Disenfranchising Hillary's Base: The Undemocratic Caucus

So Senator Barack Obama won the Nebraska, Washington state, and Maine caucuses. The caucus score is now at ten for Obama and one for Hillary. No surprise there. As I noted after Iowa, the caucus system is reminiscent of 19th century voting, or a system designed long ago for and by an elite male class.

Elites males represent a significant portion of Senator Obama's base.

The caucus system is undemocratic. It disenfranchises working class voters who simply do not have the flexible schedules held by the elite class. Unlike the primary, the caucus system does not make voting available all day long to accommodate people with all types of schedules. To make matters worse, most state caucuses do not permit absentee ballot provisions.

The disenfranchised include the elderly, the disabled, people with multiple jobs, caregivers, medical personnel, police, firemen/women, members of the military, blue and pink collar workers and women.

Christopher Hitchens notes the undemocratic nature of the caucus:

It's only when you read an honest reporter like Dan Balz that you appreciate the depth and extent of the fraud that is being practiced on us all. "In a primary," as he put it, "voters quietly fill out their ballots and leave. In the caucuses, they are required to come and stay for several hours, and there are no secret ballots. In the presence of friends, neighbors and occasionally strangers, Iowa Democrats vote with their feet, by raising their hands and moving to different parts of the room to signify their support for one candidate or another. …"

Make no mistake, this system of public voting advantages the louder and more aggressive half of the species far more than it advantages women. Never mind the more obvious intimidation factor, I think we all know that there are some women who will vote for Hillary only if their husbands are not looking over their shoulders. Just as there are some working class voters who are loathe to express their preference with their bosses in the same room.

In short, the undemocratic caucus system disadvantages and disenfranchises Hillary's base. That would be working class voters, the elderly, and women.

Will the media discuss this? Or will they merely chalk up 10 out of 11 caucus wins to Obama fever?

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2008/02/disenfranchising-hillarys-base.html

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/

and I'll use this opportunity to plug my thread for all Obama supporters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4468754

NT!

and you speak for all the wrestling fans with that slang term, dont you

It's never been a problem before.

:shrug:

you mean you never noticed before.

The Democratic Party has been moving away from caucuses and toward primaries for years. Sixty years ago they were all caucuses. Now only a handful of mostly smaller states have them.

Why?

Because caucuses are exclusionary and undemocratic by their very nature.

I went once, and I'm positive the purpose of it is to limit the voting to the hard core politicos.

Yesterday, in our state, people had to stand through hours of boredom in order to vote, and in some places there wasn't even enough room to stand.

I didn't bother going this time, because I'm "bi-candidate," like Margaret Cho. Thank goodness.

I think splitting the states delegates among a caucus and a primary is an excellent way to go..

A caucus allows an exchange of ideas, discussion, and information. I went with Momof2Angles and the Angels themselves because I had no sitter that night. My first caucus! man was it cool..

Well we had seats but after an hour two toddlers (14 months and 32 months) cant sit still.. My wife was nice enough to take them into the hallway where they loved running around and coloring with some older kids (looked like they were about 7)

When it came time to vote she came back..

Scumbags!

I just may abstain my vote for President or write-in someone else.

...trying to win such an undemocratic process.

With a quote from Mr. Warmonger Chris Hitchens and all!

I'm so sick and tired of the excuse making going on from the Clinton camp. If you're getting beat, figure out how to WIN, don't bitch about the rules of the game.

Obama won in places that are poor and hard scrabble, like Houlton way up north. You have no clue. There are NO elites in the majority of the towns that Obama won tonight. And from reports that's true in WA and NE too.

It's very interesting that this is a major issue now that Clinton's campaign is ailing.

It's either a pathetic excuse or a concession of sorts that women and, for that matter, anyone over the age of 40 are simply that much weaker, unable to think and act for themselves, too timid to brave the so terribly daunting atmosphere of a caucus room. Which in turn surely suggests that Mrs. Clinton herself would be bullied horribly into submission by domineering males during her Presidency, unable to act for herself, persistently bursting into tears.

So, really....

I think we all know in our hearts that certain people are making pathetic excuses, don't we?

Most people were working class and we went 2:1 for Obama.

WA state caucus attendance rates compare very favorably to voting rates in odd year primary elections.

That someone hasn't blamed Obama's Maine win on the influx of Somali immigrants in the Lewiston/Auburn area yet. Maine breaks all the memes against Obama. It's a working class non-culturally diverse* area that is adverse to fad movements. Just accept that Obama is a good candidate already.

