "trends"...

The trends in Iowa AND New Hampshire were for Obama and against Hillary -

- until a couple of days before the NH elections.... Then, Obama told Hillary that she was likeable enough....and Hillary's eyes misted up live, and on camera.

And then the hell-fury of large numbers of pissed off women turned to Hillary.

Those were the numbers that counted and not the contrived, cover-their-asses pollsters.

[rinsd]

62. Except the pre-caucus polls didn't match the end result

They had the order right in some polls and wrong in others.

None got the percentages right.

[BigDDem]

46. "Caucuses are transparent, open processes"

Of course if you have to work the night of the caucus, you're screwed, no voice.

If you're in the National Guard and in Iraq, you're screwed, no voice.

If you would like you're vote to be private, you're screwed.

It's a ridiculous system. Period.

[William769]

2. Amd what part of anything she said is incorrect?

[jefferson_dem]

4. Incorrect?

I believe her when she says she's troubled by the Nevada electoral process. I hope she'll expand on these concerns as she campaigns across the state.

[Anouka]

6. People can't say one thing, and act another -- that's what troubles her

No wonder someone higher up wants to prevent polling in Nevada.

[rodeodance]

3. Very well said--and others saying it also. I think she said similar stuff for Iowa

[ccpup]

5. she's absolutely right

Primaries where a person votes in a booth are a much better system, in my opinion, than caucuses. And I think Primary Day -- like Election Day -- should be considered something of a Holiday where people either have the day off or employers allow them a half-day off or something so they can take part in our electoral process.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Perhaps so. She should tell Nevada they're not doing it right.

I wonder if she would be saying this if she didn't sense trouble... Hmmm. After all, it's the same excuse she used in Iowa.

[ccpup]

16. it's not a matter of doing it "right" or "wrong"

it's a matter of whether or not people will have the opportunity to take part like they want to. A primary is an easier process, a caucus is a bit more time-consuming and restrictive.

I know you're aware that that's the point she's making ... all snark aside.

[CoffeeCat]

52. But polling in Iowa clearly shows...

...that if the caucuses were instead standard voting--the result would have been the same.

Polls had Obama trending upward with a slight advantage, Edwards in a close second with
Hillary and trending flat--with Hillary close to Edwards and trending downward.

The caucuses reflected many polls conducted in Iowa--in the days leading up to the caucuses.

The caucuses were an accurate representation of Iowa views. The results were not surprising
or completely outlandish.

[rodeodance]

8. Per Clinton's comments BELOW---there is NO-thing about lowering Expectations:

"I'm very committed to reaching out and meeting the people in this state," Clinton said. "The leaders that I have here in my campaign are very confident that we will do very well."

Also added to the list of endorsements Clinton is not worried about is John Kerry's endorsement of Obama.

"I have a lot of regard for him," she said of Kerry, "and that's his decision to make. I am very proud to have the support that I have. I was particularly pleased that the congresswoman endorsed me here in Las Vegas."

Clinton went door-to-door canvassing for votes with state Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, age 27. The senator, who does not speak Spanish, did run into some language barriers. At one point Clinton tried to explain to two men what a caucus was. They nodded, but then had to receive the full translation moments later. Clinton did say "gracias," but that was about all of the Spanish ABC News heard from the senator.

[fuzzy otter pop]

9. Screw the reason , she's right,

but i still


i cant stand her

[CoffeeCat]

11. She said the same bullshit about Iowa...

You know what? After NH, I totally dismissed the idea of election fraud.

However, the more I hear all of her spin, and remember her spin in Iowa--the
more I'm inclined to believe that America is being fucked with voting machines.

I'm so pissed.

Caucuses are votes that are out in the open. They are the most transparent political
process this nation has. You don't go into a voting booth. You stand in the open
and your support is counted---by a person.

You can't steal a caucus.

She's spinning negatively, the NV caucus process. Why is that?

[Justyce]

13. Because of the reasons in the OP -- it disenfranchises too many people.

I would have to agree with her on this one.

[CoffeeCat]

39. The process doesn't disenfranchise....

...any more than voters are disenfranchised when they go to the polls.

One could make the case that voting on one day, disenfranchises people
because they have only one day to get out and vote. What about the
people who get sick? Or the babysitter cancels? Turnout is always
low during rain or snow...does that mean that particular vote should
be nullified.

That's like saying that going to the polls is flawed because not everyone
who wants to vote, can.

If you are motivated to attend the caucuses, you have the freedom and
opportunity to participate. Caucuses are held in your neighborhood--at
nearby community centers, churches and schools. People know the date
well in advance and the local media hypes the Iowa caucuses with an
endless barrage of publicity. Iowans are very aware of where and when
their caucus is.

