All The Proof You Need That Caucuses Do Not Represent The Will Of The People: Texas.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

It is well known that caucuses are inherently flawed events and ones in which I consider to be undemocratic, disenfranchising, and unreflective of the true will of the people. I think just basic knowledge of caucuses shows this to be true. Regardless of the common sense conclusion though, many on the Obama side have argued that they do in fact represent the will of the people. Well, I think merely looking at Texas proves that to be blatantly untrue.

Texas had both a primary and a caucus, and in order to vote in the caucus you HAD to vote in the primary. This gives us a rare opportunity to see if the voice of the people was truly reflected. It is glaringly obvious that it wasn't.

In the Texas primary over 2.8 million voters cast a vote. That more than represents the will of the people and was a legitimate election. Hillary won that 51% to 47%. The will of the people, as it relates to the state of Texas, was +4% Hillary. That would seem to be indisputable. The caucuses, however, show a completely different picture. Now keep in mind: In order to vote in the caucus, they had to vote in the primary. That means ALL people caucusing already had their voice heard in the primary. That's important, because it squelches any argument that each process was potentially a different subset of people, thereby possibly showing two different 'wills of the people'. That's not the case. Everyone voting in the caucus already were part of the complete group, in which the will had already been ascertained.

Well, though the caucus results are not yet in, there's not much reason to believe the finished numbers will change by much. The numbers as they currently stand are 56% Obama, 44% Hillary. Thats a +12 for Obama, with only around 100,000 people voting (estimated off of the 42000 from 41% precincts). Is that the will of the people in Texas? +12 Obama? We already know it isn't. How do we know? We know because those SAME people already had their voice heard within the ENTIRE Texas voting group, and the TRUE will of the people was +4% Hillary.

When having a caucus can give a +16 point swing to a candidate than if it had been a primary, that's a serious fucking problem, and more than enough proof that caucuses are not representative at all of the will of the people and should be completely done away with.

Not sure how that can be argued with when taking Texas as an example.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. So the Rush Limbaugh Hillary voters didn't turn up to caucus.

Quel surprise :eyes:

[fedupinBushcountry]

22. Bingo!!! n/t

[hueyshort]

229. My handicapped Aunt isn't a Rush dem

And her daughter works a 10 hour day. Taking the time to
go through a caucus ordeal would have been a hardship, so neither had their
voice heard in the Texas Caucus.
But they did vote in the Primary.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

36. exactly. By the way, what are they hiding?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Yes, All 2.7 Million Of Them. Talk About Your Silly Ass Arguments.

Holy cow.

:rofl:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. Poor OMC, people just don't like your candidate enough to drag their lazy asses out to a caucus.

That's the problem with those "low information" voters who go for Hillary. They're more apt to be "low motivation" when it comes to things like a caucus too. That, or they don't want to be outed for the Dittohead that they are to their neighbors.

[MonkeyFunk]

73. Or maybe they

have jobs and children and other concerns that prevent them from caucusing?

It's amazing how now the working class is derided by so many obama supporters.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

79. Amazing how you people continue to float that bullshit excuse

Really pathetic, actually. Face the fact, Senator Clinton's support is wide, but it's not that deep.

[MonkeyFunk]

105. First

what's bullshit about it? Do you disagree that it's more difficult for a working class person to get time off from work, or find childcare, or transportation to a caucus?

And since when have elections ever been about depth of commitment? That's patently absurd. I'm committed - but my vote counts exactly the same as somebody who flips a coin in the voting booth.

Would you support a caucus that required 8 hours? That'd show commitment! How about a three-day retreat? In Aruba? The REALLY committed would get the time off and save the money to fly there. How about a whole week? Now THERE'S some commitment! Do you think that would be a better measure of the will of the voters?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

132. Now you're resorting to exaggerations and red herrings.

And do you disagree that many of the 18-30 YOs who support Obama are in low wage hourly jobs and that many work Saturdays? Or do you really believe they are all "trust fund babies" because Hillary and her surrogates say they are?

[MonkeyFunk]

141. I'm using your logic

and extending it.

Forget about the candidates. This is about the right way to run elections.

Why is the more onerous system better than the simpler one? Why should people who can't get off from work at a particular time not count? Why should the disabled, the elderly, the infirm not count?

Clearly, as the OP shows, the people who are able to caucus do NOT represent the will of the electorate as well as the people who vote.

[roguevalley]

217. dissing the working class. what a pile of rot. you assume that the

'working class' isn't interested in doing something for their party and country. i have a HUGE idea that plenty of the working class made it to the primaries and plenty of them were smart enough to choose who they wanted. If obama won its because they wanted him.

RV, working class too

[snappyturtle]

232. It's amazing anyone votes in Texas.......

in respect to the primary...with all those jobs, children and other concerns!:sarcasm: How do you stand in line for lengthy periods during the day for the primary? Working class people in my area, work it out....we vote in the primary and caucus in the evening or like we did, we voted after work at 6:45 and stayed for the caucus at 7:15. For those of you unfamiliar with TX...the primary has 126 delegates and the caucus 67. Think about it.

[kenfrequed]

268. Wow

I mean holy friggin crap.

As a person living in a caucus state I agree that there are difficulties with the caucus system, but at least it is harder for party crossers to come in and sabotauge the system. That said I think that primary/caucus day should be a mandated paid holiday, maybe even part of a three day weekend.

Now as to your arguments about the working class I find it ironic that a candidate who is a part of the leadership of the DLC, an organization dedicated to moving the Democrats to the right and kissing up to big corporations would have supporters that would make such arguments.

Of course, I suppose Obama is not much better on this score, but what do I know, all my candidates are gone already.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

163. So What You're Saying Is That 96% Of Obama Voters Are Uninformed And Unmotivated?

Holy shit, that's really quite sad.

That's what you said right? You just implied that 1.3 million out of 1.35 million Obama voters were low information and low motivation voters. How pathetic.

[jpak]

169. Your candidate informed us that only she and McCain passed the CIC test -& Obama failed

Your candidate informed us that Obama *was* Ken Starr...

Talk about yer low information patheticness...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

170. 97% of Clinton supporters are as well. Keep spinning, OMC.

Hey, did you have a problem with caucuses back when Bill Clinton was winning them?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

173. According To You And Your Insane Theory Anyway. But That Still Means 96% Of Obama Supporters,

to you, are lazy, uninformed and unmotivated. How sad that you view your side that way. That's really sad in fact.

[elixir]

52. I think your candidate is appealing to the republican base. "Welcoming voters of all persuasions"

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. And they care enough to come out and caucus.

Unlike Hillary supporters, who are too lazy. Or maybe too dumb to figure out how the caucus works. Or don't want to be revealed for the Dittoheads they are to their neighbors.

[MonkeyFunk]

109. Depth of commitment

has nothing to do with elections in the US. Your argument is incredibly stupid.

[krkaufman]

122. Ummm... check that. Caucuses are explicitly intended for those ...

... with depth of commitment, so party activists can participate in the selection of a candidate. Who's gonna waste that much time if they don't have "depth of commitment" to both the party and their candidate?

And Texas' system is designed for the caucuses to provide a firewall against crossover interference in the primaries.

[MonkeyFunk]

178. What's wrong with democracy?

Why make it onerous? Why eliminate people who have to work? Or can't afford child care? Or arrange transportation?

Or are disabled, or have social phobias, or prefer to keep their vote private?

I can't believe so many so-called Democrats are defending this obviously exclusionary practice.

[krkaufman]

248. If people want reform in the nomination process, I'm right there with them.

But all this clap-trap in the middle of the nomination process is not genuine discussion of reform, it is whining and positioning in an effort to denigrate caucus-derived delegates relative to primary-derived delegates -- most ironic in light of the fact that the last hopes of those most complaining hinge solely upon the most undemocratic of delegates, the superdelegates.

I've posted several times on many of the undemocratic aspects of the Democratic Party's nomination process, and wholly support reform. But attempts to change and or obfuscate the agreed-upon rules in the middle of the nomination process because the results aren't to the satisfaction of the supporters of one campaign (even though the results are almost wholly due to that campaign's arrogance and failing to seek votes across the country) is nonsensical.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

252. FACTS 58% of "registered" TX Republicans voted for Obama...67% of "registered"Dems voted for Clinton

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[Radical Activist]

260. Got a link for that?

I'd be interested to see.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

266. here is one....Wolf on CNN qouted these numbers too

http://americanresearchgroup.com/


An American Research Group poll released Monday showed Obama leading Clinton, 71 percent to 25 percent, among Texas independents and Republicans who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary.

There is scattered evidence across the state that some Republicans may be voting Democratic, at least for a day. In one precinct in the suburban Houston neighborhood of Kingwood, where 82 percent of voters cast ballots for President Bush in 2004, Democrats were outvoting Republicans 4-to-1 last week in early voting.

Daron Shaw, a political science professor at University of Texas, said surveys he conducted in two state legislative districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area revealed that almost a quarter of voters with a history of voting in GOP primaries planned on participating in the Democratic primary.

With the Arizona senator in command of the GOP race, some Republicans are motivated to cast a protest vote against Clinton.

Michael Jones, a 39-year-old self-described conservative Republican who is involved in marketing, said he will cast his vote for Obama in the primary "so Hillary gets out."

But he isn't enamored of Obama, a first-term senator whose experience has come under fire from both Clinton and McCain.

"I just wish he would get some substance," Jones said. Yet Jones said he is undecided about the general election because he doesn't like McCain, whom he described as "just another Washington senator."

Even though polls show that Clinton would be a weaker candidate against McCain than would Obama, experts say Republicans, who have long expressed a visceral distaste for Bill and Hillary Clinton, want to prevent her from being on the ballot in November.

"The argument I've seen is, 'Let's get rid of Clinton once and for all,' " said Ralph Bordie, who conducts the IVR Poll in Texas.

Bordie's latest statewide poll released last week found that 15 percent of Texas Republicans who said they will support the GOP nominee in November plan nonetheless on voting for Obama next week.

Debi McLoughlin, a 52-year-old Department of Public Safety worker who was waiting while her daughter had her hair cut, said she usually supports Republicans. But she is likely to declare herself a Democrat so she can choose Obama.

"A vote for Obama is a vote against Hillary," said McLoughlin. She may also vote for Obama again in the general election because she thinks the 71-year-old McCain is too old.

Across the street having lunch at Maxine's restaurant, Dot Berkner, a Republican, said she will check the polls right before the primary, and if Clinton is ahead, she will vote in the Democratic primary.

"I don't want her in the final choice," said Berkner, who added she will vote for McCain in the general election.

Josh Earnest, an Obama spokesman, said the campaign had done less in Texas than elsewhere to target Republicans and independents because of the size of the state and short time before the primary.

Nevertheless, he said, "what we've seen in the previous primaries and caucuses — beginning in Iowa — is that Republicans and independents have voted in record numbers for Barack Obama, because they too are hungry for change in Washington."

A Clinton campaign spokesperson did not return a phone call or e-mail.

[e-mail]

[Igel]

269. I've heard a couple of different numbers.

BO got 52 or 53% of repubs, HRC got the complement. Given the size of the repub crossover, that means that if you yanked the repub portion of his vote, you'd have to knock .5 or so off the percentage of the vote that he got.

Nobody would dispute a claim that BO won a majority of the independents. Oddly, one of his claims to fame is that he's won a majority of both repubs and independents--it's his "uniter" schtick. In Texas, he won the repub vote by a smaller amount than usual.

