Primaries vs Caucuses - The evidence shows Caucuses are bull

[sunonmars]

Its quite evident that Caucuses stink to high hell, when you look at Caucuses and then look at the primaries that followed, you can see clearly that they are not democratic at all and do not represent the real voters. In fact, Obama's caucus wins are so evidently lopsided and far reality, its outrageous.


Nebraska Primary and Caucus

Caucus 32% to 68% 12145 to 26,126 8 to 16 Delegates split

Primary 47% to 49% 43614 to 46,279

So real split would be really 12/12 delegate split and a swing to Clinton of +15% and Obama a loss of -19%


Texas Primary and Caucus

Primary 47% to 51% 1,358,785 to 1,459,814 61 to 65 Del

Caucus 56% to 44% 23,918 to 18,620 39 to 28 Del

So real split should really be about 90 to 103 delegates in total


Washington Primary and Caucus

Caucus 31% to 68% 999,2 to 21,269 Delegates 53 to 25

Primary 46% to 51% 315,744 to 354,112

Under the primary system the real result would be approx 42 to 36 delegates and swing of -17% to Obama and a +15% to Clinton.


Net gain for Clinton +25
Net loss for Obama -25

Repeated under a fair primary system for all of those states that were caucuses, this would have put them Clinton actually ahead.

[goldcanyonaz]

1. funny how them caucuses work out, huh?

[DesEtoiles]

72. YOU WERE ALL THE CALL TODAY AND ARE FOLLOWING THE SCRIPT>>>>>>

Clinton today told her "independent" bloggers to write about "how caucuses are unfair" line of attack.

It is supposed to look like the bloggers came up with the idea themselves, however, not that the campaign told them what to write about.

Here is the report of the call from one of the bloggers on the call:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/16/214911/396

There were more, some not so positive but I made a choice to focus on the positives.

One little tidbit on the negative, encouraging the bloggers to discuss how the Caucus system is not a fair representation. The example she used were beauty pageant primaries that follow the official Caucuses and how much better she did in the primary.

The argument fully ignores that they are in fact meaningless with low turn out, but what the heck let's not focus on the negative.

YOU WERE ON THE CALL TODAY. YOU WERE ON THE CALL.

HILLARY - YOU SUCK.

[mcctatas]

106. ....

:rofl:

Now we can call them HILLBOTS and be accurate, someone just programs the script into thier data input and they go about spewing it willy nilly...

[Texas Hill Country]

140. wow, you are really going nuts on this meme... first you lie in another thread about what the call

said, re: the woman bringing her kids to the credentials meeting... then you start screaming about the vast Hillary conspiracy in other threads... seriously?


Oh, and lets not even start in on this with reports coming out about Obama hiring hundreds of bloggers...


It was a q & a phone call with staunch supporters, that's all.

[unlawflcombatnt]

177. Don't confuse an Obama supporter with the truth

It's not fair.

Without all their lies, they'd have nothing.

Just like Obama.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidpdx]

2. Funny that no one had a problem with Bill Clinton

competing in them in 1992, yet Hillary Clinton lost most of them (except Nevada, in which case Obama still gained one more delegate) in 2008. Too bad people didn't have the foresight to bitch about it last year.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidpdx]

22. Wow...and your proof is where?

I thought so.

[anigbrowl]

79. OMG - how dare actually COMPETE in those silly little contests!

I mean, technically it's allowed, but it's just DIRTY POOL!

[Blue_Roses]

80. Bullshit! What NO ONE EXPECTED was

for this primary to go this far--mainly Hillary Clinton. Caucuses have never seen this much light of day since the primary is usually decided so early on. Get over it. I'm sure if it was Hillary winning the caucuses, it would have been a different story with you. And for the record, I live in Texas and voted in the primary AND the caucus that night. It was very fair and I have to say much more informative.

[walldude]

91. LMFAO....

This has to be the most pathetic post since the primary started. Congratulations!

[goldcanyonaz]

4. why is the vote tied?

[davidpdx]

23. Tied...

Are you looking at your shoe laces again?

[TahitiNut]

24. Detergent

... for the typographically-challenged. :silly:

[WonderGrunion]

5. And if it were winner take all

like the Republicans have and Mark Penn thought we had, Hillary would also be ahead. But those aren't the rules of our party. The rules that Hillary knew about and agreed to before the elections. Further, state primaries in caucus states usually have local issues on the ballots that don't pertain to the presidential elections, which increase turnout locally. Finally, people who live in a caucus state know the primary vote doesn't count for president anyway so Obama's amazing GOTV effort isn't in play. Just like it wasn't in Florida and Michigan which is why their results aren't a valid representation of the voters either.

[cali]

6. Much as I love the direct democracy of caucuses, they are less democratic

but keep a couple of things in mind: There is NO requirement that the way parties choose their presidential candidate must be by primary. You have no legal franchise in a primary. Parties are free to choose their candidates however they wish. And this year, caucuses are just as valid as primaries. I do think that needs to change, but I do think you need to put aside your presumption. Had there been only primaries, Obama would have run a different campaign. No telling what would have happened.

[musicblind]

51. I agree, we should accept that there are caucuses in this primary and move on but

I also think we should all work together HARD (after the primary is over) fix problems such as caucuses and superdelegates so that we don't have this "surprise" again in four/eight more years.

[eridani]

53. That's crap. Participation is light years more democratic than passively consuming soundbites

And Maine has absentee caucusing for any reason whatsoever, which disposes of the accessibility argument.

