Hillary has already said small towns don't matter. Remember?

[returnable]

Iowa doesn't matter.
Missouri doesn't matter.
Wisconsin doesn't matter.
Idaho doesn't matter.
Illinois doesn't matter.
Kansas doesn't matter.
Nebraska doesn't matter.
Minnesota doesn't matter.
North Dakota doesn't matter.
Wyoming doesn't matter.

And so on.

Only "big" states like California, New York, and, now, Pennsylvania, matter. Funny how that works, eh?

Why does anyone take her seriously? Obviously, the Democratic Party voters don't.

[anonymous171]

1. She's overplaying her hand soooo much.

[returnable]

2. Yes, she has. It's embarrassing.

She could've been a fine public servant. Instead, she's just going to be a punchline.

[tblue]

3. Who is she, really?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Nobody I know,

or care to.

[rox63]

36. I wouldn't minding doing shots with her

But vote for her as President? I don't think so.

[tritsofme]

4. Caucuses are inherently less representative of the popular will

when compared to primaries.

I think that is the only argument that has been used to any extent.

[PseudoIntellect]

5. She has used the argument that she has won every important state.

She doesn't acknowledge Obama victories, even in large states. And don't even get started on those Democratic voters in red states.

Caucuses don't disenfranchise any one candidate; if they are disenfranchising, it is to every candidate. Those voters are up for grabs and fair game.

[SunsetDreams]

6. the fact still remains

Obama has won more primaries and caucuses than her.

[jobycom]

7. They aren't "inherently less representative," they are discriminatory

Here's how the Washington state legislature described it while instating a primary that the Democrats ignore: The…presidential nominating caucus system in Washington State is unnecessarily restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm,
women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and
therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in
our democratic system of government.

You might notice that those are Clinton's strongest demographics.

Texas and Washington are the two states that have both a primary and a caucus. In Texas, Obama lost the popular vote by 4 percent, and won the caucuses by 20 percent, and used that disparity to win the delegate count even though he lost the popular vote. In Washington, Obama won the popular vote by 4%, but won the caucus by 37%. Since Washington Democrats divide delegates based only on the caucus, you can see that his delegate gain was completely out of proportion to his popular vote victory.

There's every reason to believe, based on polls and general trends, that Clinton would have won some of the states Obama won caucuses in, if those states had had a popular vote. Even the ones she would have lost would have been much closer, as Washington proves.

In other words, it's not Clinton who's ignoring the will of small states. It's Obama.

[murielm99]

10. Well said.

And said without slime, personal attack or name calling. This post was just like the old days at DU.

I hope those day return after the primaries.

[jobycom]

38. I was slimed a lot in the old days, especially for defending Gore

Gore was Hillary Clinton back then, remember? I imagine that Hillary will one day become Gore around here, and everyone will blame someone else for trashing her now.

[anonymous171]

13. You are forgetting about early voting, which gives an unfair advantage to candidate with

name-recognition (like Clinton.)

[jobycom]

34. Good thing no one recognizes Obama's name.

I've got issues with early voting, too, but that's miniscule in comparison to caucus inequality. The numbers are clear.

And early voting does not eliminate a person's ability to vote in a primary on primary day. Mathematically, it might give a very slight edge to the demographics who traditionally vote in early voting, by essentially giving them longer to vote. But the main reason certain groups vote more heavily in early voting than on election day is because they have more trouble voting on election day, whereas those who vote on election day do so because it does not inconvenience them. All demographics have the same opportunity, in other words, to vote over an extended period of early voting, or to vote on election day. That's far different from having a narrow window in which to arrive at a caucus, sign up, and vote.

And I know of no study that says that early voting gives any group an advantage. Not that it would be easy to measure, since it's nearly impossible to tell whether a group who shows up in greater numbers at early voting would show up on election day if they had to. In other words, does early voting discriminate against groups of voters who do not historically take advantage of it, or does it allow more equality to voters who would not otherwise be able to vote, on election day?