If true, that pretty much means that HRC, who won the popular vote, got a clear majority of dem voters when BO and HRC divvied up the dem vote at the polls.

Can't find the exit poll numbers in a quick dogpile search, but I found this here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8848.html
"Obama won a slim majority of independents and Republicans. But about 65 percent of voters identified as Democrats; Clinton won a majority of them."

More qualitatively evaluated quantitative info there, RW source or not.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

272. read this article from the Houston Chronicle..........

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5569829.html

http://americanresearchgroup.com /


An American Research Group poll released Monday showed Obama leading Clinton, 71 percent to 25 percent, among Texas independents and Republicans who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary.

There is scattered evidence across the state that some Republicans may be voting Democratic, at least for a day. In one precinct in the suburban Houston neighborhood of Kingwood, where 82 percent of voters cast ballots for President Bush in 2004, Democrats were outvoting Republicans 4-to-1 last week in early voting.

Daron Shaw, a political science professor at University of Texas, said surveys he conducted in two state legislative districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area revealed that almost a quarter of voters with a history of voting in GOP primaries planned on participating in the Democratic primary.

With the Arizona senator in command of the GOP race, some Republicans are motivated to cast a protest vote against Clinton.

Michael Jones, a 39-year-old self-described conservative Republican who is involved in marketing, said he will cast his vote for Obama in the primary "so Hillary gets out."

But he isn't enamored of Obama, a first-term senator whose experience has come under fire from both Clinton and McCain.

"I just wish he would get some substance," Jones said. Yet Jones said he is undecided about the general election because he doesn't like McCain, whom he described as "just another Washington senator."

Even though polls show that Clinton would be a weaker candidate against McCain than would Obama, experts say Republicans, who have long expressed a visceral distaste for Bill and Hillary Clinton, want to prevent her from being on the ballot in November.

"The argument I've seen is, 'Let's get rid of Clinton once and for all,' " said Ralph Bordie, who conducts the IVR Poll in Texas.

Bordie's latest statewide poll released last week found that 15 percent of Texas Republicans who said they will support the GOP nominee in November plan nonetheless on voting for Obama next week.

Debi McLoughlin, a 52-year-old Department of Public Safety worker who was waiting while her daughter had her hair cut, said she usually supports Republicans. But she is likely to declare herself a Democrat so she can choose Obama.

"A vote for Obama is a vote against Hillary," said McLoughlin. She may also vote for Obama again in the general election because she thinks the 71-year-old McCain is too old.

Across the street having lunch at Maxine's restaurant, Dot Berkner, a Republican, said she will check the polls right before the primary, and if Clinton is ahead, she will vote in the Democratic primary.

"I don't want her in the final choice," said Berkner, who added she will vote for McCain in the general election.

Josh Earnest, an Obama spokesman, said the campaign had done less in Texas than elsewhere to target Republicans and independents because of the size of the state and short time before the primary.

Nevertheless, he said, "what we've seen in the previous primaries and caucuses — beginning in Iowa — is that Republicans and independents have voted in record numbers for Barack Obama, because they too are hungry for change in Washington."

A Clinton campaign spokesperson did not return a phone call or e-mail.

[e-mail]

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Caucuses represent the will of people who can follow simple instructions.

It's like sports.

Some times the bigger team wins.

Some times the victory goes to the team who wants it more.

Can't call it "will" if they're not willing to stick around for the caucus.

[RB TexLa]

37. Guess those member of the Texas national guard in Iraq just couldn't follow instructions

or they would have voted in the caucuses.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. Yeah too bad. Would have been even more votes for Obama. nt

[RB TexLa]

70. I couldn't care who someone votes for in them, it's the point of how undemocratic they are

The number of people who are not able to vote in them as opposed to an election day system.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. There are 20 million people in Texas.

Nobody goes around calling the primary "undemocratic" because only 4 million people showed up.

I think this really is about who people voted for.

[RB TexLa]

139. It's more democratic than a 2 hour caucus is as far as opportunity to participate

I've said they are undemocratic and shouldn't be used for years. And it's more unfair in states where it is just a caucus and people who aren't able to attend at the specific time have no say.

[rcsl1998]

312. Sometimes The Victory Go To Those Who Vote Twice

You can only vote in the caucus if you've also voted in the primary...

[LostinVA]

3. Well, obviously if working class people can't afford to take off work or hire babysitters

they care nothing about democracy.

[cali]

5. Do you actually believe that most of those attending

caucuses are the leisure class? LOL!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. Well they didn't have a problem with all those "trust fund babies" caucusing

Back when Bill Clinton was winning them, did they?

[ctaylors6]

222. Absolutely not, but I do believe caucuses exclude some people who'd really like to vote

but just can't. One year I filled out a mail-in/absentee ballot for my ill grandmother, who never missed voting until that year she was too sick to get out of bed. This year I almost couldn't go because of my kids, and one of my friends couldn't -- her son was simply to sick with flu to leave with a sitter that evening. The military overseas is a huge reason I don't like caucuses. There was such a clear contrast to me this year on the inclusiveness of voting vs caucusing since I did both on same day (I'm in TX) and since TX has days and days of early voting and mail-in voting.
I understand the points about caucuses helping to build the party infrastructure and showing the real strong supporters. IMHO, the arguments for caucuses simply don't outweigh how caucuses exclude certain voters that aren't excluded during regular voting. I also have a little bit of a problem with the lack of secrecy. Where I voted, there were people whose bosses were there -- I think that can lead to quite uncomfortable situations.

For the record, I'm really not a big supporter of Obama or Hillary. My guy dropped out a while ago.

[tyne]

6. The American public

should not have to do anything out of the ordinary to justify this Democracy. They shouldn't have to worry their pretty little heads...in fact, they should "just go shopping".

She will do it all. The way to change things for the better is to keep things the way they are.

*shrug*

[LostinVA]

13. Obviously, my post went over your head

There are people who can not afford to take off work to caucus. There are people who can't afford child care while they caucus. There are people who have jobs that will not allow them time off to caucus, such as police and nurses.

I'm sure they would love to be told that they're just not worrying "their pretty little heads" as they "just go shopping."

[dchill]

306. And they all support Hillary, of course.

Sheesh.

[EmilyAnne]

8. When my mother went to the caucus to vote for Obama, one of the most exciting things to her was

seeing so many children there watching our democracy in action.

[thevoiceofreason]

10. Our caucus, in an affluent part of Houston

Was filled with more "working class" folks (from the 3 apartment complexes on the edge of our precinct) than the latte gang. Your assertion lacks empirical support.

[LostinVA]

14. Unvalidated claims on the internet are not "empirical support"

[EmilyAnne]

19. So keep that in mind the next time you are going to post some of your invalidated claims. You know,

like BS about childcare and the night shift preventing a win for Hillary. Such bullshit.

[LostinVA]

21. It's a fact that there are people in dire financial situations

And, it's a fact that some people, such as nurses, can't take off to caucus.

[thevoiceofreason]

20. They are if they are personal.

So, when the county finishes getting all its stuff together, please look up the 139 caucus attendees in Precinct 274 in Houston, Harris County, Texas. It will be made publicly available. See how many have a # ____ after their street address. Then get back to me.

I'll be here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

85. "Caucuses are unfair because Hillary says so" is not empirical support either.

I've yet to see you offer anything resembling factual proof for your claims.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

34. People brought their kids to the one I volunteered at.

The Obama campaign made sure to have volunteers for childcare standing by.

[tammywammy]

149. That's why there were a bunch of kids at my caucus

I stood in line next to a couple with a baby and also an 8 year old that was having softball practice afterwards.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

158. I took two toddlers to a caucaus..

[jpak]

174. The Maine caucus was on a *Sunday* had *absentee* ballots & *proportional* delegates

even the babysitters could participate...

**Democracy**

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Stop The Childishness. The Points In The OP Are Solid. Is All You Have Ad Hominem Attacks?

See, those types of attacks are worthless and show a lack of intellect. What's contained in the OP is pretty blunt fact, and if you disagree with it I'd love to see just how or why. You got it in ya? Or are you just all about ad hominem emptiness...

[SoFlaJet]

30. do I agree with everything about our electoral system? No

for example I would like the see the electoral college madness stopped. The point is this is the system that was already in place going into this cycle, and you have a choice either change it BEFORE the primary season starts or operate within the parameters already set up. You can't say "oh well, we don't like the caucuses because our opponent is beating us in every one so they should be abolished NOW". You, if you in your heart of hearts truly feels that strongly then I suggest you start writing letters to try and have them outlawed for 2012. To suggest it now like ....whining

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. I've Yet To See Anyone Claim They Should Be Undone NOW. I'm Talking About The Future, And

also bolstering the case of those who hold the position that the caucuses are undemocratic and unrepresentative. It is not whining to do so, since the complaints have merit and are 100% legitimate. Furthermore, to be a Democrat and EVER take a position of "yeah yeah so it totally skews the results and the will of the people was completely overturned. Who really cares" is quite pathetic in its own right.

[SoFlaJet]

45. so what is your course of action going to be then OMC?

are you going to start a letter writing campaign to states that use them or are you going to continue complaining from your perch atop a high horse? What will YOU do about it-without your typical snarkiness please

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. I've Said Several Times That We Should All Lobby For Their Removal Prior To The Next Cycle.

All of us should do that.

[SoFlaJet]

86. If it were a national primary I can see it

but with states rights and all-it would have to be lobbied for on a state by state basis-and what democratic party member from say a Wyoming or Texas is going to listen to guys from Florida and New Jersey suggesting THEY change their voting system-why would be their first question? I mean we have our own host of problems with elections down here in The Sunshine State that I have continued to have to lobby for (like the paper trail) and look how THAT turned out and how it is still screwed up. We GOT the paper trail but the only way we could get one was the republican run state legislature tagged it with a bill moving our primary date thus disenfranchising millions of us in the process.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

134. Pretty Narrow Minded Perspective You've Got There.

First of all, I know it has to be done on a state level. But to think that our lobbying efforts, as a group who CARES about the integrity of processes, couldn't enroll support of people IN those states to do the inner state lobbying, is just a tad narrow minded and weak.

The whole point is that we should all care enough about the lack of integrity within that process, to try and drive change, through the proper channels, to prevent it from going on any longer.

[SoFlaJet]

142. narrow minded huh?

I'd say your perspective is pretty naive-so where is your list of names to start calling and e-mailing? How are YOU going to try and affect change-by continuing to insult the intelligence of every single person who doesn't agree with every post you make? What are YOU going to do about it? You know besides continuing to whine about everything and tell everybody how small-minded they are and how smart you are

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

148. What's Naive About The Perspective? Do You Think Such A Flawed And Unrepresentative Process Should

NOT be changed? Do you condone processes that truly don't represent the will of the people? That doesn't bother you at all?

Well, it should. But be as blind as you want.

[SoFlaJet]

161. I'm fine with every state doing it they way they want

Look, I didn't sit here whining about the Nevada results when my candidate John Edwards hardly even showed up on the radr screen. Where was your sense of outrage then? Oh that's right Hillary Clinton WON Nevada-they were fine then by you right? Your state uses the primary system-so does mine who are we to try and dictate to the people in Nevada and Texas and Iowa how THEY should run their elections?