[SwampG8r]

124. thank you

i keep telling them that there is no disenfranchising people during a party primary but they refuse to listen
when they dont let you vote in a GE
THEN you are disenfranchised

[Youphemism]

7. I don't like caucuses either...

If there's one thing that everybody can agree upon following these primaries, it's that there are a number of changes required in the democratic primary system.

Most people also agree that you don't try to change the system in the middle of the campaign, though. I don't think it's possible to respect anybody who tries to do that.

I certainly hope party officials learn from these troubles and revisit this issue before the next primary. But now is not the time.

[Perry Logan]

8. "We see more evidence that Obama built up his delegate lead by gaming the caucuses."

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/05/gaming-caucus.html

[eridani]

129. Meaning that having a solid organization capable of mobilizing supporters is cheating

The Clintons don't need or want potential active citizens. She has this delusion that she can actually get something done as president without active citizen involvment and without the involvment of a strong party system which is the farm system for state and national candidates.

[dansolo]

9. Are you actually trying to compare non-binding primaries with caucuses?

Two of your examples were non-binding primaries, which are naturally going to generate much less interest because they aren't actually used to pick delegates. Are you seriously trying to make an argument that this means anything?

[jsmirman]

28. Of course, the OP is. After all, the goal here is to claim the ultimate non-binding

primary, Florida, was actually for real!

[paulk]

82. except that the "non binding primaries" generated more interest

like Nebraska, for instance, where five times as many people voted in the "non binding primary" than in the "binding" caucus.

That kind of shoots your argument right in the ass.

[VotesForWomen]

148. considerably more interest. nt

[VotesForWomen]

147. wouldn't they 'generate less interest' equally among all candidates? so why are the results (percent

(percentages) so different?

[ima_sinnic]

10. "bull" only because your candidate LOST

--by the pre-established rules.

:nopity:

work to change the rules for 2012.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. No, they're flawed because they don't reflect the views of the voters.

We don't have any problem being against poll taxes and literacy tests, but we build a caucus system that disenfranchises most of the voters.

[ima_sinnic]

145. so I guess you'll be actively working to change it for next time

-- or, where were you before this?

and how does it "disenfranchise" anybody? everybody is free to go to a caucus and make their position known.

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. Yes, and I didn't realize the magnitude of the problem prior to this

Everyone who must (for whatever reason) vote via absentee ballot is disenfranchised.

Electioneering at polling places is against the law. Not at caucuses. They're just like DU, only face-to-face. Btw, the guy in the photo above told the precinct captain that he was a registered Republican.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350752_caucuses09.html
In Washington, as best as I can find "perhaps as many as 200,000 people participated". "Perhaps"? Wouldn't you agree that one of the prerequisites of a free and fair election is knowing how many people voted? In contrast, 691,381 voted in the primary, of whom 354,112 (51.22 %) voted for Obama and 315,744 (45.67 %) voted for Clinton.

Here is a snip from the Washington SOS website;
Q: Why does Washington have a Presidential Primary?
In 1988, more than 200,000 Washington voters signed an Initiative to the Legislature proposing that a Presidential
Primary be held. The Legislature adopted the initiative in 1989, and it is authorized in Chapter 29A.56 of the
Revised Code of Washington. The law states:
The…presidential nominating caucus system in Washington State is unnecessarily
restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm,
women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and
therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in
our democratic system of government.
The Legislature further emphasized that the presidential selection process must be more open and representative of
the will of the people.
A Presidential Primary allows each Washington voter to participate in the nomination process, not just political
party insiders who participate in the caucuses.

[eridani]

158. I want to disenfranchise Repub voters in Dem caucuses or primaries n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

165. Like this guy?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350752_caucuses09.html


Chris McMillan, who told the precinct captain that he was a registered Republican, campaigns for Barack Obama during a Democratic caucus at Olympic Hills Elementary School.

[eridani]

170. There is no such thing as registration by party in WA state

That's one of the main reasons we do caucuses--we have to have a way of finding our serious supporters. If he attended the caucus, he had to sign a statement that he was willing to be known publicly as a Democrat, and the statistical analysis that we use in VoteBuilder to determine Strong Dem, Leaning Dem, Independent Dem, Independent, Independent Repub, Leaning Repub and Strong Rapub will have some Democratic "points" added to it.

See--no disenfranchisement!

[eridani]

172. There is no such thing as registration by party in WA state

That's one of the main reasons we do caucuses--we have to have a way of finding our serious supporters. If he attended the caucus, he had to sign a statement that he was willing to be known publicly as a Democrat, and the statistical analysis that we use in VoteBuilder to determine Strong Dem, Leaning Dem, Independent Dem, Independent, Independent Repub, Leaning Repub and Strong Rapub will have some Democratic "points" added to it. Clinton of course refuses to use this nationwide tool developed by DNC.

See--no disenfranchisement!

[lumberjack_jeff]

176. I voted in the WA primary. I had to choose the (R) ballot, the (I) ballot or the (D) one.

No such rules applied at the caucus. The guy in the photo told the precinct captain that he was a Republican and then proceeded to electioneer and participate at the Democratic caucus.

Given that more than seven in ten of those who walked through those doors, voted for Obama, I wonder if he'd be asked to leave if he were waving a Clinton sign.

Caucuses suck.

[eridani]

179. You just cannot be a Republican (or a Democrat) by registration in WA state, period

Taking a D or an R ballot is not in any way linked with your voter ID. In order to participate in the caucus, the guy had to sign a paper stating that he was a Democrat. Anybody can come to any caucus and wave any sign they like, but they are not allowed to caucus for a candidate without signing the statement. In 2004, one of our most solid Kucinich supporters was in that position--she did everything she could except to caucus for him because she had not yet become a citizen.