Furthermore, caucuses are held at 7:00 p.m. The majority of people
work during the day and can make it at night. If not, people can
take off time from work, or ask to leave work to caucus. Usually, you're in
an out in an hour.

While it's true that not everyone can participate, you could say that about
any election process.

It's not as complicated and flawed as some are suggesting.

I might add that the pre-caucus "Which candidate do you support" polls in Iowa
accurately reflected the results of the Iowa caucus. The people who caucused
in Iowa two weeks ago--accurately reflected the opinions of Iowans who were
asked which candidates they supported.

[ccpup]

18. TwoSparkles pissed? Over something to do with Hillary?!

No, say it ain't so!!!!! :eyes:

[CoffeeCat]

41. I know! So shocking!

Fire up the presses!

I don't like warmongering Dems. I'm sorry. I'll fight it all the way to the finish line.

We used to agree that warmongering Dems, like Lieberman, were bad news.

That's not so anymore.

[ccpup]

47. if a warmongering Dem is one that votes to continue funding

the war, you're choice of Candidates just got a lot smaller.

[CoffeeCat]

54. No, a warmongering Dem...

is a Dem--like Hillary, who knew that the Iraq war was a farce from the onset. Yet, she
remained silent as our nation was sold a bill of goods--with 360-degree knowledge that it was a horrendous lie.

The neocons asked her husband for the same war with Iraq, in 1998, when he was President. Bill
said no to their war-request letter that was signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton and other
power neocons who would later ask for that war again.

Here's a copy of that letter: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

She knew--as she threw in her support for Bush's Iraq war, that this same contingent of criminals
urged her husband for the same action, back in 1998. She knew that they culled Sept 11 fear into a marketing
device and were using it to get into Iraq--something they wanted to do for a long time.

Not only did she stand on the Senate floor and propagate Bush's notion that Saddam had an
Al Queda connection and posed a nuclear threat, she parsed every sentence--as if she knew that
someday she might have to explain herself and wiggle out of the horrendous con that had been
perpetrated on all of us.

Hillary didn't mention to America, "These are the same people who have wanted to get a foothold
in Iraq for years. Look at the PNAC site. Their plan lists Iraq, Iran and Syria as their planned
conquests dominate the world militarily. Maybe we all need to think about this and take a step back."

She was silent--therefore a participant--in the neocon plan.

Her Kyl/Lieberman "yes" vote--declares the next country on the PNAC wish list (Iran) a terrorist
organization.

Hillary Clinton...a gift to the neocons that just keeps on giving.

Why are you supporting this?

Why is this ok with you?

[ccpup]

56. and Obama co-sponsering the Resolution

in March -- before the September Kyle/Lieberman vote he conveniently missed -- that officially branded the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is somehow okay? Or the fact that from the safety of the floor of the State Legislature when he was a part-time State Senator he railed against the Iraq War only to turn 180 and vote to fund it once elected, even admitting in 2004 he didn't know how he would have voted had he been asked to at the time, is okay as well?

It's clear you despise Hillary, which is certainly your choice to do so. I support her because she will make an incredible President. You're free to disagree.

[1corona4u]

38. Yeah, right....

In a caucus, you can't even vote for the person you walked in the door to vote for, UNLESS, they are deemed 'viable' from the powers that be. Who dreamed up the magical number that makes a person viable?? All votes should be counted. THE FIRST TIME. No realignment, no negotiating, no 'rock paper scissors', no 'flipping a coin'.

The fact that people have to 'be in the open' leaves them vunerable to being influenced by their peers. Voting should be a private issue. Without having some bullshit method to determine 'viability' for ANY candidate.

I have learned a lot since the Iowa caucus, and I don't like what I see.

In a primary, the candidate is NOT 'excluded' on the spot.

Like I said before;

"The person they went to Caucus for, they didn't vote for in the end. How is that Democratic? It would be the same as if I walked into my polling place, and went to vote for Joe Biden, and they said, sorry, the Joe Biden button is broken, you'll have to choose another. That's not Democratic."

[TwilightZone]

17. So, it's ok with you if people are disenfranchised?

There are plenty of things to criticize about Senator Clinton.

This is not one of them.

[ccpup]

19. Those criticizing Hillary Clinton are a bit like

a petulant child on a sugar rush throwing endless darts at a dart board.

Just throw, throw, throw away 24/7 and hope something sticks in the sweet spot.

[TwilightZone]

20. The leaps of logic are what amaze me.

Hillary discussing why the caucus system disenfranchises voters = "Hillary dissing Nevada"

People complain about our political process all the time, and not just the caucus system.

I guess that means that someone like Dennis Kucinich who wants to overhaul the system is "dissing every voter in America."

