primaries count noses, caucuses count boots.

[mopinko]

all this yayaya about caucuses- they are not the same as primaries. they count something more important than the secret wishes of the electorate. they count the boots on the ground that a candidate brings. this is far more important, imho, than what people will do behind the curtain.
how many people will not just vote for a candidate, but how many will stand up for them in public, how many will put in a whole evening instead of 10 minutes, how many will hit the streets?
hillary's support is being shown for what it is- wide perhaps, but no more than an inch deep. and barack's support is being shown for what it is- not only wide, but deep. and fired up and ready to go.

so, primaries and caucuses are not intended to measure the same thing, and they don't. this is not a public election. it is a party function. we are entitled to have whatever process we choose. we can go back to the smoke filled room, if we want to. this is a good old fashioned test of strength.
and sorry to say, your girl is losing. once again we have a candidate that thinks they can reduces the process to big bucks for the teevee people, and playing the fear card. this is not the direction i want MY party to go. ymmv. but i say bring it on. and quit your whining.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

1. exactly. causcuses measure true voter passion. all the passionate Hillary...

supporters are right here on this board in this forum. Barack's are everywhere.

[mopinko]

5. they are on the bus.

i cannot tell you what a great time i had riding the bus to ohio from chicago. one of many buses that have gone to any state within driving distance. we have people from 10 to 70, in every shade of the rainbow. 110 people knocked on over 10,000 doors in a day and a half.
boots, i tell ya, the man has boots on the ground. hill has a lot of gucchi loafers.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. K and R. I know you're going to catch a lot of flak from the crybabies but thx.

[NightWatcher]

3. my dad votes by mail (absentee ballot) and never leaves the sofa

he used to not even think about what or who he was voting on. He read the local questions but checked off the R box. Effort required- none.

Obama has a far greater ground game. Hillary has seen her biggest results only after airing misleading or fear mongering ads or floating rumors. We need the power that Obama brings to the election. The legions of Obama supporters will and have also fought for local candidates as well and will do great things for the "down ticket dems" this November.

[mopinko]

6. yup, coattails

these boots are also well informed, and will do a lot to help the down ticket races. as barack always has. in '04, he went out and campaigned for any dem that wanted him. that is how the man works. that is how he got where he is. he will be awesome.

[NightWatcher]

14. while canvassing for Obama before super tuesday, I had several people ask me questions

and being the uber wonk that I am, I was able to help them out and steer them towards the polls with correct info. Informing the electorate is another benefit of having boots on the ground talking to people who often see only commercials to get their info.

[krkaufman]

84. Just wanna "agree" with your second paragraph.

I've found it humorous that the media has failed to take note of Hillary's so-called "big comeback wins" being largely due to transient, short-term reactions to emotional and/or misleading media reports and narratives, rather than any inherent superior argument proffered by the Clinton campaign.

The Obama campaign has demonstrated nationwide, consistent and steadily-growing support, in contrast to the spotty and sporadic support of the Clinton campaign (and its "insult 40 states strategy", per kos).

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. That is a very succinct and accurate way to show the differences between primaries and caucuses

:kick:

[Medusa]

7. I love the prevailing thought on this board that caucuses are bad

I got involved in Democratic party politics by attending my first caucus when I was 18-I ended up as a delegate to both the County & State conventions because of my age. I stayed involved in Dem politics for what has been over 25 years now. And that makes caucuses bad? How do we stay viable if we don't have boots on the ground?

[krkaufman]

85. I don't think it's a prevailing belief. Just a very noisy one. n/t

[HughMoran]

8. So younger, more energetic or people with less responsibilities should decide who our nominee is?

You have missed the boat as you don't account for the issues of actually being able to commit the time to attend a caucus versus wanting to. I call bullshit.

[redqueen]

12. I'm sorry, but that assumption is just dumb.

Do you really think nobody with kids / jobs goes to caucuses?

How many have you been to?

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Do you think

it's just as easy for a working class family to find childcare, get off from work if need be, arrange transportation? How about the working poor? How about the disabled?