[indimuse]

11. K&R!!

Caucauses are unfair and UNDEMOCRATIC!!! PERIOD!


http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/elections/15640-alert-spread-word-o-bomba-dirty-tricks-tx-oh.html#post327297
Quote:
I’m receiving reports that contrary to Texas Democratic party caucus rules that preclude registration forms from being submitted before either 7:15 pm or the last vote at a precinct has been cast, Obama volunteers are handing out the forms at precincts today and asking people to fill them in and then collecting them. For Obama to submit the forms on the voters’ behalf without the voter physically being present at the caucus would violate the rules.

Spread the word at your favorite site!

Obama Campaign Operatives Caught Violating Texas Election Law 3/04/2008 2:00 EST In Texas, the reports get worse. Obama's team are evidently copying caucus forms and having their supporters fill them out prior to the 7:15 p.m. deadline when the caucus is called to order. This means the voter wouldn't have to actually attend the caucus, but instead would simply have the Obama team hand in the caucus forms for the voter, which is clearly against the rules, which are very clear: Participants may NOT begin signing in until the precinct convention has been called to order. The call to order may not occur until 7:15 p.m. OR whenever the last voter finishes voting at that polling location whichever is later. If, after the convention has been called to order and participants have signed in, any participant who wishes to leave may do so, and their sign in WILL count toward the delegate allocation for each candidate. Sign-In ends when the last person present waiting to sign in has done so. Yet another example of Barack Obama's "change" agenda, on the way to a different kind of politics. Chicago style, baby. The reports of what the Obama campaign is doing in Ohio and Texas are astonishing. First of all, the Obama campaign is wrong on the facts and on the law; second, challenging voters is what Republicans do to Democrats, especially to minority Democrats. This is the example Obama wants to set? This is the politics of hope and unity? What a disappointing charade. The Obama campaign is desperate. Spread the word.




http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/03/04/obama-general-counsel-crashes-clinton-press-call-on-voting-irregularities-in-texas/

[goldcanyonaz]

12. what they said

[Boz]

13. Does this make you feel better to post this, does this adjust your attitude and self worth

I hope it helps you feel more in control of the failure of your candidate to succeed. there must be someone to blame, it can't be you, it can't be her. You cant be wrong.

I hope your posting helps your mental health.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

14. BITCH! BRAV-F*CKING-O! Caucus-Gate!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. Ummm...

Given the lopsided nature of the results, one could equally argue that the primary system produces a skewed result, favoring the candidate who has the most early money and name recognition. The caucuses favor candidates who have a committed following and well-oiled field operation - both of which are harbingers of success in the General Election.

[high density]

16. Last I knew the Washington & Nebraska primaries were worth zero delegates

Given the delusion of Clinton supporters I am not surprised that they are now using these worthless contests as a winning metric.

I'm all for getting rid of caucuses, but during a primary season ain't the time to do it.

[Danger Mouse]

17. You have any fucking evidence?

[CreekDog]

18. so you take 3 states with binding caucuses

replace them with the non-binding primaries

you throw out all the rules the state set up to participate.

you apply the differences you observed in 3 states to all caucus states

and you proclaim this is fair.

actually not, you have replaced state caucus procedures with "sunonmars" decides how caucus states' votes are counted.

from a caucus to a dictatorship. progress, yes indeedy! :think:

if you don't like caucuses, you change them for the next cycle, you don't overrule a legal and sanctioned method of choosing delegates retroactively. many people didn't vote in the non-binding primaries because they didn't count. that's why Florida and Michigan turnout was lower while turnout in Democratic primaries was otherwise uniformly massively higher.

it's not fair to say something doesn't count if it followed the rules and to say something that didn't follow the rules does count --yet that is what you recommend, in the ironic interest of *fairness*.

[jsmirman]

29. Ok, you handled that quite well. See below where I punk Op Mindcrime brutally.

But well done here. You laid that out very effectively.

:applause:

[jsmirman]

31. Although it's two states. Texas is not a non-binding primary, right?

Or am I misunderstanding how that term is used?

[CreekDog]

49. The OP referred to 3 states (TX, NE, WA) as evidence "caucuses are crap"

that was my point. :hi:

[jsmirman]

137. Yeah, but all I was saying is that there isn't a non-binding Texas replacement

going on here like with the other two, unless I'm missing something?

[VotesForWomen]

150. whatever; and nobody is saying caucuses shouldn't count (this time), but they should be eliminated.

[mmonk]

19. How come caucuses haven't been a problem before?

Because Clinton wasn't in a previous presidential primary? It's not Obama's fault nor the caucus system's fault that Hillary's support was not well organized in regards to caucuses. Personally I prefer primaries but in all fairness, both sides have equal access even though Texas's system being somewhat different through it's reward system on democratic voting in general election results. If you support your candidate and are willing to go and support your candidate, having a caucus shouldn't be a problem.

[GoesTo11]

20. Primaries are bull - they don't match the caucus results

[DesEtoiles]

102. So you were ALSO on today's call and Sen. Clinton told you what to say.

[charlie]

21. So caucuses stink today

and they've stunk for decades.

So, I'm sure you and the others have a history of decrying caucuses long before 2008. I'd like to see it.

[slinkerwink]

25. sorry Obama played by the rules, and knew what the game was all about.

[VotesForWomen]

42. and who cares if we lose the GE. great.

[roseBudd]

63. Debbie Downer, Rachel Dratch called, she wants her recurring character back

[movonne]

100. Are you saying that all or most hillary supporters are going to vote

for mc cain, not vote, or vote for nader, or ron paul, or bob barr...lots of picks..but not a one of them will make our country better than bush's...