As for me, I'd much rather have OTHER states be allowed to choose when they want to have their primaries and caucuses. Why should voters in Iowa have their votes count 800 times more than mine in Florida? THAT, is a way bigger issue as far as I'm concerned and is something that I would put my activist energy in to and an issue that CAN be lobbied for change on a national basis. What it comes down to for you it seems is that because YOUR girl is losing caucuses left and right that the system is flawed-again, sounds like more whining to me.

[TheDoorbellRang]

146. Your logic is facetious

One could just as easily say that the caucus is a subset of the primary voters, containing the voters who are more deeply dedicated to the selection process by dint of more time spent educating themselves on the candidates' platforms. The primary/caucus "two-step" is like a test with multiple choice questions and an essay question at the end. Everyone can check a box on the multiple choice portion whether or not they're truly informed, but normally you can't BS your way thru the essay question. And, sorry, the essay answer will count toward the final grade. Now that's just as "logical" as your premise, but it's a moot point.

It's amusing that there is such a hue and cry about the caucus system -- by people who don't have that system in their own state. Each state has its own game rules, representational or not, and it seems everyone is appalled by how other states "play," but are quite defensive when it comes to how their own state plays the game. What about the states with open versus closed primaries? What about the states that allow voter registration the same day vs. registration months ahead? What about a primary system wherein Obama wins 56-42% and the apportionment of delegates is 27-25 when "the will of the people" would indicate it should be at least 29-22 (AL)? Which state has the "fairest" system in place? And now let's try to get the other 49 states to recognize the superior system of the one state that is so perfect.

It simply boils down to those that pick the best strategy in each variation of the "game" do the best, and the most whining about how unfair it all is seems to be about the systems used in states that Clinton loses in. Go figure.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

159. My Logic Is Spot On. Your Example, However, Is Tragically Flawed.

First of all, there is NO legitimate reason to believe that the overall makeup of caucus voters are those more informed of the issues. In fact, if one is to view many in GDP as being the passionate type who WOULD go to caucuses, then that right there shows your argument to be false since it can be so readily seen here how uninformed and misguided people are here in relation to their candidate, since sometimes being that passionate means being SEVERELY biased and ignorant to objective fact. So they'd be even more compromised than the AVERAGE voter.

There's also no reason to believe that no matter who makes up that group, that they have any better handle on the issues than anyone else. I'd challenge you to show any evidence that would be the case.

And lastly, those arguments are all moot anyway, since there is no test required in order to vote, and suggesting there should be, or that some perceived group of those who are informed should have their votes count more than others, is extremely undemocratic in principle. And to put forth an argument that Obama supporters are more informed of the issues than Hillary supporters, by a margin of 16%, is just completely insane and unfounded.

[TheDoorbellRang]

182. Of course it is flawed. Reread my post

Both your premise and mine are based on de facto arguments. Yours was "It is well known that caucuses are inherently flawed events," mine was that caucus goers are better informed. Both our arguments in this case are opinions masquerading as logical discourse.

But what is the "perfect" system? An open primary which welcomes the all-important independents but also the Republicans who motives are suspect, or the closed primaries that exclude both indys and Republicans and risk the selection of a candidate that the swing-voter independents will not support in the fall? And how should delegates be apportioned in this "perfect" system? Several of the primaries shown a distribution that does not reflect the "will of the people."

What is the perfect system? There are perhaps 50 variations thruout the country. Which one wins the "fairness" prize?

[SoFlaJet]

168. great post

whether states like Iowa and Nevada run caucuses or primaries is way down on my list of things to-do. I live in Florida and I was concentrating my efforts on getting a paper trail-I sent E-mails to my senators and my rep Robert Werxler-in other words I DID SOMETHING instead of just whined about it on a MB. Again, if I had my druthers on what should be changed in 4 years it would be some kind of rotating system as to to which states get to have their primaries first. Why should (as a study showed) Iowans have 800 times the power with each of their votes than me? Now THAT is much more unfair in my opinion.........

[TheDoorbellRang]

194. Yes. This whole process has drawn the attention of

millions of Americans who til now hadn't really paid too much attention to the modus operandi of selecting a candidate. I would guess there will be a major shake up after all is said and done to make the process more "fair," and since there will probably be 1000 variations of opinion on what constitutes equity, we'll probably see the same go-around in four years.

Choosing the states that go first will only be a small part of what looks to be a major donnybrook. Oy!

[jpak]

179. "Is All You Have Ad Hominem Attacks?" "You got it in ya?"

"See, those types of attacks are worthless and show a lack of intellect."

What a stupid hypocritical post...

:rofl:

[SoFlaJet]

197. yea JPak

he's been doing it for months-it is weak...I'd rather see what he plans on DOING about it. Who will he write letters to? Who will he call and where are the lists of numbers and addresses in this thread? I DID write letters and make calls to get a paper trail in my state

[HughMoran]

Stupid post

Another mindless DUer who needs to be put on ignore.

[Quixote1818]

7. It shows the Hillary supporters are not that excited about her

It takes passion for your candidate to show up twice for them.

[LostinVA]

15. Some people just aren't able to caucus for work/financial reasons

Doesn't mean they're less "passionate."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. Irrelevant. The Will Of The People Is The Will Of The People. No Person's Vote Counts More Than

another's.

[bigscott]

24. and in texas

some even count twice!

[Quixote1818]

54. Then they should have participated too. You are making excuses for them. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Wrong. What You're Doing, Is Making Excuses For A Process That Disenfranchises Millions Of

people, merely because it benefits your candidate. That's pretty damn disgraceful.

All 2.8 million already participated. They already voted. Their intentions were already noted. But in the end, they all saw themselves disenfranchised when their +4% will of having Hillary as the nominee, was turned on its head as a +16% swing for Obama. That's a fact. The will of the voters was +4% Hillary, not a +16% swing to Obama. It proves caucuses are unrepresentative, period. That's not an excuse, that's a fact.

[Quixote1818]

106. I like the idea. It makes people get involved, not sit on their asses

and besides. Obama is going to win anyway. Four or five less delegates won't mean squat come the convention when Obama is leading by 150.

[laugle]

305. You are way wrong about

Hillary supporters, or this election would not be so close and contentious!

[Justyce]

9. Good post. I'm in Texas, and here's

an example for you... My entire family voted in the primary, but my parents weren't able to stand for hours at the caucus due to health issues. I wish they'd do away with the caucus. (Edited to add, my parents voted for HRC in the primary)

As far as demographics, since Obama is carrying more of the youth vote, it stands to reason they'd be more able to caucus than elderly people. I don't see how anyone can argue caucusing doesn't disenfranchise voters.

[Quixote1818]

12. The people at the Texas Caucus site on TV looked to be all old people. nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

43. You mean they weren't all latte sipping 20-somethings with trust funds?

Say it ain't so! :rofl:

[murbley40]

129. Exactly,

and it is not a system that was developed for large turnouts. It was meant to be for small groups. The process is time consuming and does not allow everyone to have their say,when there is a large turnout. Much of the time the door are closed leaving hundreds standing outside with no chance to cast their vote.

[shraby]

11. That's neither here nor there. The fact is that

the caucus is part of the primary system. Until it's changed, live with it's results.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

137. I Haven't Said Anywhere That I Won't. But The Argument Of The OP Is Still Solid.

Furthermore, I hope all those getting their panties in a wad about the superdelegate process, read your post as well...

[VotesForWomen]

233. yes, and if O doesn't get the required # of delegates, the "system" allows for other considerations

to be made in determining the nominee. live with it.

[Barack_America]

18. It shows that Obama's supporters will vote for him twice.

But that Hillary's supporters will not. Hillary's supporters either didn't show up to caucus or changed their minds once they were there.

I'm sorry, but you can't convince me that 80% (or more) of Texas Democrats work at night. Some do, yes, but most made a conscious decision not to show.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. You Fail To Realize That Your Argument Is Irrelevant. We're Talking About Will Of The People Here.

That will was already determined in the primary. Since everyone gets to have a voice, and no one person's vote is ever more valuable than any other person's vote, it's irrelevant as to who did or didn't have the passion enough to show up again.

The will of the people was +4% Hillary. That's a fact. Seeing a +16 swing to Obama is proof positive that caucuses are not anywhere close to being the will of the people. You may not like that fact, but it's a fact shown quite readily nonetheless.

[Barack_America]

38. No. It shows that people can change their mind.

When they're not sold on their candidate and hear a convincing argument about another.

It's entirely possible that 4% more Clinton supporters walked into the caucus and 16% more Obama supporters walked out.

You have no way to prove your argument and I have no way to prove mine. Both are just assumptions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. What In The World Are Ya Talking About? Do You Have Any Idea How Ridiculous What You Just Said Was?

Your post made zero sense.

I've already proven my case. It's right up there in the OP. The 73000 are a subset of the 2.8 million that ALREADY voted and let their voice be heard. That voice was +4% Hillary. That IS the representative voice. Taking a 100,000 person sample of that REAL group, and coming up with a 16+% shift to Obama, shows quite FACTUALLY that taking such a subset yields COMPLETELY unrepresentative results. That's a glaring fact shown here, and it is indisputable. I'm not even sure what on earth you were trying to say, but I do know it was quite silly.

[Barack_America]

84. Take your meds and then reexamine your logic.

In order to make your argument that "caucuses don't represent the will of the people", you are making 2 unsubstantiated assumptions:

1. That, overall, the people who walked into the caucus did not intend to support Clinton by the same percentage as the primary results. It's entirely possible that 51% of people entered intending to support Clinton (and 47% for Obama). Do we have entrance polls telling us that more people walked into the caucus intending to support Obama?

2. That people do not change their minds about whom they support. How do you know that everyone who walked into those caucuses intending to support Clinton actually ended up supporting her (and vice versa). Simple, you don't.

[Quixote1818]

119. Excelent point! Thanks for making it! nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

144. Both Your Arguments Are HIGHLY Irrelevant And Borderline Irrational.

Your argument makes no sense. Your entire argument still works within the same small subset of people, that were all part of the larger group that carried the TRUE voice of the people.

For your argument to have merit, you would be implying that those results could be extrapolated out back to the 2.8 million that had their will heard earlier. That means at its core, what you're saying is that after weeks of campaigning, months of exposure and knowledge of how important the contest was and how much information they had at their disposal, that 226,000 people would've flipped their vote from Hillary to Obama, with no intervening reason or breaking news story for them to have done so, within hours of their having already voted.

Do you have any idea how insane of a hypothesis that is?

[Barack_America]

160. It's as likely as your hypothesis that 80% of Texas Democrats work at night.

Which is what you're using as an argument that caucuses don't represent the will of the people. You're forgetting that part of the "will of the people" is the will to show up at all.

And it actually is possible. All it takes is a critical mass of enthusiastic, persuasive Obama supporters and, yes, people will change sides. You're also assuming that all Texas voters follow the campaigns closely and, thus, were heavily invested in the candidate they voted for in the primary. This is certainly not the case. Could 14-16% of Clinton primary voters have been loosely supporting her and swayed by the excitement of young, hopefuly Obama supporters at the caucus? Absolutely.

When the will isn't strong, it can change very quickly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

171. I Have Said No Such Thing. That Is Not My Argument. The Numbers Are The Argument, And The Numbers

prove it to be fact.

And again, to try and sincerely put forth a theory that 226,000 voters after having weeks of exposure, would go out and vote one way, but then within hours, for NO reason, change their votes to the other candidate?

Look, you could preach this ignorant theory all you want, but it doesn't make it sound any less insane.