The notion that caucuses are more democratic than primaries is just asinine, and I can't believe so many people here are defending them just because it benefits their candidate.

[mopinko]

19. i didn't say democratic. in fact, my whole point is that

"democratic" as in, decided by votes, is not the purpose of what we are doing.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. So the process SHOULD be undemocratic?

Why not just institute a poll tax?

[redqueen]

24. Easy to answer, since I'm working class and have kids.

Guess what, you can take kids to caucuses. Amazing, huh?

As for the disabled - ride share, anyone?

I didn't say they were MORE democratic, did I?

I'm not defending it cause it benefits any candidate. I'm defending it cause I've actually participated, and it seems to work pretty frickin well.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. oh come on...

you seriously think everybody can make it because you could? What about the fireman, the policeman, the nurse who can't get off work?

Before this election season, democrats supported making it EASY to vote - same-day registration, DMV registration, absentee voting, early voting... now I see so-called Democrats demanding that voters be in a particular place at a particular time for three hours. It's insane.

[redqueen]

38. Sorry but that's just not true... Dems have supported caucuses for a very long time.

And I'm offended by your "so-called Democrats" barb. Please take a look here and reconsider your thoughts on that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5003315&mesg_id=5003315

How long have you been so adamantly opposed to caucuses?

[MonkeyFunk]

41. A long time

this isn't new, and it's got nothing to do with the candidates.

What do you say about the person who has to work during the allotted time and can't make it?

[redqueen]

44. Oh well?

I couldn't make it this time, due to having to give my bro a ride home, as his car broke down.

Shit happens. No system is perfect. :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

52. so whole classes of people

are systematically excluded - and you think that's OK?

I honestly don't get it.

[redqueen]

53. I don't think it's OK.

I think it's US politics. There's lots of problems that need addressing. I don't think caucuses being bad is anywhere near number 1 on that list.

[mopinko]

56. they exclude themselves.

and they wont be there to make it happen.
if politics matters to them, they will find a way to be involved. if it doesn't, no amount of lowering the bar will bring them in.
i don't want the candidate of people who could barely make it a priority. i want an active party, made up of active supporters. that is what this is about.

[MonkeyFunk]

64. That's a sick attitude

they exclude themselves by having jobs? Children? No money for babysitters?

[anigbrowl]

63. Your arguments are BS

First of all, you are making the same leap of logic you complain about - because some people really can't get off work, nobody who should count can get off work. The reality is that the number of Hillary supporters who would love to caucus but just can't manage it due to their commitments is probably the same as the # of Obama supporters. You don't have any evidence to back up your point, just 'what-if' questions.

Secondly, as regards it being un-Democratic (as in party) to favor voting solutions that are more difficult (like caucuses), where is the evidence of the Clintons arguing for primary reform while in office? Or the Democratic party arguing against caucuses post 2000 or post 2004?

Finally, Hillary went into the race with 100% name recognition, the backing of a former President, tons of money, and first hand experience of two winning presidential campaigns. So why didn't she tell her campaign people to put extra effort into making sure her ground game matched her standing? Presumably she was aware of both her advantages and disadvantages going into the campaign, so why not plan for them?

All these arguments about causes seem to be of the form 'well this system is hard on the people who make up her base'. What has she done to make it easier for them? What has she done to expand her base? Seems to me that she went into the race thinking she already had a huge base which she could take for granted and ever since then has been complaining that it's somehow being held back by those other candidates who have the bad manners to actually compete with her. This is why she came in third in Iowa if you ask me.

[MonkeyFunk]

67. I never said shit about candidates

but your focus on it shows that YOU defend caucuses because your guy benefits.

My arguments have nothing to do with Clinton.

[Medusa]

73. I've been in the party since I was 18, over 25 years

and I've participated in countless caucuses. I MISS them in my state and non-coincidentally, it's difficult to get anyone who isn't retired to our organizational meetings to do the actual work of the party. And I don't buy the "only the young participate" bullshit. I was usually the youngeset person in the room back in the good ole' days of caucuses in my home state. This is just sore grapes from the Hillary crew who can't seem to get their shit together and organize their supporters into turning out. Caucuses have been around forever and this is the FIRST YEAR I've ever heard any whining, groaning or bitching about them and that didn't start until HRC started to lose.