[VotesForWomen]

152. in a close race (which the battleground states usually are) it could make a difference. nt

[Lucky 13]

26. Um isn't this a state's rights issue?

The state determines whether it runs primaries or caucuses or prima-caucuses or whatever. Do you want to be the one to go tell Iowans that they can't caucus anymore? That they MUST have primaries? That's one way to get people not to vote for you...

[newmajority]

27. Here's the deal with the Washington state Democratic primary: It is completely USELESS.

The only reason we even HAVE a primary in this state is because the 'Pukes split their delegates half from the caucus and half from the primary. So primary ballots are printed, and they have the name of the Democratic candidates on them as well. But if you want to actually vote for a Democratic candidate, you must do so in the caucus. I don't even bother with the ballot, as it means nothing.

So any numbers you're using for fuzzy Hillbot desperation math, leave my state out of it. There's nothing here to work to your twisted advantage.

[latinolatteliberal]

30. Nothing is more annoying than a substance argument masquerading as a process argument.

Nothing more than sour grapes.

Caucuses are no less legitimate than primaries. If the argument is about turnout rates, why not take the argument to the extreme? Why not decry as illegitimate anything short of 100% turnout?

Let's not forget that caucuses also help to build grass-root networks and force people to discuss the candidates before making a decision.

Besides, ex ante, it would have appeared that Clinton had all the advantages in the caucuses. Aren't party activists more sensitive to the party machines linked to the Clintons? Didn't we spend the last year hearing how Clinton's main strength was her organizational skills? It just seems to me that she got beaten at her own game. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

To whine about caucuses now is just sad.

[jsmirman]

34. It sounds like you, too, would enjoy my post where I take a chainsaw to Op MindCrime

He was trying to pull the bull of "Caucuses are way less legitimate than the primary where Hillary was on the ballot and Obama wasn't and the primary where the votes weren't supposed to count."

I got medieval on him.

[BzaDem]

46. You have quite a high opinion of yourself. n/t

[PM7nj]

32. Maybe you should have brought this up before Hillary started losing them.

You just look like you are whining bringing this up after the fact.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Swamp Rat]

116. You can run, but you cannot hide Evil GrovelBot!

:D

[MarjorieG]

35. I'll take transparent representation by citizens over electronic voting any day!!

[ecdab]

36. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Most Hillary supporters

have at least moved on to the bargaining stage of losing - perhaps you should joins them. It's better than anger and one step closer to getting beyond depression. I hope you make it through quickly - good luck!

[kikiek]

37. Thanks for the informative post. The truth be told!

[walldude]

88. Yeah truth be told if the rules were different Hillary might be winning

BUT THE RULES AREN'T DIFFERENT!

[kikiek]

97. And if Obama gets it the weaker candidate will be in the GE and a sure loser.

[movonne]

101. And what makes you think hillary is not the weaker candidate..her

negs are higher...it is only what hillary keeps telling you that Obama can't win... and maybe not.. but hillary would have a lesser chance..

[walldude]

115. In your opinion..

Seems to be many people who disagree...

[Diane R]

38. Washington voters skipped the primary because they didn't count, and we had already voted.

The OP has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

[VotesForWomen]

39. the scary thing is that this is where a lot of O's winning margin has come from; that and red states

that dems are never going to win in the GE anyway. i think this could spell disaster for dems in nov.

[anonymous171]

41. And WV and KY aren't red states?

[VotesForWomen]

153. certainly they are, and i wouldn't use Clinton's victories there to make the case for her. her vict

victories in OH, PA, and FL are a lot more important.

[mkultra]

40. in summary

Obama sucks
Hillary PLEASE!!
waaahhhhhhh

[Erin Elizabeth]

43. Caucuses would be fine with you guys if she had done

well in caucus states, but she didn't and that's a fact.

Because of that, now they're undemocratic, huh?

[TBF]

44. Not true - but I will agree that I'd like to see Texas change their

system. I don't agree that all caucuses are"bull", or that they shouldn't count in this primary. They were put in place, at least in Texas, to ensure that democrats would pick the nominees, as opposed to cross-over Republican shenanigans. That said, I'd rather see a state-by-state popular vote with only declared dems voting in the primary. I'm not sure how they should structure it - maybe stagger them, but rotate it so that the same states are not always first.

I was an Obama precinct leader, and while I was thrilled with our caucus turn-out, I thought it was really silly to have to vote twice, and to have to spend so much time at it. Also, when we were calling and talking to people, it took so much time to explain the process - I would have rather focused on just getting out the vote and getting as many people to the polls as possible.

I know this is another effort to give Hillary the nomination, which she has not earned. I don't support changing the rules mid-course, just as I don't support counting FL and MI for Hillary without a do-over. But I did want to weigh-in because you are right that it is a stupid system. I'd like to see it changed in Texas by 2012.

[Malidictus Maximus]

141. Exactly!

"They were put in place, at least in Texas, to ensure that democrats would pick the nominees, as opposed to cross-over Republican shenanigans",
Many are (rightfully) pissed off over 'Operation Chaos', but if I'm not mistaken, the Republicans have been doing this shit in Texas for years.

[JeffR]

45. Let's assume for the moment you're correct

not that I do. But even if you were, that horse is out of the barn, has run through 3 counties and is currently chowing down in an apple orchard. So what's the point of posting this now?