[ccpup]

23. wash your mouth out with soap RIGHT NOW!

you know we're never supposed to criticize dear Saint Dennis on DU. That being said, feel free to flail away as illogically as you can at Hillary. Reason, past arguments to the contrary and political reality -- or even reality in general -- need not intrude or interrupt whatever ridiculous ... sorry, completely common sense slam you choose to make-up ... I mean, discover about Hillary the Damned.

Doing so is sure to gain you lots of fans, a ton of responses and enough kicks to get you on the Greatest Page!

(whisper: Just don't ever, every question the beautiful layer of paper-thin, very fragile gossamer Saint Obama of Hope is swathed in. You'll be banned. Banned, I tell you!)

Now on to bashing Hillary for having blonde hair and walking in shoes! The nerve of her! RECOUNT! :eyes:

[TwilightZone]

27. What's funny is...

Even in your attempt to be hyperbolic, you're still not saying anything that isn't pretty much daily reality here at DU.

How bad does it have to be when we can't even exaggerate it anymore? ;)

[ccpup]

31. what's even funnier

is, even as I wrote, I was clearly seeing both the sarcasm AND the irrefutable truth in it. It's sad, really, that DU has started mirroring the nation in the level of it's political discourse. This site is oftentimes no better than the Sunday Morning who-can-yell-loudest Talking Head shows I avoid like the plague.

It's less "I don't understand your support of that person, so help me see why you made your choice" than "your girl is going down and she's a witch and I hope she rots in hell ... RECOUNT!"

I do come here less and less throughout the day. I try to chime in with humor or reason (or both) when I am here, but I find myself reading news at TPM or RealClearPolitics or something more often with my free time than ignoring thread after thread blasting Hillary or praising Obama.

Kinda sad, but ... c'est la vie.

[depakid]

21. So, she makes an accurate observation and there's somehow political hay in that?

Well, I suppose it beats citing bogus polls.

[MethuenProgressive]

22. Obama does well where people are disenfranchised.

It worked out for him in Iowa.

[LostinVA]

25. I agree -- the caucus system sucks and is undemocratic

There's a reason why we adapted the "Australian" voting system, because people can be too easily bullied or shamed.

[KingFlorez]

26. She's right

What is so awful about what she said?

[ursi]

28. And Rory Reid (Borg campaign manager) will tell us all to bend over, crack a smile and swallow

Hillary knows Rory is going to hand the caucus to her at this point. That is unless Democrats storm the caucus site and overwhelm it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Gee, people actually have to go to some effort in a caucus state

instead of just mailing in a ballot at their convenience.

Folks, Democracy is not something we have, it is something we DO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. This Isn't (d)emocracy)

"In a caucus, supporters of a candidate literally stand together on one side of the room, demonstrating to everyone who is supporting whom. Many Strip shift workers, Culinary workers, will be voting at so-called “at-large” caucus sites on the Strip. This means Culinary members, for whom unity is a creed, will be able to enforce discipline. Clinton can no longer expect to win many delegates at those at-large sites."


If you think voters don't have a right to vote free of intimidation there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. You're stuttering. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Is That Your Way Of Saying I Give Up

I will accept it with my usual grace...

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. I was informing you, in case you hadn't noticed, that you have run

out of aspersions and were repeating yourself.

Posting the same exact reply to the same poster in two places in a single thread -

that is your way of saying 'I have no real arguement'.

[1corona4u]

34. Yeah, so, she's right.

[Texas_Kat]

44. The caucus date itself is a problem for observant Jews

January 19th is one of the most important contests in the Democratic and Republican quests for their parties’ nomination for the presidency. It is also Shabbat.


Nevada has one of the fastest growing Jewish populations in the country, and its 65,000-80,000 Jewish community members are expected to have a disproportionate impact on the results.

....

However, there are two elements of Nevada’s political parties’ decision to hold the caucus on Shabbat that make it especially disturbing: the fact that it is entirely avoidable (the caucuses could have easily been held on a weeknight or even after Shabbat ended), and the fact that it categorically excludes an entire group of people based on their religious identity.


http://jewishpublicaffairs.blog.com/2517164/

[Cameron27]

48. I can't believe I'm reading this.

What the hell were they thinking?

[redqueen]

45. I agree with her about caucuses.

[Colobo]

50. The important thing is that Obama can win Nevada.

Let's hope it happens.

[jackson_dem]

58. Lowering expectations is what smart, experienced candidates do

;)

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

60. Or maybe it's because the caucus process is entirely transparent

and therefore resistant to being rigged? Funny that.

[Cha]

61. hillary's such a disser...

wonder where her surrogates get it from?