[krkaufman]

87. (and taking the kids may increase the odds of their future political activism?)

[redqueen]

90. That's my hope, yes!

And the funny thing is, we live in a VERY red area so they come and tell me all the talking points they hear from their friends at school, and we talk about what they said and what I think about it. They're already politically aware AND curious!

I couldn't be more proud of them. :)

[krkaufman]

91. Reminds me of my nephews.

Surrounded by an extended family of progressives (their dad's a Rethug), they were among the very few kids in their (private Catholic) grade school classes that voted for Kerry in their mock elections in 2004. And the older one almost got into a fight with another kid over some political smear comments from another kid -- in the 7th grade.

[redqueen]

92. Sweet...

nice to see young people thinking for themselves. And really thinking, not just rebelling. Gives me hope. :)

[bvar22]

28. Good Grief...Presidential Caucus is ONCE every four years.

If you care, you'll be there!

If the Democratic Party cared, Caucus Day (or Primary Day) AND Election Day would be national holidays.

I've voted in both Caucuses and Primaries.
I PREFER Caucus.

On Edit:
I also WORK for a Living.

[HughMoran]

33. What about handicapped people? people afraid of large crowds? working single mothers?

Since the caucuses can never be held in such a way that the majority of voters can attend, it's actually an EXCLUSIONARY process that many of those who cannot attend simply for practical reasons are left out of. Even a primary that only requires one to go to the voting station for 10 minutes attracts only about 30-40% Of Democratic voters. Do you want MORE participation of Democrats in the primary process or LESS?

[mopinko]

46. less

i want the limpball followers to stay home, or in their own caucuses. i want people who barely give a shit, or know what they are talking about to move over and let the people who are actually a part of the party, and who have made the party a priority in their lives, to be the ones to pick the candidate.
the general is a different story. but to pick the candidate, i want a real contest.

[HughMoran]

48. I'm glad you admit to being an exclusionary force in the "people's party"

...at least I can walk away from this thread knowing that we have little in common.

[mopinko]

61. i would love to exclude the dlc.

and their friends in the bfee. i think that is what this is about.

[bvar22]

50. Our Caucuses were held in public school building.

It had exactly the same accessability as a Primary Election held in the same building.
PLUS, the people at my caucus would have helped ANYBODY who was committed to attend.

If you CARE, you'll be there!
It is only ONCE every four years!

[HughMoran]

54. Not buying it

I think the caucus system SUCKS and doesn't work well in today's world. Maybe 100 years ago when people could afford to spend 3 hours to participate in a primary, but not in today's hectic world. I'm not buying it, never will, and I DO care - that's why I think the caucus system SUCKS!

[MonkeyFunk]

68. and it's at a particular time

If you have to work, you're screwed. Need childcare adn can't afford it? Screwed.

[mopinko]

72. ada has required accessible polling places for a while.

people afraid of crowds? now you are just reaching.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Unless you have to work

or can't afford child care. Or are disabled or sick.

Sorry, there's no fucking way that caucuses are superior to voting if you're trying to determine the will of the electorate. I'm shocked to see people even defending them here.

[bvar22]

51. It is ONCE every four years.

If you CARE, you'll be there.

[krkaufman]

88. That *does* sorta get to the OPers' point regarding the value of caucuses ...

... in helping the party identify (document!) those likely with the motivation to help pound pavement and make calls.

[krkaufman]

86. I think the reality, here, is that caucuses are being trashed ...

... because a certain campaign failed to plan for any competition in their presumed march to the nomination, and have been caught with their pantsuits down, as well as their simply not believing in an inclusive political approach of campaigning across the country in every state.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

15. younger: yes. also: more educated. sorry. read the exits.