If, if, if. If the caucus system is so damn unfair - a debatable point - where were you before the first caucus was held? Where was your candidate on the issue? And if your candidate had performed the way Obama has in the caucuses, how upset would you be?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[musicblind]

56. I agree with you that the Caucuses have been said and done and were agreed to and we should not try

deny those results or change them. BUT can we agree on this... after this primary is over, and all is said and done, we can all work very hard to rid the party of caucuses and superdelegates and make the primaries a fair system from now on? Where was I before all of this started? I was not as involved as I am rather young. Had I been away, I would have been angered. I have, for a long time, been upset about the electoral college, because I do not think the argument that "the interests of small states will get lost in the fold" should out weigh the true argument of popular vote. We need to think hard and come up with a better way to keep the interests of the small states AND abide by the popular vote. I stand by that in the caucus system too. I think it would be best if, IN THE FUTURE, not for this primary because the rules were agreed upon in advance, but IN THE FUTURE we thought about adjusting this system.

[JeffR]

98. You make very good sense here. Points well taken..

Though I don't equate the creekiness of the patchwork of caucus rules across states with the unique creekiness of the Electoral College, I do believe the latter is long overdue for the junkyard. There's no salvaging the rusty old wreck of it.

As to the caucuses, they're institutions beloved of the state parties who hold them, a chance to show off on the national radar, and apparently the more Byzantine the process, the better. Fluffs the peacock feathers for the native Chambers of Commerce, I guess. But it would be in the state parties' best interests and the national interest to reform and standardize the proceedings significantly. It's like a Constitutional states' rights issue in microcosm, logically obvious but emotionally untouchable.

Further, what the states don't seem to realize - and this is all essentially within the jurisdiction of the states - is that a compressed season benefits the party. It creates a news cycle dominated by whichever party has the most closely contested and vibrant race. And here we are in '08, weary when we have much to be jazzed about.

I have more doubt about super-delegate reform. They exist as the result of a pragmatic, if not Machiavellian, calculation. Lots of money and energy at risk if this becomes a hot zone for reform. You're right, it needs reform now, but it's going to be a minefield, and the party has a few too many things on the go since it's The Show now.

These things can and should be fixed quickly enough in the great scheme of things. Then we can move on to throwing the voting machines into Boston Harbor and creating full, short, publicly-funded general elections free of the corporatocracy masquerading as the public interest.

[musicblind]

122. very good response, thank you

Yeah I have been baffled by the electoral college. There HAS to be a better way to insure smaller states get their voices heard. The Electoral College seems like... if we were voting for king of my families and my mom ran against my dad. Let's say that my mom got 3 votes (her's, mine, and my brother's) and my dad got 2 votes (his and my sister's) but dad STILL won because he and my sister were standing in the kitchen??????? And there's the electoral college! ta-da

I do understand the good points behind a caucus and am glad you pointed them out, because nothing is all bad, but like you said once we have the white house this november (hoping and praying) then we should focus on reforming these ideas so that everyone is happy. Being uniform is one of the most important parts. Plus, my feeling is that it should be an undeniable right that everyone's vote should be private in order to prevent anyone from suffering real world consequences as the result of their choice.

Superdelegates upset me, and tear me up at the same time, because I don't want a candidate that comes out as unelectable. BUT at the same time, even as a Hillary supporter, I just can't imagine feeling GOOD about myself knowing the superdelegates of the party over turned the popular vote. Just typing it makes you feel like you want to take a shower.

By big fear is that these issues will be forgotten. I cannot BELIEVE that the electoral college issue was forgotten after 2000, but somehow it was, and I can see the issues of making a uniform system, and fixing the problems with the superdelegates go by the wayside as well... "out of sight out of mind" but that is not always a good thing. We NEED to remember the way some have felt about this year to make sure we iron things out for the future or we'll be very suprised all over again during the next election.

Thank you for such a thoughtful response :)

[JeffR]

166. Very good point

People get irate about flaws in the process every election season, there's a lot of talk and good intentions, then nothing gets done. It's easy to understand why people get so cynical about politics.

Thanks for your response, too. Much appreciated.

[Mooney]

47. Close the barn door!

[Condem]

48. Looking at the posters here

I suspect not too many of you have ever been to one. Probably a majority of Clinton supporters, also. Am I correct?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. EF.

[hayu_lol]

55. A point to ponder...

there are NO caucuses in the GE.

[Condem]

57. Another point to ponder, hayu

It's winner take all in every state.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

62. I live in a caucus state.

It's real politics.

You sit down and actually talk *gasp* to other people and hash out a compromise. It is invariably fair.

They also can't be hacked.

[Condem]

64. Thank you, Rummy

I caucused in Iowa. Over 800 people in my precinct. People bitch about working people who can't be there. Fuck off. Something as important as this election, you damn well better make time!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

69. It goes without saying that it should be a paid day off, too.

[Condem]

70. Agreed.

[eridani]

52. Primaries are passive bullshit contests that encourage passive citizenship

Caucus states have much stronger Dem parties. No wonder Clinton likes primaries, where bullshit aritsts like Mark Penn slice and dice microdemographics and manipulate them with targetted drivel. I'd rather talk with my neighbors, and have a chance to change my mind if my first choice doesn't win.

[Condem]

54. The fuckin nail, eridani. Well put.

[VotesForWomen]

154. tell you what, why don't we just do away with secret ballots? nt

[eridani]

162. The primary process is about campaigning for a preferred candidiate

How do you propose to do that in secret? Why should non Democrats have any allowed role in the process?

[eridani]

58. Want to know how Clinton handled the WA state caucuses?

Her state campaign manager called up all the county and LD chairs and threatened them with unspecified reprisals if they didn't get behind the "inevitable" candidate. Guess what? That went over like the proverbial lead balloon. Obama did grassroots organizing, and even shared his data with the state party.

Clinton refused to use the DNC voter database (intended to help Dem candidates at all levels), and went with her own private one. Thanks ever so much for helping with party building. Not.

