Comments on Mock the Caucus

It's fairly obvious that there's a difference in the results between caucuses and primaries. Why is there a difference, and what does that mean? Damned if I know. I'm sure a lot of people will be arguing about that for months to come. One thing is for sure, though: after last night, the uncommitted superdelegates just got a whole lot more uncommitted.

Now Hillary is hinting that Obama should be HER VP on the ticket; cause your VP should always outshine you!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp

Josh,

ANY candidate who needs the superdelegates to win the Dem nomination-- ie, to reverse the decision of the regular delegates at the convention-- will be damaged goods straight out of the gate.

Period.

Josh Feit: Obama fans who are pointing out that Obama still leads in delegates and that Clinton didn’t exactly win Texas because Obama won the Texas caucus,...

Josh, I know you're never one to let fairness get in the way of your counterintuitive, clever-than-thou interpretations, but the Obama campaign itself isn't talking up any win in Texas. Check the Obama home page. It counts the # of states Hillary won at 14. That 14 includes Texas.

I'm sick of this whole thing. At first, there was meaningful discussion over the best way to run the country... but now this contest has been dragged into negative-land, and it's never coming back.

Supporters on both sides have aligned with the same candidate their gut reactions would've chosen if shown only a 30-second video clip. Honestly: How many of the partisans out there have made any attempt to weigh the issues? How many have NOT aligned with the candidate they weren't simply inclined to like from the get-go?

And now it's devolving into soccer hooliganism, as witnessed on this very forum. Everyone has chosen a side and busied thesleves with flinging feces like rival troupes of macaques.

Fuck it. Maybe I'll vote for McCain, as a big "fuck you" to the democrats for once again stomping on my hopes and giving my liberal ideals an ugly face.

meh @5: Honestly: How many of the partisans out there have made any attempt to weigh the issues? How many have NOT aligned with the candidate they weren't simply inclined to like from the get-go?

Speaking only for myself, there was a brief stretch where I switched from the Obama camp to the Hillary camp after reading a Paul Krugman column in The New York Times on health-insurance mandates.

Then I read a little more, got a little more perspective, and realized Obama's health-care plan not only wasn't the disaster Krugman was making it out to be, but was actually superior.

In his subsequent columns, Krugman has come across as a shill for the Clinton campaign. So I feel a bit better about my reconsideration.

I think it reiterates that we see mostly less-educated people voting for Clinton. She wins big among the clueless. I mean...it should NOT be surprisng that her two big wins would be texas and Ohio...intellectual wastelands, based on how they've voted in the past.

Above, with the screwy name

I sure agree - the master race, better educated and more money, mostly white, should ALWAYS tell the inferior what to do, what to think, and how to vote.

For sure. The new America Bush has created for us.

Shouldn't you be pretending like you're the what's what in Oly?

In Texas, Hillary carried women by a big margin.

Above, should we take the vote away from women, now that it is seemingly obvious they are just incompetent voters?

Do you call yourself educated?

Enough already! Let's get off all this infighting and create the Dream Ticket:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Wow... 2.5 million vs. less than 100,000. That's a pretty shocking differential. I'm not sure how anyone could look at those numbers and think that the caucus would be more representative of what the people actually think.

I have been having the same thoughts about Texas -- in a primary and caucus held on the same day, where both count for something, Obama wins the caucus, Hillary wins primary. The primary had 25x as many voters and so is more indicative of who the people actually want. Therefore, are primaries in general better predictors than caucuses of the people's will? (with the exception of WA, since the primary didn't "count").

Yeah, Josh. Obama's camp should definitely try to keep it a secret that he is ahead on pledged delegates, and what's more, everyone will forget that he won the Texas caucus if they don't mention it again. His best chance of getting more super delegates is to let those two obscure, esoteric factoids just fade away as if they never happened.

Also, old video, but apropos...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mY2jmgwwmFk

We would not even be having this discussion had Al Gore just run. The Hill and Barak could beat each other up to be the VP....

look at the vote totals in those big states. how did obama do (% wise) vs. the lead, the top two, and all the republicans combined?