[mopinko]

18. so people who do nothing but vote should run the party?

no meetings required? no time to knock doors? nothing to offer? that is who should be deciding? i call bullshit right back.

people need to get that the primaries are not a function of the country as a whole, but of the PARTIES. we have every right, indeed we have the responsibility, to measure the actual strength of our candidates. they are popular with people who "want to" do the heavy lifting, as opposed to people who actually can and do do the heavy lifting? no contest. go ahead and stay on the couch.

[HughMoran]

22. All insults aside, you have not addressed the issue

If you need volunteers, go get some. A primary should decide whom the majority of VOTING people will support during a GE. Having harnessed the more energetic youth who do NOT usually VOTE in a GE may turn out to be a fools errand.

[mopinko]

25. no, a primary should decide who is the best candidate available.

electability is the poorest possible criteria for a candidate, imho. much bullshit has been foisted upon the rank and file of this party under that flag. especially by the dlc.
strangely, many of those "most electable" candidates went on to, you guessed it, lose. see il-6 in '06.

[HughMoran]

27. Well, the biggest argument for the biggest caucus winner is his electability

...so a lot of people don't agree with your line of reasoning here. I think you're grasping at straws to justify a system that, it plain spoken english, SUCKS!

[mopinko]

35. electability

got you john kerry over howard dean. it makes a laughing stock of dennis kucnich. it got us out here tammy duckworth (who lost), over christine cegelis (who probably would have won).
electability should not be the deciding issue. issues should be the deciding issue.
the question is, who is the party? for all the crying here about limpballs telling people to cross over, obamicans voting, etc, how many thugs do you think went to dem caucuses?
and just what hair do you split to say that you want to see who has the most motivated, active supporters, vs who is electable?

[HughMoran]

47. So all the Obama supporters touting his "electability" are all mixed up?

This does seem to be the biggest argument for him - he is electable and Hillary is not because she will motivate the "anti-Hillary" Republicans. How does that argument jibe with the caucuses being strongly for Obama? Many would argue that Hillary is a better candidate, but less electable due to opposition from Republicans. How does that fact that Obama has younger, more motivated "followers" make him a "better" candidate. I don't see it at all - if anything they are relatively equivalent on the issues. Please help me understand how your argument fits this even this election cycle?

[mopinko]

60. electability

there is a big, big difference between a vague, untested claim that one candidate is not electable and the other is, and a true test of what a campaign is capable of. a million donors, for example, would be something to look at that is a little more concrete than some poll.
and this painting of obama supporters as "younger" is just plain bullshit. a way to paint them as naive, at best. the folks on that bus to ohio ran the gamut.
i, for one, have never used that word, electable. but the first rule of politics is- excite your base, lull theirs to sleep. hill does neither, barack does both.
none of the above have anything to do with this thread, tho.

[dansolo]

76. Are you honestly arguing that a caucus goer is not going to vote in the general election?

What a ridiculous assertion.

[Coexist]

don't retirees have lots of free time?

Clinton owns them, doesn't she?

[Coexist]

62. ugh, not again. sorry - dupe

Clinton owns them, doesn't she?

[fight4my3sons]

93. My husband worked the morning of our caucus,

he found someone to cover the second half of his shift. We took our three young kids with us. It was a pain in the ass, but we did it. We sat on the floor with them, brought toys and snacks for them and tried to keep them entertained. It was not easy, but it was important to us that we were there.

[crispini]

9. Thanks.

:kick:

[redqueen]

10. I'm almost afraid to say it...

but I'm with you.

The recent uproar over how bad they are has taken me by surprise. I had NO idea people were of the opinion that they should be done away with.

[ProSense]

11. Remember when Hillary though caucusing was really great:

PDF

"Democracy is not a spectator sport..."

Caucus 101

[mopinko]

45. yea, it's only the caucuses that barack wins

that are bad.
funny the same people who are trying to tar obama as "american idol" are the same people who want to be able to just phone it in themselves.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. So let's make them even more onerous

how 'about an all day caucus? A three-day retreat?

How about a weeklong caucus? Really find out who's most committed.

Would you support such a system?

[mopinko]

20. how's this- the guy with the most busloads of people going from

state to state, weekend after weekend, from his home state, wins.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. No

I prefer democracy. I'm old-fashioned that way.

