Obama has won most the caucus states...

however that may not be a good thing. As I thought most the caucus states are Red ones and usually the election goes to Republicans.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/18/16419/9780/304/517343

What is it about the caucus in the Red states that is so dangerous? I'd say Republicans can go in and pick a "less desirable candidate...or at least one they feel is unelectable" helping them to be the candidate so the primary Democratic candidate will be the loser.

In the next election all caucus states in the Democratic primary should become just voters. Discussion and primary issues can be discussed in other forums. We aren't getting the best choice because of this process. It is not a surprise that Republicans would love this right?

Because Hillary has won the large liberal states that shows she is more electable against a Republican?

We should just go back to voting as a means of electing a primary candidate. The caucus seems too difficult and undemocratic to me.

Right...

:hi:

:rofl:

Don't even think you can laugh about that!

:evilgrin:

See, that's where your wrong .... CAUCUSING IS EASY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLxtP2UhSLY

As I told you before, most caucuses allow people to sign in and leave after the first round. An hour. In my state's case, an hour on a Saturday.

long. Who can even take over an hour when they are working?

Primary (all on the same day) and election day should be holidays. What could be more important to our democracy?

Don't feel to fucking bad, it was difficult for Hillary to figure out also!!!!

so could we stop with this red state caucus shit.

He's also won the most red states.

He's also won the most blue states.

He's also won the most swing states.

He's also won the most big states.

He's also won the most small states.

He's also won the most states with large black populations.

He's also won the most states with small black populations.

He's also won the most northern states.

He's also won the most southern states.

He's also won the most eastern time zone states.

He's also won the most central time zone states.

He's also won the most mountain time zone states.

He's also won the most pacific time zone states.

He's also won the most states that border on great lakes.

He's also won the most states that border on rivers.

He's also won the most states that border Canada.

He's also won the most states that border Mexico.

He's also won the most coastal states.

He's also won the most states with professional football teams.

He's also won the most states with one-word mottos.



Are you starting to see a pattern emerge?

Only states such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Arkansas. You know, the core of the modern Democratic coalition.

My state of North Carolina would count, too, but we went for Obama, so we clearly do not, and we're probably lazy, to boot.

population. Do they caucus in your state?

Just being snarky. Any state that does not vote the "right" way gets discounted and explained away by her campaign. I also resented the implication that people who support Obama are lazy. You didn't say that, someone else did.

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico... if only New Brunswick got to vote in US elections, Hillary might be pwning. Why won't the DNC admit French-speaking Canadian delegates? They never wanted to be annexed by Canada, why is it their fault they can't vote for Hillary?

either candidate would change their agreement if elected. They both said no. Why not we lose they gain.

The Americans union plan is a big elephant in the room that no one talks about.

:bounce:

False dichotomy.

Might be the very ones who care more about the outcome, the ones who care about our party, the ones who take the most time informing themselves politically. It sure would be bad if people such as these picked out presidents!

Me, I want the election decided by text messaging votes in. Much more democratic.

know what their motives are? You can get informed on CSPAN and in the news...at the campaigns, etc. If you aren't informed in this election then you never will be. It's been over a year. They don't have to be party members from what I understand.

Does that vary from state to state?

Especially if you're so concerned about the strategic possibilities of crossing party lines. We do know a good deal about what makes caucus goers, and voters, tick--in fact, there's a whole subfield of political science dedicated to what we call "political behavior." Fewer folks turn up at caucuses than in primaries because it takes a greater level of interest in politics. We know this empirically: poll the caucus goers versus the voters, you'll find, on average, caucus attendees are better informed. Becoming politically informed implies an interest in politics, and there are opportunity costs involved: for most Americans, there's always something more interesting on teevee than CSPAN. That's not saying that folks in caucus states are more informed (though this is sometimes the case), but rather that the folks who care the least, and who are least informed, are less likely to go through the caucus rigmarole.


Caucus rules do, indeed, vary from state to state. In Iowa, the one most folks are familiar with, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic caucus, and the same goes for the Republicans. For the Republicans to invade the Democratic caucuses, thousands would have to change their registration before the deadline, which would be noticed and invite retaliation. Besides, most caucus goers care enough about the results of their own caucuses that they won't bother crashing the other party's party.

Why make it harder for them? You think Republicans wouldn't dream of crossing into Democratic caucus meetings? The ethical Republicans?

2006 43.6%
2004 55.3
2002 37.0
2000 51.3
1998 36.4
1996 49.1
1994 38.8
1992 55.1
1990 36.5
1988 50.1
1986 36.4
1984 53.1
1982 39.8
1980 52.6

You'll notice that the trend you cite began to be reversed in 2000. In the off-year election of 2006, turnout of VAP was up by over 5% compared to four years earlier. In 2004, presidential turnout was up by 6% over the low point of 1996.

Of course Republicans might crossover, but they can do this in other types of election systems, too. Still, I do think that what keeps them from doing this in large numbers is the same thing that keeps you or I from doing it--for one thing, they care about selecting their own party's nominee more than they care about monkeying with the primary of the other party, and they also have an aversion to registering as Democrats just to mess with the system. Would you register as a Republican just to vote against Huckabee? I don't care for him either, but I'll be damned if I am going to register Republican just to vote against him.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that we need more caucuses. I'm just saying that they have their virtues, and that the states where they are the means of selecting candidates have historical reasons for using this system.

can win against him. Let's hope it turns out better than Carter did.

WOW !!!
:wow:

and that obama has won the majority of caucuses is just one more reason why obama can't win the GE

If you win a caucus you should actually lose delegates.
Our logic is way better.

Clinton's pull in these populous blue states demonstrates a stronger pull of the Democratic base in the GE. Obama's strengths, of course, are among disenchanted Republicans and Independents.

And this is why, against all our wishes, they should share the ticket.

vote for Obama with Hillary as VP? They had a chance to vote for Hillary and did not.

The end.

That said, I think they're a pain in the ass and would be very happy to see them gone by the next primary season. Right now obviously is not the time to change them.