Fact: The voice of the people in Texas wen +4% Hillary. Fact: A small subset of those SAME people, via a caucus, came up with a result of +16% towards Obama. Fact: Since the latter were already heard and within the former, and the former is the overall group, a 16% disparity shows quite readily that the latter process is completely unrepresentative and a farce.

Repeat your empty and laughable theory as many times as you want. It's still an empty and laughable theory.

[Quixote1818]

115. Very good point! nt

[Beacool]

25. I hate, HATE caucuses!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have always hated them no matter who were the candidates, but this year I hate them with a passion.

It's an archaic system that disenfranchises too many people who for various reasons can't physically be there to caucus: people who are at work, the elderly who can't stand in line waiting for long periods of time, disable people who also can't handle the wait, women with children (I saw too many who had to leave because of the kids).

A far more democratic process is a primary where people have ample time to go vote according to their busy schedules. I hope that in future elections, the caucus system is revised or eliminated altogether.

BTW, I would feel the same way even if Hillary was the one winning most of the caucuses since I have always thought that they left out too many people and were not representative of the will of the majority.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. I'm Right There With Ya. Who The Candidates Are Is Irrelevant. It's About The Process.

The OP proves that the process itself yields a result that is not reflective of the true will of the people. That's wrong in a Democracy no matter who is running.

What amazes me, is that with such powerful proof supplied in the OP, that some will still dismiss it, remain ignorant, and squawk out that they're perfectly fine. Pretty shameful in my opinion.

[theHandpuppet]

93. To some the idea of fair elections means little

That's the bottom line, OMC. The will of the people as indicated by an election means squat. Why bother to have a primary at all if a few thousand people at a caucus can overturn the vote of millions?

Early on in this campaign I listened to weeks of righteous wailing from Obama supporters, decrying Hillary's superdelegates and how the caucus and delegate system undermined the very principles of fair and honest elections. And you know what? I believed that also. I detest the whole superdelegate system and believe the caucuses are a joke. (And don't even get me started on the electoral college!) I believed it then and believe it now, and it wouldn't matter to me who was leading in delegates.

Of course, all that complaining from the Obama camp about supers and caucuses has done a neat 180. Now it's ALL ABOUT DELEGATE counts and caucuses, and to hell with the the will of the people as expressed by the popular vote. And these are going to be the people I would choose to defend a democracy? NOT. Those are the kinds of games the Republicans have been playing for years -- but apparently we have either learned so very little or our collective memories have been shot to hell.

[antigop]

63. Thank you, Beacool. Why do people defend this system? Hmmm.... n/t

[crispini]

26. A Democratic Party primary caucus is not meant to represent the "will of the people."

It's meant to represent the will of the Democratic Party.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. You're Parsing, And It Doesn't Change A Thing. Call It Will Of The Democratic Party Then.

Same thing.

Furthermore, you shoot yourself in the foot with the Democratic Party argument, since Obama has received a whole hell of a lot of votes from republicans and independents. But even using your phrasing, the OP still holds true in every single way, so your point was a bit irrelevant. I also thought it would be common sense that will of the people in this context meant as it relates to the Democratic Party and it's choosing a nominee.

[crispini]

90. No, I think it's an important point.

It gets into what it means to be a "Democrat" and what it takes to participate. What we're really talking about here is an entire spectrum of direct democracy versus more representative democracy.

Almost a million people in Texas voted for a guy named "Gene Kelly" for Senator. Gene Kelly is a nutcase who runs every year and never campaigns. He's not a legit candidate. Yet, people in the primary voted for him. A lot of people. Put simply, there are a lot of boneheaded voters out there who will do things like vote for somebody based on their name. That's why I like a primary AND a caucus. It reflects both the popular candidate as well as the candidate with the best organization. In fact, that's actually why the Texas hybrid system came about, as a compromise between the more liberal and more conservative wings of the party.

But, you know, there's no point in arguing with you about this, because you aren't about to listen to anything I have to say, and you're not interested in hearing my experience as a Democratic party activist, you're just interested in being angry and yelling on the internet. All I can say is that the Democratic party is a whole lot more than the voters. It's the hundreds of people who give thousands of hours of their volunteer time to give out pushcards for candidates, to do data entry, answer the phones down at the party office, organize meetings, put up websites, recruit and train election workers, and so much more. We have exactly two paid employees in this county; all other party functions are conducted by volunteers. In a very real sense, we are a community. Clinton supporters and Obama supporters alike. But that's just not something on your radar and so you feel the need to denigrate this very real experience and all of those people who give of themselves to do this work. Which is too bad, because community is something that this world needs a lot more of.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

150. If You Want To Go The 'Democratic Party' Route, Hillary Wins That One, Doesn't She?

[crispini]

156. I thought this wasn't about Hillary and Obama? But about caucuses?

That seems to be what you're arguing about in the OP?

And again, what constitutes the Democratic Party?

Sure, the old guard in Texas who wrote the rules are mostly supporting Hillary. The rules are public. The Obama activists got the rules and figured out how to use them. That's fair. You get to join the party any time you want.

I had a fantastic conversation with an old-guard Dem in town. He said the most interesting thing to me. He said, "I know you guys look at us and see that we're the establishment. But 20 years ago, we were the rebels and the insurgents in town." And there's one thing this guy does: he plays fair. I'm not even sure who he supports. (Although I suspect it's Hillary.) Now, how those 60-whatever caucus-chosen delegates will shake out in the end, will be interesting. It's got to roll all the way up through the Senatorial Districts and their committees, to State. The game is still afoot. And I have learned that age and guile are pretty good at beating youth and enthusiasm. But I'm getting a little age and guile myself. I think age and guile PLUS youth and enthusiasm may have a shot.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

166. It's Not.

I'm relating it still to the process overall, as it related to Texas, since she had more Democratic Party support. That then still deems the caucuses to be unreflective.

It is a fact: Caucuses disenfranchise millions and are NOT an accurate depiction of what the will of the people are as it relates to their choosing of the Democratic nominee. That's a fact, and the OP proves it.

[crispini]

176. And, like I said,

it's not about 'the will of the people' but about Democrats.

You know, some people waited 1-2 hours to vote. Those who arrived late at a busy precinct faced long lines. Some people waited 1-2 hours to caucus. What's the difference? I was organized, I got my caucus attendees out the door in 45 minutes. Next time there will be more like me.

[Beacool]

48. Obviously I meant the will of the majority of democrats

since this is a primary. Why parse my words?

[crispini]

121. I was responding to the OP, but you may see my response to him in post 90

if you are interested.

[antigop]

57. Thank you! It's NOT a democratic entity then. Thank you for admitting it. n/t

[crispini]

118. We have a representative democracy in this country, not a pure democracy.

And, it's a DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY, not a GENERAL ELECTION. The party gets to run it the way they want.

[antigop]

133. Thank you for proving our point! n/t

[crispini]

140. So we agree. What's the problem? nt

[antigop]

147. Oh, I didn't say we agree about caucuses, did I? n/t

[antigop]

237. thank you for admitting the caucuses are for the PARTY,not the people. n/t

[crispini]

240. Um, duh.

It's in the name: "DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY."

And guess what?! You can join the Democratic Party! It's not that hard! But you still have to be a part of the party in order to participate.

[antigop]

243. Um, go read my posts. Your post doesn't make any sense. n/t

[antigop]

244. And some people get to vote twice-- what a system! n/t

[antigop]

245. and LOTS of other people beside me think the caucus process stinks because...

they understand the FLAWS.

[blogslut]

28. We have a hybrid caucus/primary in Texas

Deal with it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. Could You Possibly Have Missed The Point More Entirely?

This isn't about Texas, it's about caucuses period. It uses Texas as a quite CLEAR example as to why caucuses are not in fact representative of the voice of the people. If you can't argue against that, you can't argue against it. But posting worthless replies isn't going to really help anybody.

[blogslut]

44. No, it isn't clear

You cannot use Texas as an example because Texas' hybrid system is unique. Other states hold either primaries or caucuses, not both. If one is in a state with only a caucus, more people are likely to attend than would in Texas, where the caucus was practically unheard of until this year. Caucus states are accustomed to that type of delegate selection. Compare an actual caucus state but leave Texas out of your math because it is not part of your equation.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. That's Ridiculous.

There is no reason to believe that the caucus in Texas is not comparable to a caucus anywhere else. Furthermore, it also shows quite readily the stark differences that could occur when taking a small subset of the greater voting population. It's glaring in fact.

If the Texas caucuses were just for show, and the primary election what mattered, I'd understand your argument. But the Texas caucuses counts as well, and in as heated as a battle as this is and as important of a state that Texas was, you can't even begin to try and argue that voters who in any other state would've gone to caucus if that's the only thing there was, would've stayed home here in significant enough numbers to change the argument.

[blogslut]

152. No, it isn't absurd

Our delegate election system is two-tiered. Precinct elections (caucuses) count for approximately one third of Texas' delegates for the primary. It is not the same as a state that holds only a caucus and cannot be compared to caucuses across the nation.

[skater314159]

316. Don't confuse NJ boy about facts with TX...

... he will either ignore or insult you if you make a valid point... and then claim that he is "intelligent".

[Milo_Bloom]

32. What does the "voice of the people" have to do with

Democrats choosing their candidate?

First, we don't live in a democracy.

Second, a primary is an internal party procedure and doesn't HAVE TO reflect the will of the masses.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. Good. Then I Hope We Don't Hear Any Complaints From You If The SD's Choose Hillary. Thanks.

[theHandpuppet]

103. Oh but you will.

Some folks only love the delegate system when and if it's working in their favor. If HRC, however, should win the nomination by virtue of of Supers, I wouldn't want to be around when the shit hits the fan around here. Of course, there's a word for that -- it's called HYPOCRISY.

[Milo_Bloom]

238. Complaints? no. I just won't be voting for her.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

250. You'd Really Rather McCain Be The President?

How sad.

[Milo_Bloom]

319. Don't see enough of a difference

Both are war mongers.

Both are special interest whores.

Neither have a decent health care plan

Neither one brings anything new to the table.

Don't trust either of them with supreme court nominees.

In general, don't trust either of them.

[crispini]

102. My point exactly.

"a primary is an internal party procedure and doesn't HAVE TO reflect the will of the masses."

Yes, I completely agree.

and to OMC: I will be happy with whatever the superdelegates do. They are savvy people and will make the right choice.

[Exilednight]

33. I will be willing to get rid of caucuses after we get rid of super delegates....

talk about undemocratic.

[stray cat]

41. Caucas requires dedicated voters - measures real commitment

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. First Off, That's Kinda Bullshit. Second Of All, It's Irrelevant On It's Face.

No one's vote has more weight than anyone else's vote. That's called democracy. What we have here is 2.8 million people who voted. Their votes reflect the will of the people as it relates to Texas and who they want the Dem nominee to be. No matter WHAT types of people taken from that SAME group made up the caucuses, the end result of 16+% to Obama is factually NOT the will of the people, since it is obviously in stark contrast to what the true will had been. This is inarguable. It doesn't matter if they were passionate, young, old, good looking, or whatever other traits you want to assign to them. They are just people, just like everyone else. Everyone's vote counts the same. The Texas situation can show quite factually why caucuses are a farce and should be completely done away with, since they are undemocratic and unrepresentative of the true will of the people.

[milkyway]

42. What it shows is one candidate knows how to manage a campaign & the other candidate is a fuck-up.

Caucuses have been used in lots of states for decades. Obama didn't invent the system, he figured out how to win using the electoral process that he was faced with.