[mopinko]

77. you are really missing the point. selecting armies not leaders

would be my point. i think the current mix of primaries and caucuses tests both the leaders and the armies. both are very, very important. both should be tested.

[Quixote1818]

16. Thanks you! Very well put! nt

[joshcryer]

26. The wishes of a voter are less important than their activism as a citizen?

Are you fucking kidding me?

[mopinko]

29. no, i am not.

this is not the general. this is not a beauty contest. this is not american idol.
wishes don't win elections. boots do.

[bigtree]

30. boots or feet?

voting should be easy and accessible, not an endurance test, or any other test.

[mopinko]

39. in general elections, yes.

this is about the party. the party can require people to take some time if they want to have their say. imho.

[bridgit]

31. Ah Ha! So *that's* why BO thinks he's so popular = 2 boots for every 1 nose...

:spray:

[suston96]

32. Sorry, cannot agree.....The candidates are for federal constitutional offices....

...Therefore, the political parties must abide by full and equal participation by all citizens. Oh, check the Charter of the Democratic Party. It says something precisely about that.

The DNC violated the Democratic Party Charter. Every Democrat participates equally and every Democrat's vote is counted!

"The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end, (ii) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the presidential nominating process, . . . (v) restrict participation to Democrats only . . . ."

Democratic National Committee, Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States, Art. Two, 4 (emphasis added). <450 U.S. 107, 118>

Is there something about this part people don't get? "The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate- " Read it yourselves:


http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[mopinko]

42. full, timely and equal opportunity

can you point to a caucus that did not abide by this? people are free to drop their votes and go. they do not have to stick around if they don't want to.

and these are not contests for a federal constitutional office. they are contests for the representative of the democratic PARTY.

[NorthernSpy]

55. wrong -- at this point, they're just candidates for a party nomination...

Is there something about this part people don't get? "The National Convention shall be composed of delegates who are chosen through processes which (i) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate- "

Yes, and states get to decide whether they want to hold caucuses or primaries. That's also in the rules -- and has been since, oh, ~forever.


BTW, speaking of equality, how exactly do the superdelegates fit in to that picture? Who elected them? And why do they get to be "super" -- as in, more than equal to the rest of us? And why isn't Hillary complaining about that particularly glaring inequality?

[suston96]

69. Wrong? No. Right. It's for US Constitutional officers -

...therefore the full participation of ALL citizens is guaranteed by that constitution and the attendant voting rights laws..

Here's a question. What do you think would happen if the political party decided that only white people could vote or caucus in their primaries?

[mopinko]

83. well, supers are elected, for the most part.

either currently, or in the past. and they are the pillars of the party.
i don't have a problem with them.

[Emit]

34. And one is counted by proprietary machines, the other is hand-counted

In a sense, the caucus it the last bastion a verifiable vote record.

[redqueen]

40. Thanks for pointing that out.

The kneejerking disgust about how 'undemocratic' caucuses are... I can't see it as anything but partisan bellyaching, if it's only a concern just now.

Was there such a hue and cry after Iowa? *sigh*

[mopinko]

43. lowering the bar

always a bad sign.

[paperbag_ princess]

49. I can't believe the RW beliefs that this board sometimes supports

but if your argument is that activists should be choosing the nominee....then why is the Obama camp so against the superdelegates and party bosses choosing the nominee...who are even more active in the party than the people willing and able to caucus?

and why are they so excited that indies and repubs are voting in the primaries? With your logic we should expect people to commit to the candidate by at least being willing to join the party officially?

[mopinko]

58. i never said anything about supers.

i don't really have a problem with them. anyone who thinks hill has them sown up is fooling themselves.
i welcome the obamicans, who are probably, in large part, prodigal raygun democrats. i can't see a way to draw a line between them and malicious crossovers in primaries. one more thing that caucuses avoid.
willingness to commit to a few hours of caucusing is a fine test. that would be the whole point of this thread.