*Maine is so non-culturally diverse, we still consider French-Canadian as a minority group. A glorious tribute to the 1920's when racism didn't require leaving your skin color. :sarcasm:

So your point is moot for that one, anyway.

And women are the lifeblood of the Democratic party. There's no reason we can't hold our own in a caucus.

group or so it seems, like Obama's supporters did in Las Vegas. Evil is as evil does. Obama is sneaky - I'm not getting good vibes from the man or his supporters.

for having one major BLOWUP today at this repetitive juvenile stupid idiotic CRAP.

Were you born yesterday, seriously?? Have you EVER been involved in politics before? Caucuses have been around for 100 years. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING candidate knew about the caucuses and OMG.. Bill Clinton participated in caucuses in 1992 and 1996 and didn't complain and whine. Grow the frick up. Do some research. Stop. Whining.

Evil my ass. :mad: :nuke:

Anyone read the irony above? Don't cry, it cried.
Let's face it, the media will turn on your boy, and so will you.
That's why 80% of Europe would prefer to see Hillary in the most powerful office on the planet.
It affects them as well.
And they vote on the RESUME.
That's right, they vote.
They don't just not show up or vote "absent"

Obama is like a new flavor of Mountain Dew. His sales will drop as soon as people understand the ingredients... Illinois high fructose corn syrup. Sounds sweet but it's bad for you. :)

Obama supporters are SO .....

NAIVE!

80% of Europe prefers Hillary? do you have a link, please?

resume?

check out the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov) :

Senator Clinton, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

resume-schmesume....

I live in a lower income area of south King County, and convened 10 precincts, 7 of which had no regular Precinct Committee Officers. All the people who showed up were working class, and the overall color scheme was much less white than in 2004. In one precinct that had a single attendee in 2004, 50 people showed up. I'd like to see us become more like Maine in absentee provisions, though. Currently we have pre-votes available for disability, military service and religious reasons, and it needs to be more.

If you walked in a caucus room supporting your candidate and someone supporting another came up to to ask why yu support your candidate, would you just fall to the ground and crawl over to their corner?

The deceptive allusion that people "are pressured" to vote for anyone in a caucus is nonsense, especially if you've ever actually participated in one. If your support for your candidate is so weak that someone can walk up to you and magically change your mind, then you didn't strongly believe in your candidate or are very docile.

It first occurred to me as I watched the Iowa caucus. I was thinking how that system would never fly in California where there is, at least in some communities, a higher consciousness about the rights of the disabled. And, as you point out, there is the problem of being able to get off the time to participate in the caucus and that absentee ballots are not always part of the process---it depends on the state.

The Iowa Caucuses have been happening for more than 100 years.

Over the years, we've had many politicians win them, but most leave
the state not winning.

Howard Dean was leading in the polls, but lost the Iowa caucuses big time.
Did he complain? Did he try to disparage the entire caucus process just
to pump himself up and find any reason (besides himself) for his loss?

No. Howard Dean left Iowa and went on to other contests. Just as every
other winning and non-winning politician who has participated in the
Iowa caucuses.

The ONLY politician to EVER complain, and lie and distort---in her own
words and through surrogates and exaggerations on blogs--is Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, is trying to rationalize her own failures.

Hillary Clinton is trying to weaken and disparage Barack Obama's overwhelming
success in the caucuses.

This is not about the caucuses. The caucuses are fine, just as they have been
for more than 100 years.

This is entirely about Hillary Clinton and her effort to destroy anything and
everything that gets in the way of her perceived-entitled victory.

She is shameless. She is a liar. She's "Swiftboatting" the caucuses.

Every Democrat should be ashamed of her.

As you joined DU in December of 2004, I assume you weren't with us while we watched, live, the cluster-fuck that was Iowa, and the manipulations that went on.

If there were few complaints about the caucuses, it's because so few people ever got to see with their own eyes how they went down. People who never attended caucuses had to rely on newspaper reports.

I've been involved in local politics, and I participated in the Iowa caucuses last year
and I was a precinct captain in Iowa this year--in one of Iowa's largest precincts.

Can you please tell me specifically what you are discussing, because I know of no
unfair incidents that happened in the Iowa caucuses or any other activity that
disenfranchised voters or was upsetting to anyone.