The Clintons have had a stranglehold on the party for 16 years. If they didn't like the nominating process they could have had it changed. I don't remember them complaining in 1992 or 1996.

And why was Hillary, the First Lady of neighboring Arkansas for years, and having gone through two presidential primary campaigns, shocked to find out about the Texas system only a few weeks ago? And maybe next time she should try reading the NIE before voting to start a war. She is an incompetent fuck-up.

[ProSense]

46. Here's proof you are wrong

If there were an election for President of the United States today...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. You Call That Proof?????? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only you can call a 2 week old POLL of 600 people, as proof of voter's will over the 2.8 million fucking people that ACTUALLY voted.

Are you for real???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HughMoran]

125. Mindless people

There is a reason that most of the stupidest people you are arguing with are already on my ignore list.

[ProSense]

157. As much proof as your OP: 2.8 million votes, a 100K diff. and Hillary couldn't close the deal

Obama won TX 99 to 94 delegates.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

177. Actually, The OP Has Real Proof, Whereas Your Link Was An Illogical Mess.

I used, like, ya know, real numbers and stuff. It might make you feel less stupid by trying to compare my OP with your embarrassing link, but that doesn't make it true.

[ProSense]

186. Who got more delegates in TX, Obama or Hillary? n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

189. What Does That Have To Do With The OP?

Have you lost it?

:crazy:

[ProSense]

200. Why are you afraid to answer the question? n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

201. There's No Fear In Answering The Question, Since It Is Readily Known. But It's Still An Irrelevant

one as it relates to this thread.

Care to explain yourself?

[ProSense]

210. Care to answer the question: who won TX?

Obama currently leads in the popular vote, but the nominee is based on achieiving 2024 delegates.

Based on that, who won TX?

Just because Hillary discovers her campaign cannot win caucusing, doesn't mean she can change the rules in the middle of the game.

Remember when Hillary though caucusing was really great: PDF

"Democracy is not a spectator sport..."

Caucus 101


Besides, Obama has won 14 primaries to her 13. She just can't win at caucusing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

212. Again, Your Post Is Completely Irrelevant.

Nothing the OP says has anything to do with your replies. If you aren't going to discuss the merits and facts put forth in the OP, then there's really no reason for me to continue wasting my time with this nonsense.

[VotesForWomen]

234. yep; the desparation of his/her dodge is so obvious. nt

[antigop]

47. OMC, I thank you for drawing attention to caucuses. I am not a HRC supporter, but..

have been posting for some time that the caucus system needs to go.

It is ridiculous.

Why do people defend this system? Gee, I wonder....

[helderheid]

49. Question - are the caucuses open like the primary or closed?

[redqueen]

58. They are open to anyone who voted in the party's primary.

Why Hillary's voters didn't show up to caucus... that's the real mystery.

[helderheid]

62. Thanks - next question - what did they vote on in the primaries (machine wise)?

[redqueen]

65. Depends.

There is wide flexibility in how to conduct elections. Some were probably still on scan-tron, some on DREs, some on paper ballots.

[helderheid]

67. Thanks, RQ!

:hi:

[redqueen]

72. My pleasure of course!

:hi:

[Quixote1818]

64. I think you need to be stamped "Democrat" to participate in the Caucuses.

A lot of Obama supporters said they were "accidentally" stamped "Republican" and couldn't get in.

[cosmik debris]

55. We are a Representative Democracy, not a pure democracy

I'm sorry you don't like that. But that is the way it is. Deal with it.

And if you would like to move to a caucus state, your input will be welcome and submitted to a democratic vote. But don't expect to win that vote in Texas.

[elixir]

56. Excellent post, Operationmindcrime. You made the perfect case for doing away w/ caucuses.

[cosmik debris]

80. Also a perfect case for doing away with the Senate, the House

And all 50 State Legislatures.

Compromises are made so that things can be accomplished.

People who hate those compromises seldom get anything done.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. What On Earth Are You Talking About?

:crazy:

[cosmik debris]

104. You want Democracy? You want the will of the people?

Then we don't need legislative branches to interfere with that. You want every person to have an equal voice, you have to eliminate legislators to achieve that.

But I know you are only whining because you didn't get your way, so I'm not too worried about what you think.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

153. That's One Of The Most Illogical Replies I've Ever Seen.

How the hell does caring about the integrity of the election process, have ANYTHING to do with doing away with the legislative branch? That's gotta be one of the most delusional in concept arguments I've ever had thrown my way here.

And furthermore, your accusation that my complaints revolve my not getting my way couldn't possibly be more false. It's all about integrity and not wanting to disenfranchise millions of voters, REGARDLESS of who is or isn't benefiting, running, or otherwise. This is a process issue, not a candidate issue. What's more is the utter hypocrisy in your false and ignorant accusation, since what is MORE than apparent, is that those condoning the disenfranchisement do so SOLELY because it is BENEFITING them. I can't think of a more selfish reason to condone disenfranchisement. Pretty pathetic.

[cosmik debris]

183. Sour grapes n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

190. You're Sour That I Blew Your Warped Arguments Out Of The Water? Sorry To Hear That.

:hi:

[cosmik debris]

211. I'm winning, you're whining. And you say I'm sour? LOL!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

213. Your Logic Was Decimated, And There's Not One Post Of Mine In This Thread That's Whining.

Get a grip and grow up, ok? :hi:

[cosmik debris]

218. Get over yourself

We like having caucuses in Texas and we are going to continue to have caucuses in Texas.

When people from other states whine about not being able to win in our caucus system, it just proves that we are doing it right.

Thanks for visiting, now go home.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

223. Actually, There Are Things In Motion To Do Away With Them.

Furthermore, this OP is about the concept of caucuses in general. In addition, no one in this thread is whining, though several have been acting like children.

[skater314159]

277. Like YOU? nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

279. Sure. But There's More Than That Too, As Per A Poster In This Thread.

[skater314159]

276. Yeah, its like he is a petulant child who didn't get his way! nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

282. So Do You Have Anything Of Any Merit Or Substance To Say, Or Just Stupid Shit?

When you're ready to act like an adult and discuss the OP on its merits, let me know, ok? :hi:

[skater314159]

284. Does that apply to you too?

Pissy cause I called you the petulant child you are?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

289. I've Responded Countless Times In This Thread With Logic And Intellect. You? Not So Much.

And no, your prepubescent tone doesn't anger me whatsoever. I find it cute! I LOVE members of the OMC fan club!!!!

:toast:

[skater314159]

292. I'm not out to prove anything - YOU are.

And you are angry... otherwise, why do you pay so much attention to my taunts, if they haven't gotten under your skin?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

295. I've Already Proven My Point.

And I respond to you because pets are fun to play with! And that's what you are. You're now my cute wittle pet. Nice to meet ya!

:hi:

[skater314159]

299. You have?

Don't think so.

You need to learn the same thing Hilly does - saying BS over and over and over and over doesn't make the BS more true. You keep repeating the same talking points over and over, and respond positively to the "me too" posts while ignoring those who disagree with you... and you think THAT makes you look smart?

I'd rather be a pet than a delusional Hillbot.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

302. Yes. My 500 Responses In This Thread Have All Been Towards People Who Agree.

And what's a hillbot? Is that some term they're using in the 3rd grade now?

And yes, I have. When you're older, you'll be able to understand complex topics like this. :rofl:

[skater314159]

275. Is this supposed to be one of your "intelligent responses"? nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

283. Coming From You, That's Pretty Funny.

:rofl:

Do I have a new friend now? HI HONEY!!!!!!! MWAH!!!!!! :loveya:

[skater314159]

285. Another "intelligent response"! nt

[redqueen]

60. Not sure why this wasn't an outrage when Bill did well in them.

All this bellyaching... get it changed BEFOREHAND next time.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

69. It wasn't.

They just don't want to admit the plain fact that more Obama supporters cared enough to come out and caucus.

[antigop]

71. it's not "bellyaching" if you want attention drawn to the caucus process itself.

And PLEASE, answer why ANYONE would defend this system?

<edit> The caucus system NEED TO GO.

[redqueen]

74. Cause the're used to it?

Cause they like the 'fellowship' of talking to their friends and neighbors about politics, in an open and honest and (hopefully) reasonable manner?

Cause they prefer it to the primary process?

I'm sure the reasons to support it are as varied as there are people who support it. :shrug:

[antigop]

96. keep guessing....n/t

[redqueen]

97. What difference does it make, really?

Do you think it's going to be a referendum, when it's finally changed?

Or do you think it'll be some backroom party-bigwig decision?

Guess.

[antigop]

101. Hmm...I guess you are really onto the "problem", eh? n/t

[redqueen]

108. If you mean the "problem"

of powerful people pulling sneaky shit behind the scenes, then you bet your ass.

[antigop]

128. BINGO! It's all geared for the party insiders and elders to call the shots.

And poor little Joe Democrat who *thought* his vote counted and mattered -- really doesn't matter.

Because when push comes to shove, the PARTY does whatever the hell it wants.

I am glad people are realizing what is REALLY going on.

[redqueen]

135. Well again, doesn't really matter.

What are you going to do, turn to the Green party?

There's only one way to change it, if not - and that's from WITHIN the party. So... :shrug:

[antigop]

143. And you can't change it because the powers that be want to keep it in place, right? n/t

[redqueen]

145. Did I say that?

If you change the powers that be, who knows what could happen.

[redqueen]

76. However, I beg to differ. It's "bellyaching" if it's tied to a particular candidate's results.

Which this clearly is.

This country has been using caucuses since forever. To all of a sudden get all up in arms over them just now... kinda obvious, it not?

[antigop]

83. Nope, I'm been trying to drawn attention to them for some time on DU. I am DEFINITELY NOT a HRC

supporter. Check my previous posts on DU. I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED HER. EVER.

People are awakening to what the caucus system is REALLY all about, including people like myself WHO DO NOT SUPPORT HILLARY.

Just because something has been in place for years does not mean it's right. Slavery was legal for many years. Women didn't have the right to vote for many years. For many years there was no Civil Rights Act. And on and on.

Just because something has been around a long time DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

[redqueen]

94. If you were up in arms over it before this primary season

then I'm not talking about you, clearly.

I don't think that's the case for many of the most vocal complainers in this particular forum.

[antigop]

98. I do think people need to listen to EVERYONE calling attention to caucuses, no matter which

candidate they support.

[redqueen]

100. I think there's a time and a place.

And while this is the place... it's sure not the time.

[antigop]

107. I disagree - this is the PERFECT time to discuss it. Hopefully, it can be changed. n/t

[redqueen]

113. I dunno...

like I said... I think this will be decided by party insiders, and I have no great amount of confidence in the vast majority of them.

[antigop]

127. that's the whole point! The "party insiders" decide. Joe Democrat doesn't n/t

[redqueen]

136. Not all "party insiders" are the same. e.g. Howard Dean.

:)

[NDambi]

82. Amen..amazing no one complained about caucuses until now .

[antigop]

87. a lot of people didn't really understand the process until now. There has been an awakening.

AND I AM NOT A HRC SUPPORTER.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

181. I'm Not Sure Why Either. I Don't Know Why Democrats Who Have Known How These Work, Haven't ALREADY

tried to change the process. But now that I'm informed of them and how unfair, disenfranchising and unrepresentative they are, I'm going to do my part to try and in fact get them changed. But why you would issue such an empty reply is beyond me, since it's irrelevant as it relates to the merit of the OP.

