I'm so sick of the caucus hypocrisy.

[BzaDem]

When people argue that caucuses disenfranchise the elderly, disabled, single mothers, soldiers, and others, Obama supporters always say "so what." They say that if you couldn't get off your ass to vote, then screw you, you should have no voice.

Now, those very same people are saying that the popular vote is meaningless, because caucusgoers are counted (gasp) the same as primary voters. They say that caucus participation is much lower, so each caucus vote must count more. (One poster even floated the number 5.5 times more.) So if you can't get off your ass to vote, then we need to correct for that, and make caucus votes count 5.5 times as much as primary votes. Because we can't disenfranchise people who didn't get off their ass and vote.

Unfortunately, this hypocrisy really confirmed my worst fears. I always thought that the right to vote was a democratic issue, and republicans were the only ones who played games with creative counting of votes. Now, I realize that anyone will use creating counting and ignore voting rights to their advantage, whether they are democrats or republicans. So much for that.

[billbuckhead]

1. These people are no friends to democracy, all they care about is race

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Eh?

:silly::crazy:

[Kittycat]

11. race baiting

[democrat_nanny]

49. Typo

For chrissakes, it's a typo. It's supposed to say, "All they care about is the race."

I really feel sorry for the OFB. You all see racism in everything. Even typos. Must be miserable.

[tigervalentine]

12. Excuse me?

Is it possible I heard you right?

[democrat_nanny]

50. No, you didn't hear them right

God. You've all gotten so worked up that you've successfully found racism in a stupid typo.

[cliffordu]

13. You aren't taking a duMP here are ya???

:hurts:

[anonymous171]

43. stupid, ignorant post.

Really, I had thought better of you.

[Mezzo]

2. IOKIYBO nt

[DJ13]

3. It IS a so what

Complain all you want about them, work to change the process for next time, but you cant ignore the caucus results now just because your candidate loses in them.

:eyes:

[roguevalley]

21. agreed, DJ13. How many times do we have to hear the process

in ENTIRE STATES insulted because someone didn't like the outcome? They all knew the rules going in. These are the same rules and processes that were used since way before Bill Clinton. I don't remember the whining then. As a person from a caucus state, I say fuck you to anyone who thinks that we are somehow less legitimate than others from states with primaries. Whether you like it or not, the rules are the way they are and you will need ALL OF US in the GE. Real smart, slamming caucus states and their people.

Whining about rules now is just an excuse and poor sportsmanship.

[BzaDem]

32. There were states whose rules prohibited Blacks from voting.

But at that time, you didn't see people say "the rules are the rules -- you agreed with them going in." They fought the rules. And thank God they did.

The rules say that superdelegates can look at the popular vote (including caucuses) when making their decision. So this isn't really even about complaining about the rules. That's just spin.

[roguevalley]

36. the energy over whining about rules would be better expelled against

voting cheating now.

[democrattotheend]

5. That's not what we're saying

We are saying that many caucus states don't report vote totals, and that the numbers CNN has are county delegates, not voters. If we can figure out a way to figure out the actual number of voters for each candidate, then we can count them and then the popular vote will be more reflective.

[BzaDem]

10. That isn't what many are saying.

4 caucus states don't report popular vote totals; the rest do. RCP uses the caucus state delegate count to estimate popular vote based upon turnout. If anything, this favors Obama, since losers are disfavored in estimating caucus state delegates.

What many are actually arguing is that caucus participation is too small to count it on the same level as primaries. I'm glad that you (and I'm sure some others) think differently.

[MadBadger]

6. Question, did Bill Clinton complain about caucuses when he ran?

[jgraz]

8. The complaining about caucuses started when the polls showed Hillary would lose Iowa

It's as transparent as it is pathetic.

[dchill]

7. Caucuses were NOT invented...

BY or FOR Barack Obama. THERE'S the hypocrisy.

[grantcart]

9. The only hypocrisy on caucuses is that of the Clinton side

The original feeling of all the experts - including the Clinton's own experts - was that it was going to be a short campaign season because Clinton was going to roll thru the caucuses.