In fact, this year--the attendance doubled from 04. This year, we had lines of
people waiting to go into the caucus rooms and the rooms were jam packed. However,
it was fun, exciting and everyone worked together to be organized and to listen to
each other.

This year, despite record turnout--a 100 percent increase--things went very
smoothly. So I'm ready and waiting to hear how it was so horrible in 04--enough
to justify the Hillary camp turning the entire caucus process into a menacing villain.

So yes, I wasn't "on DU" during the 04 Iowa caucuses. I was in Iowa though, and I know
for a fact that no other politician or political party has disparaged and "Swiftboatted"
the Iowa caucuses like Hillary is doing now.

I see you are happily perpetuating this nonsense and you should be ashamed.

When I stated people did indeed complain, I was referencing people from primary states who'd never witnessed a caucus. Many of us who viewed what goes on at the Iowa caucus for the first time were appalled by the aggression, the arm-twisting, and manipulation that voters were subjected to.

Some of us prefer a little less excitement at the polling place.

wicked slow this morning

delete

If she is, it's very offputting and she needs to stop. It is like Nevada where the rules were just fine until it looked like they might favor Obama, then all of a sudden the Clinton camp started complaining about "disenfranchising voters."

If this behavior is coming from the Clinton campaign now (and not just from an anonymous poster on a message board) then it looks really ugly, and I hope it backfires on them bigtime.

Hillary said disparaging things about the Iowa caucuses a few
days before the caucus happened.

That's exactly when her polls starting tanking and it was evident
that Obama was gaining ground.

Hillary was fine with Iowa and the caucuses, until she wasn't
winning anymore.

She's very good at launching attacks at things, when the vote
doesn't go her way.

We've all been warned about the "Clinton machine", but no one
told us how much it whines.

I think it is safe to say that they both knew long ago exactly how delegates are chosen in each state and planned their campaigns accordingly. Each knew long ago how superdelegates operate.

I may prefer primaries to caucuses, open primaries to closed primaries, early voting to no early voting, popular vote totals to electing delegates. But whatever I prefer, the nominating process was established prior to 2008 and the candidates have planned their strategies and done their campaigning accordingly. Now that we are two-thirds of the way through the process, we can't very fairly go back and change the rules of the process, e.g. don't count superdelegates, popular vote not delegate count, primaries count and caucuses don't or vice versa.

If the candidates had known that any of the changes would be made they would have planned their campaigns differently. If primaries and their higher popular vote totals were to be favored over caucuses, you wouldn't spend much time or money on caucus states and would concentrate more of your resources in primary states. If you had known that delegates might be awarded from states in which everyone agreed not to campaign, participate, or get delegates, you might not have agreed not to campaign. If you had known that superdelegates might somehow have their power restricted, you might not have spent as much time and effort securing endorsements from them.

certain candidate..they have almost run me off with their ignorance..and still may..

oh and i was an Edwards supporter, uncommitted today..so i have no dog in this foolish fight here..

i worked as a co-captain for a caucus in Iowa..and i will tell you this system disenfranchises many many americans.

and for those who are shy..it is a deadly system.

but more so...active military are excluded in perhaps the most important votes they have..

as well as those infirmed..elderly, young moms..and working people..

it is the worst system i have ever seen and open to much of the cheating that went on in Iowa!..some i saw with my own eyes!

fly

flyarm, I had no idea that 'one person, one vote' was so controversial at DU.

At least when I point out the problem with caucusing I am not attacking Obama. I expect him to be the nominee.

i am very close to leaving Du..

fly

It's not like the caucus system can be reformed in time to hurt Obama. At one time or another, the caucus system disadvantages everyone's candidate. Never mind all the voters it hurts. Or the concept of 'one person, one vote!'

It's pretty bad when other countries have a national holiday so that everyone can easily vote, but here in the U.S., we say if you can't show up at this exact time and vote publicly, well too freakin' bad.

This election is a real eye-opener. People are crazier than I realized.

don't be disingenuous. You did not just attack caucuses, you attacked them specifically because they are presumably producing victories for Obama.

Not only that, but the idea of women being bullied is pretty ridiculous. I am sure there are some timid and fearful women, but that does not fit 98% of the women I have met in my lifetime.