For all the holier-than-thou criticism of the Iraq war, it is surprising that anti-war Democrats would reward Hillary for supporting the Iraq war.

When she voted for the war, she reasoned that the electorate would not punish her. If she voted against war, however, she'd likely lose votes. Thanks to all the so called "anti-war" folks out there for proving her right.

Bottom line is that a vote for Hillary ratifies the Iraq War and makes the political calculus clear for future politicians. When in doubt, vote war because the electorate will not punish you.

Half of Democrats like HRC, half like Obama. Put 'em together on the ticket!

Clinton wins the States that the DLC has traditionally poured the money and attention into for the past 16 years.

Obama is winning the States that the DLC ignores as unimportant, or writes off to the Republicans.

That said, it's not winner take all, and Hillary is still behind.

But now Obama will have learned the lesson of Texas and Ohio (go negative), and the press will be questioning Hillary's "experience" anew.

I predict more, and more effective, blood-letting for a couple weeks.

In Texas, second-place Obama outpolled all of the Republicans combined. I think it's very obvious that many Republicans voted for Clinton to give her the win, just as Rush Limbaugh suggested. There is no way in hell TX is going to go 2-1 for the Democrat in November. From that perspective, I think the caucuses were much MORE likely to represent the intentions of actual Democratic voters.

Josh, you're trying to confuse the issue here. The question of whether caucuses suck generally -- I agree that they do -- isn't what's at stake here. And your repeating Clinton's "we won the big states" isn't helping; it's a stupid argument, presuming that (a) winning states, even by the slimmest of margins, is more important in a primary than winning delegates, (b) "big states" only includes her (and your) handpicked list of winners, and (c) that small states don't count.

Small states DO count, en masse. In such a large and varied nation, how on earth can we tell who's ahead? Count the goddamn delegates.

I think caucuses suck, but as long as they exist, they cannot be ignored.

Another distortion: yes, three million Texans voted. But Three million did not vote for Clinton. She won by a hundred thousand votes. And another 230,000-odd in Ohio. She gets a few delegates out of it -- his lead is reduced by a few, 15 by my count.

That's WAY below what she needed, which makes yesterday a disappointment for Clinton where it matters. She's losing ground every day on superdelegates. Even if Florida and Michigan were seated exactly as they stand, she'd be behind. That's what matters.

I am mystified as to why HRC is aligning herself with Old Man McCain against Obama. I don't think it serves her or the Ds well in the long run.

@ 7 - Hillary won NY and California - intellectual wastelands too, huh?

I think a smart move would be be join them up on one ticket.

However, I feel if they don't do it now it can't happen because Hillary is going to keep going negative/throwing the kitchen sink in order to secure the win at all costs.

So I'm torn. On one hand, I want to hold out for an Obama win because if he does win in spite of Hillary's fear-based, Rovian attacks it really changes the tone of the campaign and makes him better able to fight McCain. On the other hand, if there is any chance of a "Dream Team" ticket I feel they have to forge it now before she gets really negative and ruins any remaining goodwill between the two.

would hillary or obama accept the veep position? i thinks not.

@1 Obama does better in caucuses because his skill is getting a FRACTION of voters REALLY committed to go swamp a caucus.

Hillary is better at media-driven big states politics.

Obama had a 2:! media muying advantage and loses TX and OH?

Does not bode well.

Btw that DLC explanation is total horse shit. The DLC didn't make Obama engage in doubletalk on NAFTA, or make Obama to be best buds or buy land with an indicted Chicago fixer, nor force him not to have hearings in the Senate. Nice try. Obama has flaws and if HRC can exploit them you can bet the GOP can even more.

Since there are no caucus states in teh general election those extra delegates OBama got in caucuses are relevant to his general electability and raise questions as to whether the delegate count reflects general election electability.

Probably the most stupid mistake Hillary has made is to not organize in caucus states and you can probably attribute Obama's entire lead in delegates to how he blew her away in caucus states she just didn't even try to organize.

IE his delegate lead has not too much to do with winning a general election driven by media nor rallies nor one on one organizing.