First she had the experience having gone thru the caucus system in two national campaigns with her husband - knowing all of the rules and the unique challanges.

Second caucuses reflect more of the party activists and the Clintons had 20 years to find out who these people were and established relations with them.

Third Clinton had connections with the govenors and mayors who really benefit from the system.

Fourth the one with the best funding does well in caucuses - you can hire lots and lots of local state people who are known to move the local establishsments.

Everyone thought that Clinton was going to sweep the caucuses and the caucuses were fantastic then.

The Clinton campaign only turned on the cuacuses after they lost them.

Kind of like Bill Richardson.

[dchill]

15. One of the NICEST things one can say about Clinton...

and her supporters is that they are poor sports.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Caucuses Are Crocks Of Shit That Should Totally Be Done Away With. n/t

[blogslut]

16. Do you understand what happens in a caucus?

Are you aware that each precinct votes on policy resolutions and those resolutions that pass work their way into the party platform? In other words, our party platform is bottom up because of resolutions made on the local level.

[democrat_nanny]

47. Good, I'm SO HAPPY someone's talking about the platform

This is the same platform that I and the other Clinton supporters were left to discuss and work on alone because the Obama supporters wanted to "go party/" We tried our hardest to get them to stay but, they couldn't be bothered.

[TheDoorbellRang]

17. The popular vote WAS meaningless

Until it became clear that Obama would win by the original measure via pledged delegates.

That's when suddenly we started hearing about how important the popular vote was. But still she is behind in that, too, even without weighting the popular vote in the caucus states.

Now we're hearing how national polls are more important than delegates or popular vote, because of course polls are so reliable and unchanging. :crazy:

[otohara]

18. Caucuses Don't Cost The State Money

that's why they are done - in Colorado people complained and in 2000 CO held a primary - TURNOUT WAS TERRIBLE and it cost the state a lot of money. So it was back to caucuses - NOW I don't remember Bill Clinton whining in 92, or Kerry whining in 04. But when you're suddenly not inevitable anymore and your name is Hillary Clinton, well then caucuses are anti-body.

States have fewer dollars now, so who knows what will happen in 2010 in CO, they say now that going back again to primary has got to be discussed again and I agree, due to this years turn out. But will the state want to fork over the millions, I don't know and neither do any of the people on this divisive board.

[BzaDem]

19. I'm not complaining about caucuses.

(At least in this post.)

I'm saying that a caucus vote should count equally as a primary vote in "the popular vote", and I'm sick of Obama supporters saying one one hand screw the people that can't make caucuses, and on the other hand groveling to the people that can't make caucuses so they can count 5 times as much.

[KaptBunnyPants]

39. What we are saying, is that the people who can't make it to caucuses

exist for all political candidates. My wife didn't get to caucus for Obama, even though she wanted to. Don't you see that you are proving my point? Fewer people can make it to the caucuses, that's why each caucus vote is worth more than a primary vote.

[hfojvt]

20. I would like to see some evidence

Find me, say, 10 Obama supporters here who have said "so what?" to the idea of voter disenfranchising. Then show me that the same ten have said that the popular vote is meaningless because caucus-goers.

Then demonstrate to me that you understand an Obama-supporter's argument.
Iowa election results are here
http://election.cbsnews.com/campaign2008/state.shtml?state=IA

They show Obama - 940, Edwards - 744, and Clinton 737. It would be absurd to add those numbers to a primary vote total because Obama's total of 940 actually represents 40,000 caucus goers. The 940 represents the number of delegates voting at an Iowa State Convention. You have to count the number of actual participants in the caucus, not just the numbers of state convention delegates.

[BzaDem]

26. That is not the argument I'm talking about.

There are only 4 states that as you say, report state delegates. The rest actually report popular vote totals of caucusgoers.

And for the 4 states that report state delegates, RCP takes the turnout and multiplies by the percentage of caucus delegates. So the 40,000 caucus goers are reflected.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html


The point is, that is not the argument I'm talking about. The argument I consistently see is that caucus turnout is so small that it really can't be compared to primaries, thus the popular vote is meaningless. If I had the search feature, I would use it to find links to this. Though if you've been following posts today, you should have seen many just today.