My objection to early voting is the same as my objection to having such a spread-out primary season. Voters voting one week are using a different set of facts to choose their candidate than voters voting a month later, since we learn more in that time.

Add to the mix the facts that there are at least three different types of primaries--open, closed, and combined ballot--and that even within those categories there are different rules, and you have a primary season that does not accurately reflect the will of the people.

We don't know who would have won if each state had held a popular vote. But to claim Obama is winning the popular vote is to be misinformed.

[dbmk]

21. Correct me if I am wrong

But doesn't almost all the caucases have the option of just showing up, enter your name for the candidate of your choice, and leave. Just like a primary?

[jobycom]

25. Sort of, with limitations, but there is still a narrow window for when they can.

A primary is held all day long, so shift workers can go before or after a shift. With a caucus, there is a narrow window when a person must sign in to vote. If you can make that window, you can vote. The people that Washington's legislature (and all experts who have studied caucuses, for that matter) say caucuses discriminate against have difficulty showing up for that time frame. Sure, they can make a superhuman effort to do so, but that's not equal representation or equal protection, when one category of person has to work harder to vote than another.

And that's not counting second ballots, where some caucuses allow you to change votes if your first choice didn't win. If you leave early, you don't get that option.

Oh yeah, and caucuses are not secret ballots, so pressures can be applied--another thing anathema to popular democracy.

In regular elections, by comparison, one of the methods Republicans use to suppress the black vote is setting up roadblocks on the way to polling places in black districts. Another is to limit the number of polling places in black districts, causing longer lines and waiting times at polling places. ALL Democrats understand that causing such bottlenecks for black voters while making voting easier for white voters is a discriminatory attempt to suppress the black vote. So why don't they see it on caucuses, when other groups have to face stronger difficulties?

And it's not like this is theoretical. Again, Obama won the Texas caucus by 20% after losing the popular vote by 4%. He won the Washington caucus by 37% after barely winning the primary by 4%. The proof is plain.

And Washington's legislation on the matter dates from the late 80s and early 90s, so this is nothing new. This discussion is had every primary cycle, in both parties (Mike Huckabee threatened to sue over Washington delegates awarded in caucuses this time). Usually the primary is over within the first month or so, though, so no one really lingers over the matter. This election has been close far longer than any in a long time.

[dbmk]

41. Thanks for the answer!

Granted there is the small window - and I'd say the public voting seems a bit strange to me - even if the idea behind the caucus is to foster debate. That can still be had even if you give people the option of withholding their preference.

One thing I like about them is that they put they seem to demand or foster more engagement, and put the decision of the party in the hands of those that are/become engaged. Again it of course has to be seen in the light of the issues you lay out, but still. Whereas primaries give a decided advantage to those with name recognition.

Ultimately I guess there is not anything stopping the party from just changing the rules picking a candidate using superdelegates - or have the chairman doing it. If we disreegard the need for public engagement for a moment. Caucases are a stepping stone between that and primaries - and as far as I can tell, most states would like to hold primaries, but opt out of it for logistic reasons. Others have adopted other approaches for reasons I cannot state. But in the end the rules are decided by the people in the party. State and nationwide.

As for not seeing the issues with caucases, I am not so sure most won't agree with the issues you bring up. But as long as it is not changed, shouldn't it still be respected?
(Thats not to say that SDs can't put the weight they like on it)

Anyways, thanks for the answer. I agree with the issues - but not neccesarily the level of bearing on the current race.

[jobycom]

43. Thanks for the thought-out reply.

I agree that caucuses are a good system to encourage engagement in party issues. I'm not against them for all issues. They are the best system for resolutions and party platform issues, for instance, where resolutions and issues can be discussed and debated. They are good for specialized offices, like precinct chair. In other words, they are great for deciding party business.

