For you Caucus whiners, it is your states fault, not the DNCs. And Hillary......

[KansasVoter]

You Hillary fans whining about caucuses are clueless about why there are caucuses.

If you live in a state with a causes then complain to your State Government because they did not want to fund a primary. The democratic party in those states HAD to fund the Caucuses since the state would not fund a primary.

If your state did not hold a caucus then shut up because only your state should matter to you.

And I think the real reason you are mad is because Hillary had NO IDEA how to campaign in caucus states and was clueless about opening offices and gaining ground volunteers and got her ass kicked in the causes states.

And somehow since Obama was "ready to campaign on day one" and you think it is unfair.

The only unfair thing about the caucuses is how prepared Obama was to deal with them. Hillary, who had all the money and experience and staff to deal with every election possibility did not prepare for caucuses.

And she knew about the caucuses for about 4 years before the first one.

Her arrogance stopped her from winning this nomination.

That should tell you a little about how she will run the country.

[featherman]

1. Caucuses and conventions have a long history as a means of delegate selection

I find it quite amazing that some on a democratic board would favor only the relatively modern "state-wide primary" as a means of delegate selection.

Statewide primaries, especially in larger states, inevitably favor the well-financed, big name candidates and effectively shut out the Kucinich, Dodd, Huckabee type of candidate.
Participation in most years is so low as to limit candidate selection to a minority of party members anyway.

The further question is what kind of primary: closed, open, partial. In open and partially open primaries the process is vulnerable to organized mischief by the opposing party that can skew the vote in favor of a candidate that actually loses among "same party" voters as occurred (both ways) this year.

Conventions and caucuses have no such mischief problem and the results reflect the dedication and organization of the most dedicated party workers. And, after all, we do select our candidate at an "undemocratic" convention rather than one big "national primary"

I am in favor of reform: maybe a series of 6 regional primaries spread weeks apart but even a system like this tilts the playing field in favor of the well-funded Clinton and Obama type candidates and is heavily biased against the Edwards type. So there is that.

[Joyce78]

2. "Are arrogance stopped her from winning this nomination".

I've had it. Does that sentence from your message make any sense?

[KansasVoter]

4. Fixed. Sorry!

[Joyce78]

6. lol ... thank you!

[DevonRex]

3. I loved our caucus. We worked hard before it and got the vote

out, 500% more than normal. We met our neighbors there - the ones we didn't meet when we were knocking on doors.

We also were able to vote on the state party platform and to recommend changes. It's the best way to get people to be active and informed, IMO.

So no whining here...

Of course Obama won and that was fantastic.

[Labors of Hercules]

5. It isn't like she shouldn't have known INTIMATELY how to win them...

Bill had to win the same states when he ran. I didn't hear Clinton supporters bitching about them then, and nothing's changed since. :shrug:

[Thrill]

7. I didn't hear any complaining about caucuses at the beginning of the process

Why are we hearing it now?

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I wrote my Kansas state rep to ask for a primary election

He is a repuke (and a fundie minister on top of that).

His reply blamed the Democrats for not being prepared to handle the crowds at the caucus sites. Then he said he agreed, we need a primary election rather than a caucus.

But I had to laugh - he couldn't resist that chance to get a dig in at the Dems. Typical repuke.

[sandnsea]

9. She just lost a delegate at the NV Convention

Because the Obama campaign did a better job getting their supporters to it. Are conventions unfair too?? And what about Denver. Is it unfair because party activists have a better chance of being elected than regular voters. The whole thing is ridiculous and I can't understand Democrats choosing to be lied to - again - after 8 years of Bush.

[skipos]

10. Hillary LOVED caucuses

before she started losing them

"I want to thank all of my supporters and everyone I have met in Iowa over the past 11 months. I am in awe of your commitment to the WONDERFUL TRADITION OF THE CAUCUSES. Now they are here, and I hope that on January 3, you will stand up and be counted for me." Hillary, before she lost Iowa.

[KansasVoter]

12. LOL....perfect Skipos!

[Beregond2]

11. This isn't the case here in WA.

We HAVE a primary, but the state democratic party refuses to recognize it, and has caucuses too. It's an embarrasing situation that makes the Dems look idiotic.

I participated in the caucus, and it was a complete mess. No one had a clue what they were doing. The county convention that followed was even worse. I was all fired-up to become involved in the state party, but after those two fiascos, no way. My blood pressure can't take it.

[Undercurrent]

13. Bill won in caucus states and Hillary didn't

He didn't complain about the system back then. He knew how to win caucuses, and how important they are. Why is Hillary complaining now? We know the answer to that.

Personally, I love the caucus system. The caucus is a way for the voter to have input, not just on the party nominee, but the party platform, and other issues too. I always feel a surge of pride, and love of my country when I vote. Add to that another sense of power when I attend the caucus.

Caucuses are an American tradition, and perfectly in keeping with the idea of a real town hall meeting, or a jury. You meet your neighbors, discuss the issues, and candidates, and make friends. Ideally they should be small in size, and held on more than one day, or at two different times of the day to help with participation, but that is another topic.