I, for one, appreciate your post and the link.

that are even pointed in Edwards supporters directions..

and it is one candidates supporters that are doing the incredible attacking..and personally i have had it here..i spend more time reading other web sites..

and i am seriously considering not donating this time as i see this as an administrative problem here at du..it is out of control and downright ugly..this is not the democratic party i have belonged to and worked for and with my entire life..i do not recognize my party any longer..and what i do recognize ..i don't like one bit! in fact it is revolting to me.

i do not like either of these candidates..but i was always willing to go and vote in November for either one..now i am not so sure..i believe i may sit it out if one of these candidates is the nominee..and his supporters have themselves to credit ...

disgusted..fly

You're seriously going to vote (or not) based on how obnoxious some anonymous people are on the internet?

i have seen it up close and ugly!

and i have seen cheating..and i have seen some of the slimiest shit i have ever seen around an election this time!

i have had it.

oh and ps..i was an elected delegate to the convention in 2004..

fly

flyarm.

I went to the Nevada caucus prepared to like it. I hated it, and not only because my candidate (Edwards) didn't have enough supporters in our caucus to be "viable." Although that was bad enough -- as a writer, I could only compare the experience to receiving a public rejection letter saying, "neener, neener, nobody likes your ......"

And you're right; it disenfranchises many people who can't attend. Those who don't like loud, raucous politicking, are at a loss. I didn't get intimidated insofar as I went ahead and did what I'd planned to do as a fallback strategy, but it was unpleasant having to contend with this pressure, rather than voting in the privacy of a curtained booth.

Lastly, both the Obama and the Hillary supporters, even the volunteers running it and counting the totals, wore T-shirts and carried signs proclaiming their allegiance. As far as I could tell there wasn't any cheating on the figures, just complete disorganization. But having those blatant loyalty-signals doesn't inspire much confidence in their even-handedness.

:nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity::nopity:

Just because I'm a woman DOES NOT MEAN that I have a responsiblilty to vote for Hillary Clinton.

I am not only a woman, but a mother. I watched that woman raise her hand and say yes to bush's IWR for purely political reasons thinking that it would help her in the general election against the republicans, because she thought she already had the primary in the bag. She played a part in sending our kids into a war that was unnecessary and without the proper equipment to keep them safe! A war that also cost the lives of mothers and their children in Iraq.

Even after the fiasco that became the Iraq war, she still to date has yet to admit that she made a mistake. She then votes to give Bush the authority to attack Iran from inside Iraq. While in a presidential campaign, she took the time to stop campaigning for a last minute vote on Kyl/Lieberman, making a POINT of flying back on a rush to vote FOR a measure that could cost the lives of even more of our troops, not to mention innocent Iranians who are fighting to make things better in their own country without the "help" of the US.

My obligation, as a woman, is to vote for the BEST candidate. The one who represents my values and what I hold dear. I have made my choice based upon the EVIDENCE.

You and the organization you site, Guerilla women... are small minded and sexist. Your actions actually degrade women and attempt to deny them the opportunity to be intellectually honest.

I don't pick my candidate based upon anatomy. I pick my candidate based upon intellect, humanity, common sense and decency!!!! To do otherwise is a slap in the face to all women who have struggled to give us the right to vote, etc.

And you criticize this group? Do you know anything about Tennessee? Looks like a worthy website to me.

and that is a "vote Hillary because she has a vagina" website.

And there are those---websites whose audience are black men or women and they support Obama. They feel pride and they feel they may get someone who has a different understanding than the usual---white males.

What's your gripe against women feeling proud to have a woman in the White House and feeling that she might be more sensitive to the interests of women?

have posted the most idiotic comment that I've seen today. THAT is amazing.

a mistake and elect the wrong person for the position. Uneducated voters are checked with those who know better; i.e., superdelegates and in the GE electoral college. :sarcasm:

I seriously do.

but there are still many undemocratic aspects to it, and each time progress is made they always end up making something new up to make sure not to much progress is made. When they stopped having the nominations in smoke filled rooms they also gave made up super-delegates.

I think it's time for Hillary to call it a day, go back to whatever state she pretends is home, and quit crying about everything she can't manipulate to her advantage.

lol whatever.

He's also guilty of copying her policies. Voters won't be naive after the media goes after him. You know it's got to be his turn soon... after all, sooner or later someone's going to hate him, just like they hate the Clintons. They won't be pouting when she fixes their problems.

it's nice to hear a rational voice. Who knew Obama fans were so irrational?

You know I've been saying it on your blog, but he should be sued for copyright infringement:

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5784

I wonder if you really believe all this. The hordes of young women at the caucuses would beg to differ with you. The women who are invariably in charge at them would beg to differ with you. Are you really so caught-up in your fantasy scenario that you can't see reality?