There is an actual shift going on in Texas back towards the center. The city of Dallas, long a Republican stronghold, now has a Dem mayor and Dem majority in the city council. Many other municipalities are going Dem as well , largely because Hispanic voters have become energized on immigration. Texas voters, both Republican and Democrat are not supportive of anti-immigration policies because everyone there are quite aware of the economic value of an open border for Texas. There may have been some ballot obfuscation by Republicans voting for Clinton, but when it comes to self-interest Texans vote their wallets.

unPC, you're ignoring the fact that some states are naturally predisposed to one candidate or another. obama had to spend 2:1 to close a 20 point gap to a 4 point gap. or 10 point gap. it doesnt bode well for hillary that she lost the margins she had simply because the other candidate spent more money.

Howard Dean is correct. At some point, Dems must have a 50-state strategy. Stop ignoring the "small" states. No matter what you think of them, and I'm originally from one of them, there are enlightened folks in these states. They feel neglected and ignored by the Dems on a national level. The GOP recognizes that, concedes the "big" states, and keep winning elections. However, if you look carefully at some of those Southern states, you will see Dems winning statewide races.

For example, North Carolina has had Dems running the state (Gov & state legislature) for at least two decades, if not more. VA has a Dem governor and senator. Kansas, Arizona and even Montana have Dem governors. There are many other examples. The Dems won't change this year. But they will have to at some point.

On the Obama/Clinton Clinton/Obama thing and whether they hate each other too much:

Get a clue, read some history.

In 1960 LBJ fought JFK.
Divided, bitter convention floor fight.
LBJ had his buddy John Connolly tell the convention "JFK has a termianl disease and is only kept alive through steroids."
That's negative poltics. A bit more harsh than a 3 am red phone ad which doesn't even mention BHO, duh.

And LBJ and JFK hated each other. Truly.
The result:
JFK picks LBJ as VP to unite the party they win the general.
(Spelling it out: you have to UNIFY the PARTY to WIN.)
Then how did JFK "get back" at the hatchet man, Connolly ?
Um, "In 1961 he was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Kennedy." Wikipedia bio on Connolly.
You then recall JC was there with JFK in Dallas, for that sad event.

So saying Barack and Hillary "hate each other too much" to unify is just ill informed baloney.
Learn from folks who knew how to win elections. JFK and LBJ were pretty good at it.

Ever hear of "divide and conquer"? "Divided we fall" ? The way out -- the way to win -- is to unite.
That why that Spanish saying "yes we can" says "we" in translation (actualy it's the impersonal "one" but that only implies an even broader "we")

That saying means "if ALL OF US get together WE can do it."

The saying isn't "SOME OF US alone can do it."

I'm not sure Obama's ready to accept Clinton as his Vice-President, unPC. o.0

More importantly, I doubt Clinton would take it. She's already been ignored in the White House for eight years, and she's old -- older than most Presidents were when they took office. She's going to be TOO old in eight years. Obama will still be a relatively youngish man in eight years, by Presidential standards.

I'm just waiting for Richardson and Gore to endorse Obama and put Clinton out of the running in one fell swoop.

(grin)

Hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, have been mobilized and inspired by the caucuses. Do not discount the power of the people.

The process indicates a shift in the way politics are conducted in our country. Participation with direct results? Open dialog within communities? Real, vested interest in a candidate?

That shit is revolutionary.

@27,

I don't buy that the GOP concedes the big states. They have a track record of getting moderate Republicans elected to statewide office in Massachusetts, California, and New York. It's the Dems who have been dumb enough to throw up their hands and walk away from red states.

This accounts for about 20%, or 262 of his 1340 pledged delegates.

What accounts for 20 percent? The total amount of delegates Obama's gotten from caucus states? The margin of victory in those states? If the former, it proves nothing. Obama would still have gotten most (almost all) of those delegates in a primary. It's not winner take all.

@33, I agree with your comment about the GOP successfully getting moderates to win statewide offices. Arnold is a good example of that.

The Dem wins in Montana are because of home grown moderate Dems.

That state is not hipster heaven.

Seemingly moderate R's do well - remember Rossi.

A week or so should show the Mc Cain appeal, and I fear.

Mc Cain is the third piece of all Dem. talk at this point.

Why the hell is American Samoa in the picture?