The fact is there is something being forth NOW that they are a problem. They are a problem DESPITE who is or isn't running or winning. You should care about the problem just as much as anyone else, and you should be willing to change the process just as much as I am. Shame on anyone who isn't.

[redqueen]

196. Shame on anyone who disagrees?

Right.

Moving on...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

202. Yup.

Shame on anyone who would willfully choose to carry on with an immensely flawed process that disenfranchises millions.

[redqueen]

205. Hah... so shame on anyone who participates in US politics?

Same logic.

[kennetha]

66. We've got two proofs.

Not Just TX, but Washington State as well. Obama won the Washington State Caucus handily, but won the "beauty contest" primary in Washington state much more narrowly. It was hardly reported. But it shows that the Caucus system cannot claim to represent "the popular will."

And it's not just about organization and motivation. The caucus system is INHERENTLY unequal. If my voters and your voters are equally committed, but my voters are less mobile and have less flexibility in managing their time because of work/family/ or whatever, then the caucus system favors you voters and disfavors my voters.

So you cannot at all claim that the caucus system fairly represents the will of the voters.

That's why Clinton is right to distinguish elected delegates from caucus delegates from automatic delegates.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

95. What bullshit.

Hillary has the support of retirees, who have all day to caucus. Many of Barack's supporters are young people in hourly wage service jobs who have a difficult time taking off. No type of voting is fair to everyone so come off it.

Y'all just can't admit that Obama's supporters are more committed than Clinton's and his campaign is more organized and the caucuses prove it.

[Ronnie]

180. "retirees, who have all day to caucus"

Not really. The caucuses started at 7:15 PM.

[antigop]

77. OMG! Pigs are flying. I have to agree with the HRC supporters that the caucus system needs to go.

And this is from the originator of the name, "sHillary".

[NDambi]

78. Problem with caucuses...change the rules after the GE...until then STFU!

[antigop]

89. That's fine. No problem They need to be changed. n/t

[NDambi]

99. Okay if people feel that way...but all the whining now doesn't and won't change the system..

[antigop]

116. Drawing attention to a problem isn't "whining". Before a problem can be fixed, people have to be

aware of a problem. It's not "whining" to draw attention to a problem.

[NDambi]

151. Some are drawing attetion. Some are whining because their candidate is losing..

if you think all those now opposed to caucuses because the system is simply unfair and it isn't about Hillary losing, then I have a bridge I want to sell you...in fact I have a pile a manure that can fetch a good price too.

[antigop]

164. well, I think attention should be drawn to the flaws in the system--whoever is

brings it up.

HRC supporters know that the system is the way it is.

But I, personally, am GLAD they are questioning the system.

And, again, I say this as someone who DOES NOT support HRC. Never have. I've tried to draw attention to the system on several other threads and have gotten flamed.

I don't care who is pointing out the flaw in the system at this point. The flaws definitely need to be pointed out.

[NDambi]

199. I won't flame..you appear to be a reasonable and sensible person...its just that I question motives.

I don't trust them.

[antigop]

92. Get rid of the caucuses. Have a primary. Let the people decide. n/t

[HughMoran]

110. Excellent point - anybody who thinks that a caucus is a "fair" system is joking themselves

Texas was the prototypical example of how the caucus system is indisputably unrepresentative of the will of the voters. I'm sure those with a vested interest in the outcome of this election will argue that they are just fine, but once all the screaming is finished - I hope this bizarre system can be revisited and perhaps reformed in some way by the next election cycle (we have 4 years to fix this.)

[antigop]

120. Thank you, Hugh. Yes, the caucus system needs to go. n/t

[not_too_L8]

111. thinking differently because Hillary lost?

you would be saying otherwise if it was Hillary that received more votes from the caucus

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

188. Nope. YOU'RE Thinking Differently Because Obama Won. That's Why You Don't Care.

My concerns are for the process itself and its lack of integrity and lack of true representation, and that holds true REGARDLESS of who is or isn't running or winning.

But you would rather IGNORE the flaws in the process, you would rather DISMISS the REAL argument of how flawed they are and why, and would rather stick out your tongue and shout 'neener neener neener' rather than caring about the integrity of elections, SOLELY because your candidate is winning them. Now THAT's what I fucking call selfish.

Nice try turning that around on me though pal. It's quite obvious who the guilty part is of such logic.

[krkaufman]

112. Ummm.... Texas' "prima-caucus" system was designed as it is ...

... in order for the "party activist" caucuses to counter any possible crossover interference that might occur in the open primary. Which is exactly why this year's caucus results differ from the primary distribution... the Republican primary interlopers didn't attend the caucuses.

And caucuses aren't supposed to represent the "will of the voter", whether the gen-pop, or even all members of a party. Caucuses are for party activists... so those who care enough to take the time to caucus, get to have a say in the party's nominee.

Your post demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge. Or maybe just desperation.

[snappyturtle]

226. Amen and thank you!

I wasn't here, in Texas, in 1992, but I read it here on DU that this system helped former President Bill Clinton. Some of the anti-caucus rhetoric is probably sour grapes. I loved participating in the caucus. The turnout here was stupendous....a RED county! It was neat getting to vote for our actual delegate!

I saw quite a few older voters with walkers and in wheel chairs who were assisted to the front of the line to sign in. Children were present too. If one couldn't vote in the primary unless he/she had caucused, it would be a different matter. Everyone does have a voice...I agree with the cross over interference. It also has to be remembered that the primary has 126 delegates and the caucus 67 delegates. So most of the delegates come from the move heavily weighted primary.

go here to get a good explanation of how the process works in Texas:
www.lonestarproject.net


edit:after thought: this will be the last time I will "defend" our system. A lot of the criticism here is from people who don't caucus. Out of the 2.8 million votes in the primary in the state, Sen.Clinton won with 101,029 more popular votes. Cross-overs? or voters who do not want Obama but are not smitten enough with Hillary to bother to caucus?

[krkaufman]

241. That excitement you relate is another reason some states go with caucuses ...

... as they are a springboard for the rest of the election season.

[snappyturtle]

271. Absolutely. n/t

[antigop]

317. "A lot of the criticism here is from people who don't caucus" -- and you know that, HOW? n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

114. Maybe the popular vote was reflective.

[Leafy Geneva]

117. Caucuses certainly DO reflect the will of the people.

It's just that they don't measure exactly the same thing. A caucus, because it requires more time and effort of the voter, reflects not only candidate preference, but also the depth of candidate support.

I suggest that the Texas caucuses tell us that Obama's voters are more motivated (about their candidate and/or their party) than Clinton's voters and are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

191. I Still Consider This To Be Such A Dumb Argument.

What it says, is that 96% of Obama supporters really don't care if he's their candidate or not, and may not even be likely to vote for him in the general election.

Now tell me: Does that really make sense to you?

[elixir]

123. k

[oasis]

124. Down with caucuses. Thanks for the example. (eom)

[antigop]

126. OMC, I thank you for the discussion on this thread. I have tried to draw attention to the whole

caucus process. Many people have chimed in.

Again, I most definitely am not a HRC supporter.

[FlyingSquirrel]

131. Obama is ahead in popular vote of ALL the primaries combined including FL/MI

Does that represent the will of the people?

Obama: 13,567,588 ... Clinton: 13,404,597 ... without MI;

Obama: 13,804,543 ... Clinton: 13,732,016 ... giving "uncommitted" votes in MI to Obama.

Would it represent the will of the people to give 0 votes to Obama in MI? 'cause that's the only way Clinton beats Obama in popular votes, period. Even if you're only counting the primaries.

Edit: The above numbers ALSO included Washington State's non-binding primary, ignoring its caucus.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

192. Well Yay For Him. What's Your Point?

[shaniqua6392]

138. I hope our re-vote in Michigan is not a caucus.

I think they are absolutely ridiculous. One man. One vote. Only primaries. Thanks for bringing up this issue, OMC. :hi:

[elixir]

154. Keep it rockin' OMC. Kick.

[NeedleCast]

155. Mostly Agree With You

Despite the fact that I'm an Obama supporter I'm inclined to agree with a lot of what you said. I don't think the caucus system is a problem when it's a full caucus and only a caucus but the way Texas runs things is a little...odd. I agree that it's a case where basically, some people's votes end up counting twice. IMO, states should do a primary vote, or a primary caucus, but not both.

That being said, I think the Caucus turn out reflects the very strong feelings Obama supporters have for their candidate. In a red state won by Hillary, the Obama camp still turned out huge in the caucus. Say what you want about that...those latte liberals who have mad stacks of money and no jobs (please recognize that for the sarcasim it is), college students, BMW driving independants, etc. Say what you want about them, but they are very vocal and active in their support for Obama which is something Hillary can't claim (at least not to the extend Obama can) and I think that's going to be very important going into the General Election. Most of the Hillary voters I know (most of whom are not DU'ers) are voting for Hillary because they're democrats who have expected to vote for Hillary for the last four years in the 2008 election. On the other hand, the Obama voters I know are very active in their support. They are glad to have a candidate they like, as opposed to one they're going to vote for only because she's a democrat.

Caucuses not only represent the support of a candidate, but how active and strong that support is.

[mimitabby]

167. I love the caucus!

for the first time in MY life I felt that I mattered as a voter. I KNEW my vote was counted because I saw them do it.
I got to declare my support for MY choice of candidate.

Too bad the Hillary supporters weren't as enthusiastic as the Obama ones.
That's how voting works.

A lot of people don't have time to get to the polls to vote either; so telling us that Caucuses are inconvenient is just another stupid excuse.

[joshcryer]

175. Hopefully you didn't attend one of the 3 caucuses whose votes were thrown in the garbage.

[NeedleCast]

184. So Do I

But I think OMC is right in that you should have one or the other, but not both.

[JackORoses]

162. Your numbers are wrong. Over 1 million Texans attended the Caucuses.

Obama won Texas fair and square!!!

Sorry you can't handle it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

195. I Was Going By CNN, And Regardless, The Number Is Irrelevant.

In the end, the number is still a subset of the TOTAL group that had voted and voiced their will already. Regardless of the number, the caucus came up with a supposed will of +16% shift for Obama, from people who were ALL part of the original TRUE vote. What that shows is that even when that many people show up for caucuses, the number is still HUGELY unrepresentative of the true will of the voters. It really is that simple.

[JackORoses]

208. The Number is not irrelevant. You are just plain wrong.

There is a huge difference between 1,100,000 and 100,000.

You do not understand what a Caucus is for, do you?

It is a measure of Grassroots support. That is what will win the election in the Fall.

Obama's Grassroots support is wide and strong.
Hillary's just is not.

Don't think that this won't be a major factor in the Superdelegates' decisions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. As It Relates To The Argument Of The OP, It IS Irrelevant.

Fact: The collective voice of Texas voters chose +4% Hillary. Fact: The voice of the caucus goers, though they were a subset of that SAME group, had a +16% shift to Obama. Fact: The latter process was completely unrepresentative of the true voice of Texas, as seen by the results of the former.

[JackORoses]

224. You still do not understand that a Primary and a Caucus are meant to gauge different things

That's why Texas has both. They are trying to choose the best nominee by using two methods instead of just one.

If you don't like Caucuses that is one thing,
but that doesn't make them unrepresentative.

You have no idea what the true voice of Texas is. Do you think the true democratic voice of Texas includes the Limbaugh Army that came out for Hillary?