But the essence of democracy is the popular vote. For president, for even local offices, either the people decide, or there is no real democracy. That's less crucial in the primary season, since the people get to make the final decision during the GE--or did until Florida in 2000, anyway.

You are right that the current system is the one we have, and we just have to work with it. I wasn't trying to argue otherwise, even if it sounded like it. My only point is against those who say that Obama is winning the popular vote, and my only statement to that is that we have no idea if he's winning the popular vote, since the popular vote isn't measured. I'm certainly not saying he's losing it.

All of which means I see no reason that superdelegates shouldn't vote for Clinton if they feel she is better, and no reason why she should drop out now. Everything she is doing is within the rules. If she wins significantly in the remaining primaries, she's got a strong argument for being the candidate. If she doesn't win, she doesn't. The good thing is, the remaining contests are primaries, so there's no confusion.

And though I support Clinton, I believe I'd say the same thing if the roles were reversed. For whatever that's worth. :)

Again, thanks for your well-thought-out reply. I miss these types of discussions. :rofl:

[eridani]

23. Bullshit. Disabled and military voters can file a proxy form

The only thing you don't get to do is to change your mind and/or try to persuade other voters. Democracy isn't just about voting--it's about participation. In Maine, you can absentee caucus for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, and there is an organized movement to establish the same system in Washington.

How come Clinton didn't grouse about caucuses in 1992 and 1996? Same system.

[jobycom]

31. I'm not sure Clinton didn't grouse in 92 and 96. Others certainly did.

Washington's legislation was passed sometime between 88 and 92, so it was obviously an issue then. I remember in 92 when Jerry Brown was trying to Obama the Texas caucuses, and was handing out flyers on how to do it at all his Texas rallies.

Whether the Clintons ever said anything one way or the other on the matter, I don't know, since the 92 election was over by New York, IIRC, and Brown was never a very serious challenger. In 96, there wasn't even an opponent.

And unequal treatment is discrimination, the same as poll taxes and grandfather clauses. If a certain category of voter has greater difficulty voting under the rules, then that voter is discriminated against, and will not be fairly represented in an election.

Again, the facts that caucuses discriminate and that they do not represent the popular point is not debatable, no matter how often you yell bullshit. The Texas and Washington results prove it easily. For that matter, look at the numbers of people who vote in all caucuses--it's a fraction of the numbers who vote in the primaries. Check out Washington's numbers--670,000 primary voters, 30,000 caucus voters. That's what, 22 times more voters?

Washington
Primary
Obama 51% 354,112
Clinton 46% 315,744
Caucus
Obama 68% 21,629
Clinton 31% 9,992

[eridani]

46. The caucus goers have to say they are Democrats

Why should a party let people who are not willing to be a part of it have any role whatsoever in selecting its nominee? There is no advantage whatsoever to a primary over a caucus system that allowed absentee caucusing for any reason. Besides which, I'd rather have our state party own the results and not Diebold.

[cali]

26. Vermont, Maryland, Delaware, Wisconsin

all states dissed by Madame Entitled. All primaries she lost.

[jobycom]

33. What does that have to do with caucuses and whether they discriminate?

Obama lost New York and California, does that have anything to do with caucuses?

[PVnRT]

28. Did Obama organize and run the caucuses?

If not, how is he at fault?

[jobycom]

32. It's not about Obama, it's about the voters.

If the caucuses discriminate against classes of voters, they are discriminatory, whether Obama organized them or not. As such, they do not represent the popular vote.

[leftstreet]

8. BS. Caucuses = Popular Will, Primaries = Name Recognition n/t

[tritsofme]

9. That's ridiculous.

Caucuses shut out whole classes of voters that are unable to meet at a specific time, perhaps for hours.

Primaries are extremely more representative than caucuses, and to say otherwise is absurd.

[jobycom]

35. Second on calling that ridiculous, only because I can't think of a bigger word.

Super ridiculous? Look at the numbers in Washington and Texas.