[Condem]

59. Want to know how she handled the Iowa caucuses?

She cried in New Hampshire.

[HuffleClaw]

60. caucuses don't reflect how the general public votes

and is just one more reason why obama won't win if nominated

[Condem]

61. No voting machines, either. Head on over to MYDD, Huffle.

[HuffleClaw]

168. what is MYDD ? n/t

[DesEtoiles]

125. go back and cry to your buddies on Hillary's conference call. WAHHHHHH.

[HuffleClaw]

167. i don't support her either n/t

[eridani]

126. They reflect who doorbellers and phonebankers are willing to work for

--and that can have a profound effect on voter turnout and who people vote for.

[Gore1FL]

65. While I can name 100 things wrong with caucusses

the reason the numbers are so lopsided is that Hillary chose not to compete in them, and didn't have a ground game.

[Condem]

66. And, she never will.

[madrchsod]

67. little late to complain is`t it...

ya do`t like it, then work to change it...

[SeattleGirl]

68. Why are you whining about something that is perfectly legal?

Oh, yeah. 'cause Hilary didn't do so well in caucuses. :eyes:

[DesEtoiles]

71. YOU WERE ON THE CAMPAIGN'S CALL TODAY - IT IS REPORTED ON MYDD>>>

Clinton today told her "independent" bloggers to write about "how caucuses are unfair" line of attack.

It is supposed to look like the bloggers came up with the idea themselves, however, not that the campaign told them what to write about.

Here is the report of the call from one of the bloggers on the call:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/16/214911/396

There were more, some not so positive but I made a choice to focus on the positives.

One little tidbit on the negative, encouraging the bloggers to discuss how the Caucus system is not a fair representation. The example she used were beauty pageant primaries that follow the official Caucuses and how much better she did in the primary.

The argument fully ignores that they are in fact meaningless with low turn out, but what the heck let's not focus on the negative.

YOU WERE ON THE CALL TODAY. YOU WERE ON THE CALL.

HILLARY - YOU SUCK.

[newmajority]

93. Now that's interesting.......

The OP's profile says that he is in the military,and posting from Turkey. I can't see his IP address, so an admin would have to confirm that fact.

But assuming it IS true, then that would mean that he is a Federal Employee, conducting campaign activities on a PC owned by the US government. That's a violation of the Hatch Act, a federal law. And it's taken very seriously.

[DesEtoiles]

73. HOW DARE YOU COME TO DU WITH YOUR BULLSHIT CAMPAIGN SPAM

Clinton today told her "independent" bloggers to write about "how caucuses are unfair" line of attack.

It is supposed to look like the bloggers came up with the idea themselves, however, not that the campaign told them what to write about.

Here is the report of the call from one of the bloggers on the call:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/16/214911/396

There were more, some not so positive but I made a choice to focus on the positives.

One little tidbit on the negative, encouraging the bloggers to discuss how the Caucus system is not a fair representation. The example she used were beauty pageant primaries that follow the official Caucuses and how much better she did in the primary.

The argument fully ignores that they are in fact meaningless with low turn out, but what the heck let's not focus on the negative.

YOU WERE ON THE CALL TODAY. YOU WERE ON THE CALL.

HILLARY - YOU SUCK.

[paulk]

89. people have been writing about this for months

'course you've got your head so far up Obama's ass that you missed it, I guess.

"HILLARY - YOU SUCK"

I guess that's more of that unity I keep hearing about from the Obama campaign?

[CoffeeCat]

110. Hillary called caucuses "wonderful tradition" before she lost!

Directly quoted from her Web site:

"http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/iowa/caucus/

"I want to thank all of my supporters and everyone I have met
in Iowa over the past 11 months. I am in awe of your commitment to the WONDERFUL TRADITION OF THE CAUCUSES. Now they are here, and I hope that on January 3, you will stand up and be counted for me.

By her own words--Hillary is a liar. She used to be a big fan of this "wonderful tradition."

But then she lost the caucuses, so now she must demonize them and throw them under the bus.

Typical Clintonian lies.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Condem]

78. My 1000th post

Thank you, NormaR. Keep up the good fight!

[Joe the Revelator]

75. So you're confirmed as Hillary staff, you know that right?

We read the Mydd story

[DesEtoiles]

77. ORIGINAL POSTER HAS JUST BEEN CAUGHT LYING, AND SO HAS CLINTON CAMPAIGN

Clinton today told her "independent" bloggers to write about "how caucuses are unfair" line of attack.

It is supposed to look like the bloggers came up with the idea themselves, however, not that the campaign told them what to write about.

Here is the report of the call from one of the bloggers on the call:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/16/214911/396

There were more, some not so positive but I made a choice to focus on the positives.

One little tidbit on the negative, encouraging the bloggers to discuss how the Caucus system is not a fair representation. The example she used were beauty pageant primaries that follow the official Caucuses and how much better she did in the primary.

The argument fully ignores that they are in fact meaningless with low turn out, but what the heck let's not focus on the negative.

YOU WERE ON THE CALL TODAY. YOU WERE ON THE CALL.

HILLARY - YOU SUCK.

[goletian]

76. you really need to embrace reality. obamas our guy. accept it. love it.

[DesEtoiles]

81. YOU ARE BUSTED.

Clinton today told her "independent" bloggers to write about "how caucuses are unfair" line of attack.

It is supposed to look like the bloggers came up with the idea themselves, however, not that the campaign told them what to write about.

Here is the report of the call from one of the bloggers on the call:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/16/214911/396

There were more, some not so positive but I made a choice to focus on the positives.