Clinton and Obama went into the caucuses on an even playing field. There was nothing preventing Clinton's "base" from swamping the caucuses. Apparently they are just too lukewarm in their support for her to be bothered. Clinton lost because the people who are most motivated to get involved in this election are not convinced that more "free" trade and Reagan-Lite is going to help them, any more than it did in the nineties. They are not willing to support someone who is willing to throw away the wealth of this nation on an idiotic war because she was too cowardly to do the right thing.

This isn't about the system, it isn't about race, it isn't about gender. It's about who people trust to stand up for them, and for what is right.

The critiques we hear about caucuses are valid - there's no secret ballot, and the more numerous supporters can shout other people down, but I didn't find that my experience when I went to my caucus in Colorado.

There are some things in caucuses you get that just aren't there in primaries.

You get people arguing passionately for their candidates, on all sides. You get to see your neighbors and talk with them about the races & the country. It's democracy in the raw.

You don't really see that in a primary or a general election - you just go in, sign in, fill out the bubbles or touch the screen to vote, and you're done. No campaigning is allowed within 200 feet of a voting place.

Sure there's a lot of ruckus, and some of that may be negative, and there's all the scheduling issues that are addressed in elections by having them all day, but I enjoyed all the interaction that you can only get at a caucus.

-- it does sound like an enjoyable format. I think this same type of event can be held without disenfranchising working class voters, etc. This is America, or it was before Bush came along, everyone is supposed to be free to vote.

I will not be able to vote for Hillary. People writing this stuff have some serious man hating issues.

You have self-hating issues: When you get sick and can't afford health care, you will have only yourself to blame. Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards supporters would get Universal Health Care. Barack Obama supporters get "Yay Hillary didn't win.: I'd stick to the issues, buddy.
When you have a daughter one day, I want you to look down at that adorable little "man-hater" and lie right to her face: "Yes, honey. If you had the best resume, you'd get the job even though you're female." Then flash back and read your pathetic comment.

As a 27 year old man I have to distance myself comments of narrow minded jerks all the time. If you think there is "man hating", get on MSNBC, dude. The real hate: backwards men like yourself hate Hillary. You can dish it out but can't take it. Somebody call Whine-One-One and have the Wahmbulence bring me a Wahmburger with some french cries.

A Giants fan against Hillary is also kind of traitorous. I'll just throw that out there, Judas.

That has nothing to do with who they've been going for either. I'm just talking completely conceptually, the process is extremely flawed. Why does ANYONE allow these to occur instead of straight elections? I don't get it. It just seems so non-chalant and illegitimate of a method, that I'm a bit perplexed as to how it actually exists. Is it a cost issue?

you'll notice that it's mostly the smaller states that still have them.

state, and never really understood the process before this election.

I was astonished to hear that some states don't even require proof of residency?! ... and registered ReThugs can participate in the Democratic caucus?! WTF are ReThugs allowed to influence our races? It seems absurd to me.

Before anyone jumps all over me ... I'm discussing the process, not the results this election. This is the process we currently have, and have to accept it for what it is.

at least in part. Here in Nevada, the state pays for the primaries. (And we have them, for all the lower-on-the-ticket offices that are being contested intra-party.) Election workers get paid; not hugely, but enough that I grabbed eagerly at the chance when I was unemployed.

The parties pay for the caucuses. They're organized and run by unpaid volunteers. (Maybe a few higher-up organizers are paid by the party, but the vast majority of the caucus workers aren't.) Furthermore, the parties reimburse the school system, etc. for their extra janitorial services on caucus day.

So you might think it's advantageous from the state's standpoint to have caucuses. But here it seems we're getting the worst of both worlds-- caucuses with all their problems on the presidential contenders, and poorly-attended but expensive primary elections for the other offices. In fact, with two weeks of early voting for primaries as well as the general, many voting sites are almost deserted on the day of the primary.

The only real upsets have been Hillary's--in Massachusets and in New Hampshire, among others.

And I don't like them floating the idea that women aren't voting for Hillary because their husbands will beat them if they do or something. "I think we all know that there are some women who will vote for Hillary only if their husbands are not looking over their shoulders." The poor dears. :eyes:

Yeesh--what drivel.