And how can having fewer people show up better represent the "popular will?" Caucuses are as much about name recognition as primaries.

[MadBadger]

11. She didnt show up in a lot of those states and has said that the big states are the important ones.

[lapfog_1]

12. I wonder about her San Francisco snark

you know... the place where the elites all get together and decide things (she should know, Bill has been to The Bohemian Grove in Marin more than a few times).

Anyway, it's nice to know that liberal feminist Hillary really thinks about "too far left, latte drinking, volvo driving, probably gay or at least gay tolerant" San Francisco.

[Raine]

16. She'll put down SF when it benefits her

but then she comes to CA whenever she needs to fill her money coffer...HYPOCRITE.

[lapfog_1]

17. As a former denizen of "Baghdad by the Bay"

(an ironic name if there ever was one, glad Herb Caen didn't live to see the destruction of the namesake he adopted for San Francisco)...

Anyway, as a former denizen of San Francisco, I resent the hell out of the rest of the country (especially the "red middle" of the country) stereotyping everyone that lives in the city by the bay. And looking down on us, while at the same time, being jealous of us.

Even though I don't live there currently... I left my heart in San Francisco!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Could someone send a self-hating "ex-gay" preacher to perform for her already

So that her ardent GLBT supporters will finally realize what a phony hack she really is? Is that what it will take, or will they justify it just like they always do when it's the Clintons.

Everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows by now that San Francisco = gay in political codespeak. This isn't the first time the Clintons have demonstrated their willingness to throw a loyal constituency under the bus. Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to support the Federal gay marriage ban back in 2004.

[lapfog_1]

20. It's worse than "gay"

It's far-loony-moonbeam leftist, communist, socialist, hedonist, gay.

Who make way too much money.

[PVnRT]

29. During the 2006 Congressional race where I live

The big smear courtesy of John "ABORTIONABORTIONABORTIONGUNS" Hostettler was that if Brad Ellsworth got elected, Nancy Pelosi and her SAN FRANCISCO VALUES would be leading the House.

While Hillary is a million times better than that scumfuck (hell, even Bush is better), it's curious when a Democrat starts running around with code words like that.

[PBS Poll-435]

15. Um...those are called States.

Towns are within States. It can be a little confusing.

For further reference, please visit your local library.

[judasdisney]

19. BINGO

"Hillary has already said small towns don't matter"

This deserves to be at the top of the Recommends.

[donheld]

22. Hopefully in little more than a week Hillary won't matter anymore.

[bowens43]

24. I am truely amazed that anyone supports this woman.

she represents everything that is wrong with politics in America. A hillary presidency would be george bush in a skirt for 4 years. You think push abused presidential power? We would be begging for a return to bush after a few of hillary.,

[Maribelle]

27. What she really said is that her people in the caucus states have to got to work and cannot attend.

These hard working Americans totally matter to Hillary - - that's what she is all about.


Perhaps you might try to wipe some of the smog of hate from in front of your eyes. I heard it can permanently damage your vision.

[PVnRT]

30. I suppose no Obama supporters have jobs?

That's right, they're just naive college students and trust-fund limosine liberals. I forgot.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

37. Where the hell is my latte?!

:mad:

[Maribelle]

40. Perhaps you might want to reread what is in the OP

[PVnRT]

42. I did, and you're just repeating the "liberal elitist" nonsense

[Bonobo]

39. Good point. She wanted it all over by Super Tuesday. By her logic, that is a LOT

of "disenfranchised (completely inappropriate use of the word) voters.

[krkaufman]

44. ha! excellent point. and another great example of the media ...

... being unable to keep up with the enormous amount of bulls**t spewing forth from the Clinton campaign. They can only refute so many lies and distortions in a day without seeming biased, so the Clinton camp just keeps dumping it out there.

[cooolandrew]

45. Yep, It's Hillary world everyone is happy and she's not elititst rejecting states.Everything is just

great! Gas is free too.