One little tidbit on the negative, encouraging the bloggers to discuss how the Caucus system is not a fair representation. The example she used were beauty pageant primaries that follow the official Caucuses and how much better she did in the primary.

The argument fully ignores that they are in fact meaningless with low turn out, but what the heck let's not focus on the negative.

YOU WERE ON THE CALL TODAY. YOU WERE ON THE CALL.

HILLARY - YOU SUCK.

[Condem]

83. Methinks sunonmars is long gone, NormaR.

[DesEtoiles]

90. a coward and a liar

[Condem]

94. We will hope to have the bulk of them for the GE.

[walldude]

84. LMFAO.. So if the rules were different Hillary would be winning

well, then your only problem seems to be the rules. Your post might as well say, "I could throw a baseball to the moon.. if the laws of gravity were different." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OzarkDem]

86. That's why it needs to go to the Convention

where the decision can be made in public.

[GarbagemanLB]

92. Don't worry. It won't. This will all be over in a few weeks.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[movonne]

103. Why in God's name would you want this to go to the convention..I'm

sick of all this bull shit...oh that's right thats what hillary wants..

[bvar22]

111. You do realize that the Convention....

...is a GREAT BIG CAUCUS?
Gasp.


Note: bvar22 realizes there are some differences between an OPEN Precinct Caucus and the National Convention, but they are very similiar in format.

I prefer the Caucus to a Primary.
If you care, you'll be there.

[rodeodance]

114. right--take it the convention

[TheDonkey]

142. How 'bout you try holdin your breathe until that happens

it maybe awhile though. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[DemocratKR]

87. I know from experience. They are

[quaker bill]

95. The problem with your (il)logic is

That the rules for delegate selection for all the states were published and known by all the candidates well in advance. So, in short summary, it is like going to school and knowing all the questions on the mid-term exam in advance, and in that knowledge still failing to give the correct answers. If in fact the native support for Hillary was higher in the general state population on that date, then it was the job her campaign to find her voters and get them to the caucus locations well informed of how the process works. Take it as a test of organizational skill if you will.

There is an old saying, "it is a poor craftsman that blames his tools".

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[movonne]

105. I second what you said...

[bvar22]

113. And I Third it.

I've participated in both Caucuses and Primaries.

I prefer the Caucus.
I fine it MORE Democratic.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Arugula Latte]

107. Well, aren't you an obedient little blogger for Hillary...Do you get your cookie now?

[Endangered Specie]

130. by the hour or by the thread I wonder

[CoffeeCat]

108. Before she lost, Hill said caucuses were "wonderful tradition."

Directly quoted from her Web site:

"http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/iowa/caucus/

"I want to thank all of my supporters and everyone I have met
in Iowa over the past 11 months. I am in awe of your commitment to the WONDERFUL TRADITION OF THE CAUCUSES. Now they are here, and I hope that on January 3, you will stand up and be counted for me

She also has links on her site, offering to give ANYONE a ride to the caucuses, or to help out anyone who needs assistance or childcare the night of the caucus.

After losing the Iowa caucuses, Hillary attempts to throw the entire
process under the bus, and claim that the caucuses disenfranchise people.
She did everything in her power to get her supporters to the caucuses--offering childcare and rides.

By her own words--Hillary is a liar. She used to be a big fan of this "wonderful tradition."

Until she lost the caucuses, that is.

[donheld]

134. I wonder if that might need it's own thread

More people need to really get a good look at Hillary's Hypocritical own words on caucuses.

[krkaufman]

109. A sad and pitiable post.

All the candidates were competing under the same rules, but one of the candidates in particular clung to a "big state" strategy and effectively blew-off the smaller caucus states.

We need a candidate who is trying to reach ALL US citizens, not just a select few. (See "50 State Strategy")

[marlakay]

112. Look we were told to go to caucus and that the primary

wouldn't matter so not as many voted since it didn't count.

[AZBlue]

117. "It's quite evident that" you were on HRC's conference call today

and you're following the script nicely.

[Generic Brad]

119. Have you ever participated in a caucus?

Because if you have not, your argument is purely academic.

[candice]

120. Caucuses represent about 2% of the total voter and have been seriously

GAMED by Obama.

His team reminds me more of Bu$h than a typical Dem. The caucuses worked because of an honor system, not gaming the rules.

This is why the winning of caucuses in red states doesn't mean that a candidate is viable.

Hillary's team focused on the non-caucus states where voters have a secret ballot. This is what is right in a so-called representational democracy. BTW, I was able to attend multiple caucuses that were voting for delegates. No one asked for any I.D. and I went to two districts and could have voted in as many as I could have hit that afternoon.

[NewHampshireDem]

121. If you have evidence of voter fraud during the caucuses, please report it

to the appropriate authorities.

If you don't, the please feel free to stop spreading this manure.

[DesEtoiles]

123. How DARE you come here and FUCKING LIE TO US LIKE THIS! HOW DARE YOU!!!

[sunonmars]

136. oh stfu, you shrill, you cant take that your boy is a cheat and got busted doing it.

[anigbrowl]

151. Your candidate lost because she didn't have a good strategy. Now all you have is lies.

[eridani]

127. They represent people who want to doorbell and phonebank for a candidate

Their opinions are worth more than the opinions of passive soundbite absorbers.

And as a credentials co-chair, I'll thank you not to impugn my integrity. I ain't Diebold. No corporation owns our data. I helped to run a clean operation, and the raw data is available to any designated campaign representateive.

You think I'm dishonest? Go stick it where the sun don't shine.

[Endangered Specie]

132. Sore Loser...

get over it
you lost
quite whining
life ain't fair.