[Diana Prince]

22. Colorado caucus..

I have 2 young children and was worried that I would not be able to vote, previously lived in primary state. I was told to bring them along, it would be no problem. There were at least 20 children that attended, they had snacks for everyone and the kids had a chance to see how government works.

[paulk]

44. how wonderful for you

I know two couples who were unable to attend the CO caucus because they couldn't find a babysitter and one young lady who did attend with her 4 yr old, but left before voting when her child, intimidated by the large crowd, began screaming at the top of his lungs. There were no snacks and most of the grownups were completely confused by the chance to see how government works. That mostly because the person running the precinct caucus had never done it before and had to read off of his clipboard at every step of the way.


ps - all the people I mentioned were Obama supporters.

[democrat_nanny]

45. Glad you and the kids had such a swell time

Personally, I had a fucking miserable time. Yeah, yeah, I helped all the Obama people get signed up and participate in Democracy and yadda yadda, some jackass will probably dig up some old post and try to argue with me about it. Whatever. We had no snacks, a bunch of screaming kids, almost no one over 65 because it was icy and cold as hell out and if you didn't get there at 4 in the afternoon you had to walk 4 blocks from the closest parking. There were a bunch of people running around with huge "OBAMA PRECINCT CAPTAIN" signs hanging around their necks and everything was a confusing, annoying clusterfuck. And that's just the way Bob Creamer, et. al. wanted it. His entire notion of a political strategy is to annoy the fuck out of anyone and everyone until you subvert their will to live. Fucking nightmare.

[pointsoflight]

23. I'm so sick of the faux outrage that comes completely after the fact...

...after your candidate loses. Where was this outrage when Bill Clinton was winning the caucuses? Where was this outrage BEFORE the primary season started?

The answer? There wasn't any outrage from Hillary supporters, because they assumed she'd win those caucuses. You only hear about it now, with all of those losses.

Don't like it? Work to change it for the next election. We're going by the rules that were established ahead of time, rules that everyone knew about and agreed to.

[BzaDem]

27. The outrage comes after the fact because the hypocrisy after the fact.

Which is it? People who can't go to caucuses should not count? Or people who don't go to caucuses should be accounted for? This hypocrisy came after the fact.

[burythehatchet]

28. Let it be. This is a campaign about an arrogant woman and her petulant courtiers

She would be the Queen if she could, just like George would be King. They are calling themselves Democrats but they wouldn't know a Democratic ideal if it was evading sniper fire in front of them.

[MADem]

24. Why can't these folks just "get off their lazy asses" and caucus?

[burythehatchet]

25. awww, that's heartbreaking. I think Obama should apologize to each and every one of those

good folks.

[BzaDem]

29. In case it wasn't clear, I agree with you that caucuses are undemocratic.

But I wasn't talking about that in this post; I was simply highlighting that many Obama supporters mock us who say this, while simultaneously saying that too few people go to them to count them like primaries.

[MADem]

34. I realize that; I thought the thread could use a "visual!" nt

[democrat_nanny]

46. No one needs their lazy asses

Why the hell would anyone care what the fuck these people want? As long as you have 50 reved up, able bodied young people to "rally for change," who cares what the stupid gimps want. What do you think this is, a fucking democracy?

(Unless they're gimps for Obama, then that's different)

[LeFleur1]

51. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

In my state we had a primary but the Democratic party did not count the votes.
I (and many others) did not attend a caucus because we were unable to. We did send our primary ballot in, but it was ignored by the Party.
THEN they called for a donation. I told them..."You don't care about my vote, I don't care about you."

Years ago I was able to attend a caucus. There were nine people in attendance. When discussing that with others I found out that wasn't unusual at all. That's when I realized the whole caucus system is bogus.