The argument of this OP is "waaaaaaaah! Caucuses are no fair!"
Pretty lame.

[otohara]

165. Caucus = Cheap - Cheap - Cheap

and in the case of Colorado, they changed to primary in 2000, hardly anyone came, cost the state a pretty 2 million. So back to caucus it was. In the case of my state, voters were given a chance, blew it. Hopefully they have learned there civics lesson and in 2012 there will be a switch back to primary.

[Liberal Gramma]

172. I heard, on Air America, a Texas pol

say that the caucus/primary system actually was one of the best methods because the caucus offset the effects of Republicans voting in the primary. The primary, won narrowly by Clinton with the help of dittoheads who want to run against her, is not a perfect reflection of who Texas D's want to be their candidate. The Caucus is imperfect as well, but at least it's all democrats.

[nonconformist]

185. You do know that more Republicans voted for Obama than Hillary, don't you?

Oh, I get it. When Republicans vote for Obama, they just want hope and change. When Republicans vote for Hillary, they want to screw with our process.

[Liberal Gramma]

259. I think there's some of both

I think some Rep's voted for Obama because they think he'd be easier to beat. I think some Rep's voted for Hillary because they think she'd be easier to beat. I think some Rep's voted for Obama because they like him. I don't think *any* Rep's like Hillary.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

198. fact 52% of "registered" Texas Republicans voted for Obama...67% "registered" TX Dems for Clinton

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

203. WOOHOOOOOO FOR FACTS!!!!!!!

:applause:

[George_Bonanza]

187. Boo hoo, Hillary sure thought caucuses were fair when campaigning hard in Iowa

I agree with the fact that caucuses ARE unfair. Unfair to Hillary because her supporters are too damn lazy to do anything more than punch a card when their candidate needs them to donate a few hours of their time.

[Usrename]

193. You could save yourself some grief here.

Why don't you try to find out WHY Texas adopted the prima-caucus process? You might learn something.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

204. I'm Talking About Caucuses Period.

[Usrename]

221. And I'm saying they are useful.

They don't do what a secret ballot does, but they do have a purpose.

This whole exercise isn't a general election. It's preparation to WIN a general election.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

225. Since The GE Contains NO Caucuses, I'd Say That The Primary Part Is Far More Reflective Than The

caucus part, which shows even more why the OP's argument is valid.

Not sure how you could use the flaws of a caucus to gauge who would vote in a regular election, when the two are incomparable, as opposed to using the results of a real election and comparing them to a real election.

If anything, your own argument works against you.

Furthermore, it is likely that the zealots of each side that so irrationally, selfishly and childishly claim that they won't vote for the OTHER candidate if they're the nominee, are found in the crowd of those who would go to the caucuses. That would seem to work against you as well.

[Usrename]

231. It's becoming obvious that you are not interested in learning about this.

I would again suggest that you try and learn WHY Texas recently adopted this format.

The rationale behind it makes your arguments sound pretty stupid.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

235. I Like Facts As Opposed To Opinion.

Fact: The caucuses did not reflect the will of the voters in Texas.

Fact: The GE contains no caucuses.

Fact: Getting people out to vote in a primary, is far more comparable to bringing people out to the GE then comparing caucuses to such.

Fact: If Obama supporters claim that in some cases it's ok that the will of the voters isn't recognized, but instead some more attached to the party get more of a voice and that's ok, then they should also condone the same concept as it relates to superdelegates, no matter how the SD's choose to vote. They can't declare one without also supporting the other, since it would make them blatant hypocrites and undermine their entire argument. They can't claim that they will be outraged if the SD's overturn the will of the people, while in the same breath stating that it's ok that caucuses don't represent the true will of the people. See, that would just be really really stupid.

[Usrename]

314. The problem is this; you don't want to deal with all the facts.

Of course the superdelegates can override the popular vote and the pledged delegates. No one I know disputes that at all.

Of course they can do it.

The question that you refuse face is this: "How does that help Clinton win the Whitehouse?"

It guarantees a loss in the general election because her negatives, which are already scary, would soar even higher.

Do you honestly think that it would be same thing as if she were to have actually won the nomination having won the popular vote and the delegate count? You just won't face ALL the facts. You wish to ignore the fact that she has lost this race to Obama. You will have to deal with it sooner or later.

[HeraldSquare212]

206. Once again, Hillary loses a caucus, so it's undemocratic. Yawn.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

207. Wrong. You Are Responding Ignorantly And In A Knee Jerk Fashion. Try And Snap Out Of It.

The OP puts forth valid points that apply no matter who is or isn't running or who is or isn't winning. The arguments stand on their own merits. Either argue those merits, or concede that you are incapable of intellectual discussion and can only instead throw out empty headed knee jerking meritless ad hominem attacks. :hi:

[HeraldSquare212]

214. Again I say, yawn.

[Ronnie]

209. FYI:

12:00 AM CST on Saturday, March 8, 2008
By KAREN BROOKS / The Dallas Morning News
[e-mail]

AUSTIN – The Texas Democratic precinct conventions – under fire across the nation for being slow, burdensome to voters and rife with potential for abuse – will be intensely scrutinized during the state convention in June, party officials said Friday.
....
Further down in the article:
"Delegates and lawmakers are already submitting resolutions that would change or do away with the process, which determines one-third of the delegates in presidential primaries, officials said.

In a statement Friday, Mr. Richie distanced himself and the other party officials from the caucus process, saying they weren't in charge when the platform was adopted in 1988 and thanking Democrats for doing their best inside this "inherited" system."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-tdp_08pol.ART.State.Edition2.46abf08.html

Think about this: Along with 1.1 million other Texas voters, I got to vote twice. That doesn't sound either democratic or Democratic to me.

[RockaFowler]

216. Why are there 2 votes in Texas??

How come they vote in the Primary and then vote in a Caucus?? Does the Primary count? Why did those people that voted in the Primary get disenfranchised when the Caucus came around?? I am so confused . . .

[CampDem]

219. My caucus in Alaska was a freeze your a** off, walk 1/2 a mile joke!!!

OMC I want to thank you for drawing attention to the caucus system.Let me share with you my experience on Super hypothermia Tuesday.

Usually Anchorage weather is fairly mild, but in Feb we had record lows all across Alaska. It was getting down to 20 or 30 below at night that week in Anchorage. We had 1 site for all the Dem's in our city (pop 284,000) at a middle school and the caucus was set for 6pm. Rethugs had a plush convention center downtown with lots of parking garages nearby for their caucus.

I left the house plenty early, but radio was announcing that there was no parking left so I drove around for 30 minutes looking. Even though I am physically fit, when I parked the car I was horrified at how far away I was, I'm guessing it was 1/2 a mile.

The parking lots and side walks were a slippery maze of bumpy, snowy, icy ruts several inches thick. There is NO WAY anyone with a wheelchair or an unsteady gait could do it. There is NO WAY anyone carrying a child could do it. Matter of fact, I would guess that many people with children of any age would not subject them to walking outside that far in weather like that.

I can only imagine what people in rural AK had to endure to caucus. Our state is enormous with few roads and even though our median income is high, many in villages are not well off. Who would be able to ride a snow machine 40 miles in 70 below to get to one of the 40 sites? How many people could afford a plane ticket to fly to the sites?

I work as a social worker and let me tell you the rethugs that control our state are all about serving their oil company masters and have slashed our programs down to nothing. The poor, homeless, abused and mentally ill here have NO SERVICES left.

Now more than ever the people's voices need to be heard and the caucus system here makes that very difficult for the average person.



;)

[TheWraith]

220. It's only "well known" by people shilling for the Clinton campaign.

What IS true is that caucuses reward voter enthusiasm and motivation, which is a good thing, because if you can get the voters out to caucus, you can get them out in November. Clinton has proven that she can't.

And you're wrong again. It wasn't 100,000 caucusees. It was one MILLION. Try to get basic facts right--but if you did that, you wouldn't be pushing this tired old claptrap.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

227. It Is Well Known By Anyone With Even Basic Knowledge Of Caucuses.

And this whole 'get the voters to caucus, you can get them out in november' argument is one of the most stupid I've ever heard, and I don't know why it's repeated so often.

There are NO caucuses in the GE, so trying to turn the turnout of one into the suspected turnout for the other is really quite dumb. The GE is a standard election. Primary voting is like a standard election. The voters one can bring to THAT election, would be far more telling as to what can be brought in the GE.

And furthermore, the whole voter enthusiasm meme boils down to one thing: Choosing a nominee is not about a wholescale will of the people, but instead different components, parts of which include allowing zealots or those with greater interest to have more of a say. If that's the case, and it's not really about the will of the voters but instead different tangents including giving more weight to some voters over others, then you and your ilk should have NO problem nor complaint about the superdelegates having a say, and I shouldn't have to worry about seeing you and your ilk posting garbage about the SD's going against the will of the people, lest their whole argument fall apart and they become monumental hypocrites.

If caucuses are ok for the reasons you state, then the SD's and their own personal decisions are ok as well.

[mudesi]

228. BAHHHHHHH ROARRRRRRR SNARFFFFF GARBLE GARBLE ROARRRRRR!!!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

236. See Lyny Skyny, That Only Works When The OP Is Spouting Blatant Lunacy And Completely Warped Premise

You can't just use it as a sign of disagreement, since that defeats its entire spirit.

There is nothing fanatical, warped or insane about what the OP states. It is completely reasonable, grounded in reality, logical and factual. So your posting that response in this context (which by the way, I knew you would) is completely wrong and shows you to be a fool.

If you can challenge my assessment and show why my OP IS in fact insane rambling, illogical and HUGELY overdramatized and outside of reality, than I'd love to hear it. Because in ANY case I've used that post you copied, I'd have been able to do so for obvious reasons. If you can't, than you fail. If you can't, then you show that you want to be me, try to be me, want to copy me, but just don't have what it takes to recognize when things should or shouldn't be used. Amateur.

[VotesForWomen]

230. very good analysis, OMC. it's obvious that caucuses only represent the extreme activists among

the voting population.

[crispini]

239. LOL. Did you see the turnout? I had 400 at my caucus.

400 extreme activists in one little ol' neighborhood? Uh. No. :rofl: That was just the neighbors.

[TwilightGardener]

247. Yeah, you should have SEEN the "extreme activists" at MY caucus

in Nebraska! They almost had me fooled, they looked like regular people and little old ladies.

[theredpen]

242. I was at a Texas caucus

Were you? No? Oh, really. :eyes:

[UTUSN]

249. A friend who WAS, exactly supports the o.p.'s points.

In his area HRC took 73% of the primary (popular) vote, but his precinct caucus was 60HRC - 40/BO, meaning 6 delegates for her to the county convention and 4 for him. This DISTORTION was echoed and/or exceeded in all precincts across the state.


The charismatic candidate has FUELED UP supporters who TURN OUT the extra mile to the dastardly caucus system, way OUT of proportion to their numbers in the regular voting population.

[theredpen]

254. Caucuses measure grass-roots support

Grass roots support is an important component.

Clinton's only hope of winning the nomination are the votes of superdelegates, so an appeal to the sanctity of pure democracy is pretty hypocritical.

[UTUSN]

321. No they don't . They measure FANATICS/cults. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

251. That's Relevant To The Argument How Now?

Really, your post is supposed to mean what exactly?

Cause from this vantage point, it was worthless and nonsensical.

[theredpen]

253. OMC, you really need a new line

Declaring opposing points to be "nonsensical" seems to be your tireless refrain these days.

