I think the Texas prima-caucus might work out well for Hillary

[BzaDem]

If Hillary loses the Texas caucus (and wins the Texas primary, which she has), it will really show something about the caucus system.

A similar thing happened in Washington. In the Washington state caucuses, Obama won by 28 points.

But then in the primary, where almost 700 thousand voters voted, Hillary only lost by 5.

Congrats to Obama for winning both of them. But in that situation, Obama's supporters simply stated "he won both, get over it" or "the primary doesn't count! hahahaha." Because of those circumstances, the fact that there was a 23 point difference in the results wasn't played up.

Now, both the primary and the caucus in Texas count. When she wins the primary (in which over 2 million voters voted) and loses the caucus, caucuses will be exposed as the undemocratic farces that they are. While Obama's supporters can go on and on about pledged delegates, the real truth is that one pledged delegate in a caucus state might represent 1000 voters, whereas one pledged delegate in a primary state can represent over 25000 voters. This might mater when the superdelegates have to make up their minds.

Thoughts?

[saracat]

1. Intersting , but I think she may take the caucus too, and that would fry them even more!

[psquare]

2. The Florida and Michigan "primaries" were just like Washington's

They were all totally useless "Beauty Contests". Everyone knew it, everyone's vote didn't count for squat, and nobody should care.

It's the political equivalent of "garbage time".

To have Fl and MI count is sheer nonsense, and something only a desperate campaign would even bring up.

Of course, with the "Kitchen Sink" approach of a certain campaign, it fits right in.

[BzaDem]

4. This is precisely the garbage that I am talking about.

You say the 1.7 million people in FL do not count. Fine, you are technically right.

You say the 700,000 people in WA do not count. And again, you are technically right.

But FINALLY, we have both a primary and a caucus in the same state that do count. Finally, we can expose the caucus system for the farce that it is without hearing some bs "primary doesn't count" argument.

[joshcryer]

10. Yep, I said this as the totals were coming in. Working people are left out of caucuses.

[anigbrowl]

7. Based on what evidence?

You might be right, but with 22% of the caucus votes in so far Obama seems steady with a 12% lead.

edit for typo.

[Tarc]

3. Agreed, it shows the inherently undemocratic nature of the caucus system

I dearly hope that these are scrapped by 2012. Iowa will have a shitfit, but oh well.

[anigbrowl]

5. But the Washington primary doesn't alter the delegate #s

not to dismiss the people that voted in it, but it has no effect on the delegate count, so it's basically a beauty contest. So given this, it's impossible to draw conclusions from it since many people might simply not bother to vote for Obama in the primary once they've seen him win in the caucus. After all, they have zero motivation to do so. It kind of surprised me that he won anyway.

Now what you think of caucuses in general are another matter. Personally I am OK with them, and I don't think it's a big deal to give up a few hours of your time once every 4 years. Caucuses measure the power to get a grassroots movement going and I figure it's up to each state to use the sort of system they think is most relevant. every candidate knows what they're up against going in. so complaining that one candidate does better in caucuses is just a complaint that their campaign is better at ground organizing.

[BzaDem]

9. Umm

Why do you assume that all the people that stayed home were Obama people? Why don't you assume that Hillary people stayed home too? Both candidates were on an equal playing field, in a state that had a ton of campaigning. (3 to 1 spending by Obama actually.(

As for caucuses, you may feel that giving up hours of your time one night is no big deal, but many others feel differently. Single moms with 3 kids they have to take care of feel differently. People who are working a second job at night feel differently. People fighting in our military oversees, or have to be away from their home on the night in question feel differently.

You can certainly make the argument that one delegate in a caucus state SHOULD represent 1000 voters when a delegate in a primary state represents 25000 voters. But then republicans can make the argument that those that pay higher taxes should get proportionally more votes. Or those that serve in the military should get twice the voting power. Or those that go to college get more voting power.

I think that's all crap. One person, one vote. Period. No arguments as to why a party activist should get 25 times the voting power as a blue collar worker. Enough.

[anonymous171]

6. Early voting and name recognition.

[anamandujano]

8. Excellent. I'm glad someone is thinking.

[casus belli]

11. In other words, if she can't win it, it's got to be broken.

Why is it only Hillary supporters want to change the f-ing rules after the game is in play? You don't see Obama threatening lawsuits and telling the public which states and wins are relevant and which aren't.

[BzaDem]

12. No one's changing the rules!

The rules say that pledged delegates get a portion of the decision, and superdelegates get a portion of the decision. If superdelegates want to vote the way of the popular vote, or the popular vote in their state, why not let them? The only people who are trying to change any rules are the Obama people who claim superdelegates have to go with the winner of pledged delegates, and not the popular vote or any other system.

[casus belli]

13. I'm referring to the threats of lawsuits

from the hillary campaign in relation to the primary/caucus sytem in Texas.

And PS, having different interpretation of the role of superdelegates doesn't mean either are trying to change the rules.

[BzaDem]

14. I agree that those kinds of lawsuits shouldn't be filed. n/t

[Buve]

24. lawsuit

the only lawsuit I heard about was downright locking supporters of the other canidate out of the room...

you should bring an objection to that kind of behavior

[d.amber]

15. Washington's Primary is nothing like Texas

as a voter in Washington, I knew full well that my primary vote would not count. I didn't even vote for Obama even though I'm an Obama delegate. I voted for Edwards who was my first choice before he dropped out.

Alot of people didn't vote. It didn't count. Especially if you took the time to show for caucus. There was no reason for it. Do not discount the caucus system until you have experience it yourself.

And don't use Washington state as a reason to support that Hillary would have won Washington. The results would have been different if we thought that it counted. But the primary vote did not count.

[BzaDem]

18. You're right. Hillary might have gotten MORE votes in the primary had it counted.

But we won't ever know one way or the other. No election is perfect. But I'll take an election with over 600,000 voters over a caucus as a measure of the will of the people any day of the week.

(Note that Obama did win the primary too. I'm just saying he won it by a tiny fraction of the margin he won the caucus by.)

[Buve]

23. anicdotal

What you did is great.. my wife and I didn't vote in the primary cause it didn't have anything to do with anything. (hillary supporters, both of us)

[AX10]

16. Caucus's should be outlawed!

[tandem5]

17. so one can vote in both primary and caucus in texas?

is this some sort of test of voter conviction for one's candidate?

[BzaDem]

20. Not only can they, it is **required.** You cannot vote in the caucus if you didn't in the primary.

[TeamJordan23]

19. Were the Clintons complaining about the caucus system in 1992 and 1996? nm

[BzaDem]

21. No, because there was no reason to at the time.

There are many problems with our electoral system, but they don't get attention until they actual show their ugly heads. That doesn't mean that Clinton is an opportunist for complaining about it now; it is just a fact of life. People don't pay attention to problems that don't affect anything. Bill Clinton won almost all the states, so it didn't matter. The GE was the focus.

[anigbrowl]

25. That tells you everything

My understanding was that the caucus systems exist in the first place to give voice to a candidate with less name recognition etc. so they can get a grassroots movement going. Sauce for the goose, and the gander. In my view Hillary had both the experience of how important the caucuses could be and the money and name to organize, so it's her own darn fault for not having had a strategy to win at caucuses before the whole thing started.

[Buve]

22. Washington State

I'm a delegate to the king county (seattle) convention. I'm working on a pretty motivated speech and combined motion to move to a primary in the 2012 election.

This farce has to stop. The democratic party can't stand for a process that disenfranchises one of its largest demographics.