[starroute]

57. Democracy cannot be equated to voting and majority rule

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and any number of other places, we've seen elections held that don't mean shit. Not only can elections be rigged or gamed, but they tend to induce passivity. You sit on your couch, you watch tv, and then you go out and cast a ballot. Big deal.

The true spirit of democracy is far more closely allied to the tradition of the New England town meeting -- that is, participatory democracy, in which everybody gets involved and shoulders part of the burden, as opposed to voting once every four years to put your fate in the hands of one or another "leader." In which every neighbor knows what you believe and are willing to contribute to the community, as opposed to casting a secret ballot in a curtained-off booth and then walking away from any responsibility for your position.

The problem is, though, that town meetings don't scale well. As the country has grown, and as central governments have increasingly taken over functions from local governments, people have become resigned to not controlling their own fate. But we're reaching the point now where the limitations of uncontrolled, massive, unaccountable, centralized government are becoming too apparent to ignore.

I don't know what the ultimate answer will be, but my hope is that the Internet and other resources will help bring us back in the direction of true participatory democracy. So to the extent that caucuses are far closer to the original town meeting tradition, I can only think that's a good thing.

[Withywindle]

66. Great post, thanks for helping me put my finger on something!

I really strongly believe there needs to be an official place where old-fashioned face-to-face politics counts for a lot. Imagine! People talking to each other! In person! Making their case for their candidates and debating when they're actually in the same room together and using their voices and not an electronic gadget!

I think this is very important. It's complicated, but the secret ballot AND the opportunity to stand up in person for something are BOTH important to democracy. I kind of feel people in caucus states are lucky, because combining the caucus and the GE, they get a chance at both.

And yeah, it does mean that the most active and engaged and informed people get a greater say in the primary. Oh, cry me a river. How awful. :sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Good. I Hope All Those Agreeing With You Also Feel The Same About The Superdelegate Situation.

Lest you all be the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen...

[HughMoran]

70. Don't worry

They are the biggest hypocrites the world has ever seen.

[VotesForWomen]

65. sorry, but caucus-goers do not represent GE voters. it is the masses that count, not the zealots.

[mopinko]

71. it's the zealots that do the work. it is logical to assess that

not just who is a better leader- who has the better army.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

94. exactly

[jbm]

74. when President McCain is sworn in...

come back and ask what was wrong with your theory. At that point, you'll be more open to real discussion, and we'll have a long chat.

[mopinko]

80. don't hold your breath.

[knixphan]

75. Fired up!

And I got boots!

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

78. You're right -they do measure different things

and primaries by their nature are far more predictive of a genaral election outcome than are caucuses.

Personally, I think they should be beauty contests (at best). States that employ them to choose delegates do their citizens a disservice.

[kikiek]

81. Elderly people are left out. And we did vote for presidential, but they were not

able to support who they wanted for Senate and other races. At any rate it took too long, and the elderly woman with my mom had to leave in the middle because she was in too much pain. Mom had to leave because she was the driver. Others are on oxygen etc. They have a right to be heard too. I don't care what race it is. It should be a voting primary across the board and in all states. And mail in votes. That is the democratic way.

[RichardRay]

82. I'll go along with the 'democratic' arguments about caucus

vs primary when somebody tells me how to make the primaries democratic.

Got (paid) national holidays for voting?
Got (paid) alternate holidays for the ones who can't make it on that day?
Got secure remote voting for those too far away?
Got some way to insure that every participant has a full, complete and well considered opinion?
Got a way to make certain every potential candidate is fully vetted in all respects before the primary?
Got a way to provide alternate access for those who can't get to the polls on primary day for all the same kinds of reasons you note that prevent them from getting to the caucus locations?

And finally, I want at least a misdemeanor charge for 'Failing to Vote' for anyone who doesn't get there and cast a ballot.

Give me all that and I'll come up with another list. Remember that until the 70's candidates were pretty much picked by the party Good Ole Boys - Democrat, Republican and just about any other political flavor you care to mention. The way we do it now is way better, and I have no doubt we'll find even better ways to do it in the future. For now, this is it.

Just thole.

[eridani]

89. Indeed. Caucuses reflect the opinions of doorbellers and phonebankers n/t