The point is that you don't have any business declaring something "undemocratic" when you have no idea what it's about. You worry about the nomination process in New Jersey, we'll worry about the nomination process in Texas. It's our purview and most of us like our system.

Finally, I really don't see the point on these relentless, after-the-fact attack on caucuses when Clinton's only hope of gaining the nomination is to rely on the votes of superdelegates. How democratic is THAT?!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

262. Then Stop Posting Nonsense.

Your post carried no relevance whatsoever to the OP and was in fact nonsense. I didn't make it nonsense, YOU made it nonsense.

And I have every right to declare something undemocratic that is undemocratic, and I have plenty idea what it's about. Your assertion otherwise is quite silly. And yes, I say silly a lot too. Don't like it? Than stop saying silly shit.

You have continued to not address the context or logical facts laid out in the OP whatsoever. If you are not going to do so, then it's really nothing more than a waste of time to even reply to you.

[skater314159]

274. Talking to yourself again? nt

[skater314159]

273. You really should learn how to keep an argument COGENT.

Dishing on people like a pissed drag queen when they present data that goes against your arguments makes YOU look ignorant, honey.

Just a clue... but from the size of your ego, I doubt you'll take the advice.

Talking down to others for their debate tactics while responding with mini hissy-fits just makes you look silly.

Oh, and your vantage point must be in IG... isn't that the two letter abreviation for the State of Ignorance?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

278. Sorry Honey, But My Post Was Fine. Their Argument Made No Sense And Had No Relevance To The

discussion.

Would you care to show how it does or where the point within it was, or would you rather continue with your hypocritical and ignorant personal attacks honey?

See, you can spew your bullshit all you want. But the difference is that I post things that are logical, whereas you posted things that contained nothing but emptiness with no supporting substance.

So would you like to show why my reply was in error and how the initial post I responded WAS important somehow or actually made a point relevant to the OP? Or is fooling yourself into thinking you defended something that you didn't defend at all, all you need to boost your own ego... :hi:

[skater314159]

286. Anyone with a point against Hillary "makes no sense"...

I think you have official Clinton Hysteria.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

293. LOL At Your Inability To Provide ANYTHING Logical. You're Nothing But Empty Childish Retort.

Too funny!

C'mon skater... You want to hang? You want to play? Well c'mon then honey, let's play! I issued you a challenge. Can you step up to it and provide reasoning for your disagreement, or are you just nothing but empty and void of logic childishly toned retorts? Well? Which is it? Are you just a one trick pony or what?

:rofl:

[avrdream]

246. As crazy as the two-step was, it did, indeed, make your point.

Why you bother posting that here is beyond me......it won't get past the Spitzer bullshit first of all, and, secondly, you won't get much reasonable discussion on this good point. A year ago, you would have. Now it's just too ugly around here to expect reason.

[Slagathor]

255. I can't be bothered to search your posting history... do you support the superdelegates?

because you cannot both support superdelegates and be opposed to caucuses, you know. That would be irrational. Hysterical even.

[skater314159]

281. That won't stop him.

Here's how OMC works...

If it is against Hillary and her winning the nomination, its EVVVILLL!!! If it helps Hillary get the nomination (cue angelic choirs!) its a GOD SEND!!!

I hate to tell you, but it's futile to try to get him to see another view point, unless of course you just want to come in here and argue with him for fun. That's never futile.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

301. Awwwww, That's Cute My Little Pet! Now You're Making Up Accusations. ADORABLE!!!!!

I love my new pet. I wuv it!

Hey pet, while you're at it, would you like to actually PROVE your wild ass accusation? Nahhhhhhh... Who am I kidding... That would take, like, ya know, intellect and thought and accuracy and stuff LOL :dunce:

[kwenu]

256. Caucuses clearly measure the strength of support for the candidate. Either way, those are the rules!

TEXAS is not FLORIDA!!!!!!!!

And as a Texas Obama delegate I'll think of you lovingly when casting my vote!!!!!!

[theredpen]

257. Texans want Obama. Obama could turn Texas blue

Recent polling data from SurveyUSA shows that Clinton will lose Texas, but that Obama is within the margin of error of winning it.

It also shows that more Texans would vote for Obama vs. McCain than Clinton vs. McCain.

This contention that the Texas system didn't capture the desire of Texas voters is clearly false. Texans prefer Obama by a slight margin in the GE. Stop griping about the primary and caucus.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7f824566-3782-4941-89c0-0cf82b1cc7ba%20

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

263. Wow. Another One Thinking That Stupid Link Does Anything To Overcome The Facts Of The OP.

You guys are reallllllllly bad at this whole defense thing. Really.

[theredpen]

267. Sigh. *PLONK*

[Radical Activist]

258. Rush Limbaugh's cronies were too cowardly to show up at a caucus.

That's the reason for the difference. Republicans showed up to vote for Hillary but not for the caucus. Rush picking our nominee for us in the upcoming primaries is the problem.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

264. You Realize How Weak And Ignorant Of An Argument That Is, Right?

You realize how it contains no merit, doesn't overcome the OP whatsoever, and makes you look a bit foolish for believing it, right?

At least I hope you do. If not, then wow, talk about blind...

[skater314159]

270. I can tell from your snark that Radical pissed you off...

Her/his statment hit a little too close to home, eh?

Your fear is as palatable as that of your candidate, Hillary.

"makes you look a bit foolish for believing it, right?"
Shame, guilt and fear don't work on the whole electorate... at least those NOT voting for Hillary. What convinces you - fear and peer pressure - doesn't work for most people.

Pity you think you commit mindcrime, when you are just brain washed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

287. LOL Wow Is Your Perception Off. Hilarity Doesn't Equal Anger.

And yes, saying that limbaugh republicans accounted for the primary victory, when far more republicans voted for Obama then Hillary, and even then it was still a small percentage of voters overall, is illogical, irrational, delusional, and quite hilarious!!!!

So no, not sure why you'd think such hilarity would anger me. Generally, really really ignorant points never get to me. But thanks for making me laugh as well!

You're so silly! I like you! :loveya:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[skater314159]

288. You aren't lauging. You are PISSSED... nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

298. Okey Dokey Skatey Watey! Whatever Makes You Feel Like You Have Worth!

:hi:

[skater314159]

315. Keep trying to convince us you don't care...

... you are totally transparent.

[pdxmom]

261. Caucuses, in one form or another, have been around for over 100 years. I

really don't understand how suddenly, when Clinton can't seem to win them, they have been these terribly undemocratic, evil methods that disenfranchises voters. Hard to take the argument seriously when it hasn't been a big issue before this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

265. Ad Hominems Are Worthless As It Relates To The Validity Of The OP. Care To Try Again?

First of all, I've only this year learned about caucuses in depth. AS SOON AS I DID, I recognized how ridiculous they were and were shocked that they were allowed to exist. But in the context of the OP, that's monumentally irrelevant.

What is relevant, is the facts and logical arguments that the OP puts forth. If you can reply to that context, rather than with empty ad hominems, it would probably serve your case better.

[DuaneBidoux]

280. Open voting doesn't represent the will of Democrats either.

I voted in a Houston suburb. The Dem line was huge and I overheard several republicans talking about how it didn't matter anyway and so they were voting for Clinton to muck things up. Obviously this is anecdotal, but I'll also tell you that the republican room was virtually empty and there were no lines at all.

I also caucused, and I wonder if a caucus vote shouldn't be worth more anyway: these are people who are going to get out there and pound on the doors, and put the signs in the ground, and make it happen at a grass roots level. They aren't casual Dems.

The system is, however, and on this I agree, a bit of a mess. You could also say the same thing about the superdelegates. At a national election for general candidate I guess it is absolutely not right not to have one man one vote, but a party needs to be able to gear their own nomination process so that very serious participating democrats have more influence than some uninformed dolt that steps in off the street and thinks about the presidency once every four years. IMHO.

[hughee99]

290. Why weren't Hillary's voters allowed to caucus?

or is her support a "mile wide and an inch deep" in TX?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

296. Miss The Point Much?

[hughee99]

303. Not much, and I didn't here, either...

I recall a few months back watching to Clinton supporters explain how Obama only won because of repukes switching over to vote for Obama, how those voters won't really be there come November and how we need to support Clinton because her voters will be there when she needs them. Apparently not in Texas.

Yes, I'll agree that a caucus may not be the best way to find the will of the Democratic voter, but when the the leading repuke blowhard is supporting Clinton in a heavily red state after the repuke nomination is already decided, I don't think the Primary was reflective of the will of the people (actual democratic voters) either. There were as many Dem voters in this primary as there was in the 2004 GE. The repukes had more than 3 million fewer voters than in the 2004 GE. Did TX all the sudden become a BLUE state or did some of those voters vote someplace other than the repuke primary?

[Uzybone]

291. I voted for Obama in the TX primary

but couldn’t caucus because I work evenings. Even if I didn’t work I probably wouldn’t have caucused. I have to agree with the OP, the caucus system is unrepresentative. This is the first time I’ve actually learned what a caucus was, and we need to get rid of it. We should be making voting easier, not harder.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

297. Thank You For That.

"We should be making voting easier, not harder."

:toast:

[dchill]

294. All the proof I need that Republican crossover voting...

is a HUGE contaminant in selecting a Presidential candidate. This is reflected in the Ohio vote, too. Ever hear of Rush?

[Life Long Dem]

300. Huh? The numbers are proof ?

A caucus is where someone can talk issues with you where you make or change a decision whether you already voted for Clinton or Obama.

[laugle]

304. Your analysis is

very valid! This is why I think Hillary will end up with the popular vote and Obama ahead in delegates.

I think both will end up on the same ticket, it's just a question of who's on top!

[AJH032]

307. You are correct

and on top of that, Obama's caucus victory will give him the lead in Texas pledged delegates (similarly to Clinton's Nevada win but delegate loss). Very very unfair, and I hope that if this race is still close by the time of the convention, the super delegates will take this into consideration.

[JI7]

308. it has been that way for years, why complain just now ?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

309. Because I Just Learned About Them In Depth This Year. Duh.

Regardless of that though, since your point didn't really have anything to do with anything, did you have anything to add in relation to the argument within the OP, or was that all you wanted to add?

[JI7]

310. i know what caucuses are

i don't have a problem with them. it's a way of conducting party business within states. if states decide to do that it's up to them.

if you have such a problem with them then work to get rid of them for the future.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

311. What The Fuck Do You Think I'm Trying To Do?

Jeez, did you think I wasn't going to? :dunce:

[rcsl1998]

313. What'll Happen In The GE When You Can't Override The Actual Voting Public...

...with a caucus?

[Thrill]

318. A caller on AA today who worked the TX primaries

said the hundreds of Repukes were coming in voting for Hillary. Saying they wouldn't be back for the caucuses.

[Emit]

320. What if it's just the opposite, OMC?

Caucuses are hand counted. Primaries use machines.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5012530

[Turn CO Blue]

322. And I suppose the Colorado caucus didn't represent the will

of Coloradoans? Yeah, right. People turned out in droves for Obama here. My son was one of them. I myself was too downhearted to attend from Edwards having just dropped out.

Your whole premise is reaching.

[eridani]

323. They represent the will of the doorbellers and phonebankers

People willing to work for Dem candidates jolly well ought to have more say in primary elections. The will of all the people is for general elections.

[Thepricebreaker]

324. OMFG are you kidding? KO was right you people are really trying to do this...