[cascadiance]

30. I'm sick of people cherry picking what's "wrong" when it doesn't work for their candidate...

Yes, I will be the first one to say that caucuses aren't perfect, but if they were working for Hillary, you can BET that she wouldn't be complaining about them.

Though there are negatives in terms of getting more participation in voting given their structure, there are also positives from this too.

1) These processes aren't prone to election fraud as primary voting processes are. For this election this is especially critical when we still have so much untrustworthy voting machine equipment out there that we must "trust" in the case of primaries. This problem can be fixed down the road and be one less positive aspect of caucuses, but for now, this is a big point in caucuses favor for those who don't want to be "scammed" by election fraudsters. Just having some caucuses running alongside primaries forces the fraudsters to not be as potentially blatant in altering vote totals, when honest caucus vote totals are totally different than primary vote totals.

2) The caucus process forces voters to interact with others and understand the candidates and issues they voter for more from a grass roots level than those being spoonfed to them through mass marketing advertising techniques. I'm suspecting this is a BIG reason that Hillary isn't as successful and why her campaign doesn't like caucuses as much, which has NOTHING to do with whether it's more or less democratic, but more to do with how well informed the voter can become before they vote in a given process. I like that about caucuses, though it would be better if we could get *more* voters overall to participate as well.

Without caucuses our potential for being "Diebold marketed" into an election result we don't want is far greater. Though ultimately the caucus process might be better replaced by something else, for now it serves a good purpose.

[doyourealize1]

31. Thank you

Dems...we should know better.

[KaptBunnyPants]

33. I'm sick of Clinton's supporters trying to change the rules in the middle of the contest.

Caucuses may suck and be totally useless; I haven't fully worked out my position toward them yet. But any move to change the method by which these elections are done can't happen during an election. When Bill won caucuses, they were a fine system. When Hill lost them, they were an assault on Democracy. The selection process is based on delegates, not the popular vote, because not all citizens get to participate in a primary. A caucus system does disenfranchise the people of states that use caucuses if they are weighed the same as a primary voter in a popular vote contest. A caucus takes many hours to participate in, and the turnout for a caucus system will therefore be much lower than the turnout in a primary. The person who takes the most pledged delegate is the only candidate who can honestly claim to have the support of the Party members. Of course you know this, and are only arguing for such an overtly self-serving change of criteria because it is in the best interest of your candidate.

We certainly have found out in this primary that Democrats will attempt to cheat the American people to take a title which they did not earn. You'll get no disagreement from me there.

[BzaDem]

37. This is what I'm talking about.

You're making the argument that caucusgoers should have more voting power (i.e. one person five votes), instead of caucusgoers should have the same voting power (one person one vote).

But if caucuses disenfranchise people since so few people caucus (including elderly, disabled, and others), isn't that undemocratic? Shouldn't voting be as inclusive and as easy as possible? Isn't that the whole point to democracy? Isn't that why the rest of the world laughs at our faux-democratic procedures?

And I don't think using the popular vote (counting caucuses equally as primaries, not less or more) or not disenfranchising over 2 million voters (FL + MI) is "overly self-serving change of criteria." I think it is a core democratic principle. I think many Obama supporters want to creatively count the popular vote and disenfranchise over 2 million voters for thier own self-serving reasons, and are worshipping "the rules" (that would allow for a revote) for those reasons.

And as far as the rules are concerned, the rules say that superdelegates can take the popular vote into account. That isn't cheating. Those are the rules. YOU should have protested them in advance if you don't like them.

[KaptBunnyPants]

38. You're damn straight I worship "the rules".

The rule of law, which is what this is all about, is the only thing which allows for disputes to be handled in a reasonable and non-violent manner. It's one thing for people to violate speed limits, or commit minor crimes, but to change to rules in a contest as important as the selection of the presidential nomination is not acceptable. And this strategy of attacking caucus systems, questioning their legitimately, is just another prong on the Clinton's campaign attempt to challenge the system she agreed to before the contest already started, just like your other examples of Michigan and Florida. Oh yes, those horrible Obama supporters... how could they not accept the primary from the Soviet Republic of Michigan? The people had their choice; they could pick Clinton or not Clinton, it's totally fair. And the Florida contest was equally fair. Sure, a contest in which no campaigning actually takes place is irrevocably tilted in favor of the name-recognition candidates, but the people had their say in an illegitimate primary which was announced as null and void before the first vote ever took place.