I hope this discussion continues after the Election. I think it will. Having a chat bout' it ... now ... in DU ... not going anywhere. You can see what kind of replies you are getting. :eyes:

Myself, being a cynical old bastard, I can always spot the irony.

This one is simple. If Clinton won a Primary that used electronic voting machines by more than 1% of the Exit Polls you'd see Obama supporters demanding a recount. But... you won't see Obama supporters saying there is anything wrong when he wins by 80-20 or 70-30 margins when there isn't a friggin' poll anywhere in the country that shows that kind of difference.

Thanks for posting this. Don't sweat the ugly responses you've gotten. There are one or two of us that appreciate your post.
:hi:

I appreciate it. I don't think they would protest so much and so loudly if they didn't see the merits of the argument.

This is without a doubt the most insane election I've lived through, presuming I do.

Hang in there and pay no attention to all the monkeys throwing shit at you.

:hi:

:rofl:

man

Crybabyism?

You realize that Obama is at a disadvantage too being a black man in America. Yet he has overcome stereotypes and prejudices and turned himself into a successful candidate that ALL people seem to be rallying behind.

He has also shown himself to have a higher quality of character than Hillary Clinton and her supporters. When for a year or more, when Hillary led in pretty much every poll and no one gave him a chance, he never used the color of his skin as an excuse to explain the lack of traction. He just kept working, he stayed on message and he trusted the members of our party to do the right thing and would stand by them regardless of their decision.

That's why he is where he is now. He never had a sense of entitlement about it. He never said, "it's my turn." He never mentioned how blacks have been the most loyal Democratic voting bloc for 70+ years and it was time they rewarded a black man. In fact, he never played the race card at all. The only people who have played the race card and the sex card are the Clintons. He only asked to be judged on the merits of his abilities and accomplishments. Having demonstrated those qualities to the American people, he has won them over.

It's called Democracy. Stop crying because it didn't work out for you.

He said it didn't work out for you.
He said Obama is at a disadvantage!

It's just like I thought. You guys dropped your guard.
Edwards signs on to Clinton, you wonder what happened.

Remember- 80% of Europeans would prefer to see the highest office go to Hillary due to resume and nostalgia for Clinton administration.

I'm with the socialists! Viva Hillary!

:thumbsup:

Insulting to women, too, painting them as wallflowers incapable of expressing an opinion publicly.

Are you saying that a mute person shouldn't vote?
And not to mention many people go with the flow, inspired, intimidated, or pressured by the MOB around.... HENCE THE ENDORSEMENT AND POLL SURGE IRONICALLY COINCIDING... One big Media FAD!

FARCE!

He ought to get SUED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!!

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5784

Apparently, you don't view them as worthy voters.

Shame on you and all who think like you!

Your hearts are as hard as any Pubbie I have had the misfortune to meet.

Good day.

if sour grapes is a brand of truth, i agree

:rofl:

here's a real steal: copyright infringement.
spread the word
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5784

and buried. Why? Because I could do the same thing with Obama talking points stolen by Hillary. And Edwards. And Edwards from Hillary, and Hillary from Edwards, and Obama from Kucinich, and etc...

But you can't copyright political issues. I'd like to see someone try.

BTW, nice Bash-Barack "news site" you directed me to.
----
Just admit it--your original comment definitely had the air of "truthiness" about it.

with it.


Whine Whine Whine Whine.

Because America sucks right now. George W. lost all the debates to Gore. To Kerry. He Won.

Obama lost all the debates to Clinton so far. Did we Learn anything????

I don't see the problem with caucus' I wish we had them in AZ

We "caucus" here on DU all day and night, but it is anonymous. I think (hope) it would be more civil when you see the person and they are your neighbor.

If votes by absentee are allowed, what is the problem? If it is so unfair why don't the party leaders in the states that have caucus' change to primaries, don't you think they would be the best judge of the process?

3 or 4 thousand people. Wow--huge compared to primaries.... NOT.
Not to mention the stares you'd get from all the KIDS and their OBAMA-TV flashing IPOD controllers.
Bourgeois nonsense.
Copycat tactics:
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5784
I won't vote for him anymore.

edit: there were over 4000 absentee ballots cast in the Maine Democratic Caucus - a record.

More people voted *absentee* in the Maine Caucus than participated in the Maine republic caucus...

:rofl:

You were never going to vote for Obama anyway, lying about the turnout proves your bias.

and citing a Hillary website...it isn't worth clicking on. You would do better to blame the weather, although the good people of Maine would disagree with you.