[TheDonkey]

138. BULLSHIT. Clinton lost caucuses because she has no support among the grassroots

Obama trumps her in caucuses and in fundraising. Why you ask? Because he has party activists behind him. You may think that it only takes "hard working whites" to win but that is a LIE.

GET OVER IT, CLINTON HAS LOST BY EVERY METRIC POSSIBLE. POPULAR,DELEGATE,MONEY,SD, EVERYTHING.

[Hippo_Tron]

144. She could have built support among the grassroots if she wanted too

Obama swept the caucus states largely because Hillary didn't even bother to compete in them. She was banking on the media crowning her the winner because of a California victory on Super Tuesday. Organization to compete in caucus states costs a fraction of what it costs to pay Mark Penn and buy TV time in Boston, New York, and California.

If Hillary had run a strategy similar to Obama's she would have had the resources to compete after Super Tuesday and would probably be winning right now.

[VotesForWomen]

156. what you said. nt

[Endangered Specie]

128. WAAAAHHHH WAAAAAHHHH WAAAAHHHH!!!!

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[unlawflcombatnt]

131. Amen

The caucuses allow a limited number of people to have a tremendous say. It's elitist and undemocratic.

Just like Obama and his cult.

[Endangered Specie]

133. Hope you get paid as much as the OP.

[TheDonkey]

139. GET LOST

AND TAKE YOUR HILLARY TALKING POINTS ELSEWHERE. STOP TROLLING DU BECAUSE YOU STILL LOST.

[bhikkhu]

135. And yet every president since George Washington has been fine with them

Not that any system is perfect or cannot be improved, but the caucus system goes back a long way, as an example of practical local democracy even before the notion of a United States free from King George.

I think people need to read some history...

[Hippo_Tron]

143. If there were no caucuses Obama would have run a different strategy

Hillary ran a strategy based on the media crowning her a winner after her big state victories on Super Tuesday. Obama ran a strategy to get the most delegates possible. Hillary could have competed in the caucuses too if she wanted. Instead she laughed at Obama for going to Idaho.

IMO, primaries are more democratic. I think caucuses should exist in states that want them for party building but they should control a very very small portion of the total delegates for that state.

But the notion that Hillary is losing because the caucuses are overrun by young people and all of Hillary's voters have to work during them is a bunch of crap. Hillary chose to pay Mark Penn an outrageous salary and spend all of her money on expensive media buys. Obama put his money into organizing for the caucuses for a fraction of the cost. If Hillary had done the same, she would be winning.

[ninja8590]

146. And he still would have won

Yep, Obama would have found another way to win if they were all primaries instead of caucuses so that complaint is weak - though primaries overall may be more fair. (GoBama!)

[Hippo_Tron]

149. Maybe he would have maybe he wouldn't have

There are so many variables that it's hard to tell.

What I do know is that Hillary could have won delegates from the caucuses and won the nomination if she had run a better strategy. She had a huge advantage over Obama. The fact is that Mark Penn got severely outflanked by David Axelrod.

[Hippo_Tron]

155. Oh yea and btw, welcome to DU

[VotesForWomen]

157. i hope he's got a 'different strategy' ready for the GE, cuz he's gonna need one. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

159. Everybody has a different strategy for the primaries and the GE

[susankh4]

160. Good analysis.

I hope we do away with them for the future.

One person/one vote. That has always been what our democracy was founded upon.

[MaineDem]

161. I disagree

But this seems to be today's talking point so I won't rain on the parade.

[workinclasszero]

163. Hillary loved the Caucuses, until she got her ass handed to her!

So now they are horrible!
:nopity::nopity::nopity:

Let me call a Whaaambulance for you Hillary!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[d.amber]

169. I just got back from WA CD caucus held today

I should not that every single democrat in the State of Washington knew that the primary would not count to the delegate count. It was a beauty contest only. If we thought it would count, I assure those numbers would have been different. Hell, I voted for John Edwards in our Primary and caucus for Obama and got to be an alternate Delegate for the CD and State conventions for Obama.

Caucus bring out the ground force. The people who work and run the democratic party in your state. I'm a PC officer in an area that had no one before. We are building a ground force and hope to also take 2 GOP seats in our state senate and congress and turn them to DEM. This would not have happened expect for caucuses where I got to meet the people in my area.

By the way, the 2nd congressional district in WA...that's North of Seattle and up almost to he border with Canada broke as follow...4 delegates for Obama and 2 for Hillary. These are national delegates. A few more will be added at State.

But I'm sick of hearing how unfair caucuses are. Personally, Texas has perhaps the best system if you want to complain about caucuses. But killing them kills alot more then you might think.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

171. All that time in politics, and now Hillary complains?

:rofl:

[Honeycombe8]

173. You need to write those states and complain, to get them to change their methods, then.

Until then, we go by the rules. And the candidates determine their strategy beforehand, based on those rules.

It is unfortunate that the Clintons didn't plan on anyone else winning, and therefore didn't develop a strategy for winning caucuses...or winning, generally. But that's why Obama is winning, I guess. He chose better people to lead his campaign and develop strategies to win.

One of the most critical qualities of a leader is the ability to pick the right people to work under you. Obama won.

[anonymous171]

174. I skipped my WA primary because I knew it wouldn't count. So did many others.

[Life Long Dem]

175. Clinton frames her position around where she is in this race.

And not what the rules say. That is pure bull shit.

[moondust]

178. Primaries are superficial.

Pure popularity contests accomodating the clueless who may vote based solely on their own self-interest. Much easier to be a Limbaugh troublemaker behind the curtain undermining democracy in a primary. And much easier to massage the results to achieve a desired outcome.