I know, you're upset. For some reason, you're really invested in Hillary. I was invested in my candidate, but he lost. With the state of the campaign as it is, so has yours. That's why Hillary is resorting to such gutter tactics and smearing the national Party apparatus for the misbehavior of the state Parties. She's just trying to create enough doubt and anger that the conventions are forced to change to rules in order to placate her supporters, but it won't happen. Those contests are not legitimate, and they'll be lucky to get half votes if any. The whole idea of having a new primary is a non-starter for technical reasons. If you could get together a legitimate primary in those states in time, do it. Obama has no reason to help you, it's incumbent on your side to get Florida's and Michigan's incompetent politicians to get themselves together if you want to resurrect your campaign. Good luck on that, but don't act like the people of those states are somehow victims in all of this. This is their state government that caused this situation, not Obama and not Dean, not the DNC. The State Democrats all voted for moving the Primary up, laughing all the way. I haven't forgotten the "screw Dean" buttons like you have, apparently. Now they try to hide behind Republicans and claim that they had nothing to do with it.


If you noticed, I never said that it's against the rules for the super-delegates to pick who-ever they damn well please. It's not against the rules to ignore the winner of the delegates which are selected democratically, it's merely an extremely anti-democratic gesture which will split the Party in two and doom the nominee. Not only that, it's the kind of knife-in-the-back moment which has the potential of ending the Democratic Party. So, seeing how unthinkable it would be for the Party, as a whole, to behave in so suicidal a fashion, it's not a scenario I'm that concerned about. I'm just worried that her collateral damage on the way out will lead to President McCain. Seeing as how you intentionally ignored my central point, which was that the caucus system is more rigorous so they have a drop in participation levels, I left with no option but to say you are being disenginous. One can't compare the number of supporters someone has in a caucus to the number in a primary. The point is undeniable and obvious, and I don't believe you are too dumb to know this. You're simply being dishonest, with me, and probably yourself as well.

[thevoiceofreason]

35. If you railed against caucuses in the past, you have standing.

If this is just a new vent for your disappoinment that your candidate ignored the caucuses, then you are whining.

Look at it this way. In how many caucus states did Hillary really put out any effort? One. Nevada. She did well there. In all the others, her campaign basically ignored them (although she did spend some time in Wyoming -- and GUESS WHAT?!? -- she did relatively well there). So you really shouldn't whine about a process that (1) has been around for years without anyone griping about it until now and (2) is much cheaper than an election. Remember, in many of these red states, the national democratic party led by the HRC type folks has ignored them for so long that the state democratic party has little money and organization -- this is often the only way they can do it.

[democrat_nanny]

48. I have standing

I've been trying to get rid of the caucus system for years. Or to update it somehow. It's a god damn arcane mess. Unfortunately, when there was an ammendment on the ballot to reform it 4 years ago, no one was handing out sparkle dust and magic ponies so no one cared.

[Rockholm]

40. Agree.

[eridani]

41. In Maine there is absentee caucusing for any reason

No one is excluded. All caucus states should consider following suit.

[rainbow4321]

42. HRC's caucus hypocrisy....

The same damn TX hybrid (primary/caucus) that she was threatening a lawusit over was the same one that her husband one in 92 and 96. Difference? HE won those caucuses.

Where was her outrage then? Did she threaten to sue? Has she reminded people this time around that it was actually a Clinton supporter who helped shape the hybrid system? Did she use her influence during her 8 yrs in the WH to "fix" the TX Democratic hybrid system?
After all, she is the one who claims to have roots in TX politics to way back in the 70's..surely she felt a need to rescue TX voters from this horrible, horrible system.

And how was it that she and her camp were "surprised" at finding out about the TX 2 Step when they had been thru it BEFORE...twice!!