Read the facts below, and consider yourself DISMISSED.

http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/022078.html

More than 46,000 voters, including 4,000 who cast absentee ballots, participated in caucuses, easily breaking the record of 17,000 from 2004.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Organizers had expected heavy participation at the caucuses, but up to 8 inches (20 centimeters) of snow and Arctic cold were expected when many of the gatherings were scheduled. Even so, Democrats started Sunday with]b] more than 4,000 absentee ballots in hand.

Clinton *won* my Maine caucus and the delegates to the Maine State Democratic Convention from my town were *proportionally* assigned.

Not much different than a primary

Oh yeah, Hitchens is a fat fucking drunken Limey asshole - he ain't no Democrat.

Well since you said "ain't", I'd like to question whether or not you actually respresent the best interests of Maine.
Explain this:
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5784
She can implement her own plans... He can't.

I have nothing against Sen. Clinton, Obama is just the better candidate.

Maine has spoken - and...

As Maine goes, etc.

...just post links to a "Hillary news" website. They won't last long with that attitude...

Working class works all hours and days of the week. They often don't get the 8-5 hours. Especially service jobs which make up most of the jobs in the US.

that can't fathom the concept of "absentee ballots" and "proportional delegates"...

Call it Whathefuck Day

Sheesh

if polling places are not open outside of work hours. In most states, this is paid time.

http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200611/employees.html

Disenfranchised my ass. When only 10-15% of eligible voters caucus, I would suspect it is the diehards of the party that go, and if they want to bad enough, they make arrangements to ensure that they can go.

Very few people work 7 days a week, 365 days a year, so I find it difficult to believe that if someone wants to go caucus badly enough they can't adjust their day off, swap with someone else, etc., to ensure they go vote.

Jesus, is this whiny bullshit getting old.

losing bigtime!

Sour grapes...:eyes:

Secondly, I personally saw many women vocally supporting Obama at my caucus' precinct last night. Most of the middle aged white guys there were actually for Hillary. So your stereotypes fail.

It doesn't matter what you personally saw, we are talking about numbers, patterns, NOT individuals. Have you never heard of statistics?

The media doesn't see it that way and, even if they did, they like the story of Obama fever/madness/whatever.

There are people here who literally think for 2 seconds before they run in and vote. My sister had a conversation with a bunch of young guys who said they voted for Hillary because Obama is a muslim. Do not assume that our system is better.

x(

We sure as hell didn't invent the caucus system..it is what it is and little ol' victimized hilary was suppose to sweep Super Tues..did they have a Plan B? Or was it just like the bushites war on Iraq she favored where they didn't have a back up plan?

The fact remains that all candidates went into the race knowing the system and how it worked. Hillary has, so far, gotten outplayed. That isn't the fault of the system, that is the vault of her campaign for not creating and executing a better plan.

More of the type of garbage I'd expect from the Hillary propaganda machine.

If you've ever participated in a caucus, it is the HEIGHT of democracy. I've been an observer in a couple caucuses and they are fascinating to watch and participate in. Working class voters, the elderly, women, men, college students, the disabled, people with multiple jobs, caregivers, medical personnel, police, firemen/women, members of the military, blue and pink collar workers and everyone else participate in caucuses. I've seen them there.

So don't use that as an excuse. It's a lie.

If you're just feeling sour grapes and groping/whining for excuses because your candidate got schooled, then do something more positive about it.

not as many people are participating caucuses. All the people who would have been participated in the process if it were primary were disfranchised. They couldn't or wouldn't participate in caucuses for one reason or another.

n/t

VOTES!!!! :cry:

made it significantly more difficult for me, and many others to attend. Give me a break - 90 minutes to vote that doesn't even start until I am beginning my child's bedtime routine?

I kept my child up late and went anyway, but the time has come to make the caucuses more available to everyone and admit that they have the effect of disenfranchising those who work at night, have young children (esp single parents), and other groups.

Who do you think preferentially did not show up - the rich or poor?

I think Obama would have won most of the votes in my state, anyway, but since the delegates are not winner take all, even partial gains matter. Whoever would have been more likely to get the vote from the poor lost some delegates in my state.

I know that no system is perfect and that a primary costs more to run, but let's not pretend that the caucus system is equally accessible to the poor , middle class and rich.

eta: what the heck is going on? Sorry for the duplicate. My posts are not showing up for me when I first post them. Obviously I'm not the onl one having this problem.

oopsie.