Comments on O-Bias

True, but he had 1 more delegate in the end...so therefore it must be unfair. =P

C'mon, primaries are only more Democratic in the sense a McDonalds Value meal is more democratic. Clinton has nothing more than name recognition. If you want your democracy to be based on who is most popular, lets do primaries.

I'll take a number one with cheese.

Whatever, dude. Caucuses may permit absentee balloting (Maine, eg) if the state parties chose to go that route. They're not inherently exclusionary, but they do inherently attract voters who have studied up enough that they feel confident about expressing their views in public. The NYT went with the more universal definition.

Clinton has described it the same way herself, arguing that the caucus system favors "activist" Democrats.

If the rules help St. Barack good!

If they help eeeeeeeevil Hilary BAD!

Biased coverage? Clinton has been the beneficiary of the largest bias ever seen in the coverage of presidential primaries during the last generation: despite losing 11 straight primaries, she was still considered a serious candidate.

What other candidate in the last 30 years has been able to pull that one off?

Erica, did you change your name?

The only reason Clinton doesn't like caucus elections is she can't win them because her organization is top-down and Obama's organization is bottom-up.

So who's "anti-democratic"?

Barack's caucus will always be bigger than Hillary's.

Wow, where was Shrillary when Bill was winning the nomination back in the day? Were they whining about caucuses then? If Shrillary cares so much about the working class why wasn't she actively trying to change the nomination procedures all these years?

How disingenuous. Shrillary just wants to change the rules in mid-stream to suit herself. I am glad I changed my party to "unaffiliated."

Here we go again: The hand-wringing and crocodile tears for "the working class" who can't get off work to caucus.

I have been a waiter, a secretary, a file clerk, a hotel housekeeper - all classic low-paying, working-class jobs - and I never once missed an election or a caucus because of work schedules. Why? Because I knew when they were happening and - wait for it - asked for time off.

If you don't like the caucus process, fine. There's a lot not to like. But how about an intelligent justification for it, not some emotion-driven drivel about the working poor?

I suspect that the real reason there is such dislike for caucuses - at this time, and in certain quarters - is because one candidate has engaged voters who will passionately defend their candidate, and the other candidate has all the charisma and excitement of a mandatory training session on Excel, held on a Saturday morning, and for no extra pay.

Lazy voters love Clinton.

Okay this may be a very unAmerican unpopulist thing to say, but I think NYT description of caucuses is right on and I think they are great for that very reason.

I support moving them to a weekend for people who work, or making election days a public holiday like in South Africa, but honestly I'd rather have intelligent people who have been following the race and issues closely voting for my next Dem candidate than someone who just likes the name "Clinton" based on hazy nostalgia or someone who is just voting for Obama "cuz he's black". Caucuses DO attract more committed, passionate, excited voters than primaries I am sure...and I don't really have a problem with that.

A majority of black voters are working class, and a lot of them still manage to go to the caucuses. Your argument is bogus.

Without question caucuses tend to attract those who are able and willing to attend. Beyond that (and without real data) we can make reasonable guesses as to demographics of those who attend - e.g. college students, ambulatory retirees, ...

Anyway, what an odd sentence. It's not Obama voters who are committed to their candidate but committed voters who choose Obama? That IS fucked.

i like fnarf's explanation regarding the failings of the caucus system.

but these assassination pieces are nonetheless unjustified. to try and invalidate obama's victories, and the support he does have, is underhanded. the voting system may not be ideal, but to say they are unfair implies that obama is unfairly winning. they are not unfair in that sense -- even if they should be changed after this election.

You know what other demographic has far more opportunity to caucus than the general public? Retirees. But you'll never hear the Clinton team note that, of course, because that demographic invariably leans Clinton.

(But not enough to bring her victory in caucuses, evidently.)

The fact that nearly every state does it differently is unfair. We need voter reform and we need it now. Caucus had their place in the past, but the are unfair and inefficent in the present. All states should do it the same way, the current system is bogus.

To add to @11 and @14,
I am so tired of the "working class" voter claim from the Clintons. The group supporting her by a large margin are less-educated older White women. Are they more likely to actually be working during caucuses? I have seen no evidence for this claim.

Of course, Shrillary cannot use Ballot Box 13 in the caucuses.

Waaaaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaa.

Caucuses suck.

They are however, the system in numerous states, and everyone knew this in advance. The ability to plan for events in the future—in particular events listed on a CALENDAR—is a basic component of Leadership 101.

A candidate who did not adequately prepare for these events can make no plausible claim to “be ready on Day 1.”

Or Day 2, for that matter.

Of course, Shrillary cannot use Ballot Box 13 in the caucuses.

Waaaaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaa.

First, the "Clinton won when the working class could caucus" narrative doesn't hold water. Exit polls from the primary states show that Hillary wins a slightly greater percentage of blue-collar voters. That percentage isn't enough to explain the phenomenon of Obama blowouts in many caucuses.

Second, the Obama campaign decided to invest its resources in organizing caucus states because they saw that they could build their delegate count more efficiently by doing so. In other words, they made a shrewd practical political decision. Political systems are never absolutely fair. Politicians need to understand how they can work those systems to accomplish their aims. It looks like the Obama campaign has a better strategy to exploit the system. Perhaps he'll bring some of that talent to DC as President, where nothing's really "fair".

I guess it's some consolation to know that Josh Feit isn't writing embarrassing pro-Obama nonsense yet.

I just picture myself spending August through November having Republicans ambush me with the latest insane anti-logic from Erica or Josh, and having to disavow it, and trying to say that they don't represent all Democrats. That it shouldn't reflect badly on Obama that he happens to have some supporters who are clueless. So what, right? Plenty of McCain's supporters will say absurd things too, but what does that prove?

Anyway. For now, thank you for doing this on Hillary's behalf and not Obama's.

For a publication that actually endorsed Obama, you guys sure have turned on him this week. Even Dan has gotten into the act.

The time for being squishy about who you support is over. Be pro-Obama, or stop whimpering and rescind your endorsement.

@11 Catalina Vel-DuRay said my favorite thing of the day:

"and the other candidate has all the charisma and excitement of a mandatory training session on Excel, held on a Saturday morning, and for no extra pay."

Why has no one picked up on this story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home

"someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing"

Video here:

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/macdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv

Josh, Clinton didn't win the strip caucuses where the workers came together. Also, are you forgetting that Clinton tried to challenge the workplace caucuses as unfair?

Clinton hate caucuses because they exclude workers? But she doesn't want the caucus system to be modified so that workers can participate?

The relative merits of primaries vs caucuses depend on your priorities. Is it more democratic to gather the opinions of as many people as possible (primaries), or to gather the opinions of the most interested voters who are willing to spend time chatting it up (caucus)?

I think both methods have their upsides, and that's why I thought that Texas' primary PLUS caucus on the same day is a great idea! It makes it pretty clear that for one reason or another, some candidates will do better or worse depending on the exact method; in this case, it seems that Texas is pretty undecided overall, and the lack of either the caucus or primary would have given an incomplete picture of what Democratic voters in Texas want for the nation.

Washington could definitely improve its nominee voting process by emulating Texas in this case.

Josh and Erica are Hillary supporters because they both want the war in Iraq to continue and also spread to Iran. Josh and Erica both like Hillary's vote for the war and her vote on Kyl/Lieberman, and her support for torture. At the core both Josh and Erica are both authoritarian neo-conservatives.

The "blue-collar workers can't go" excuse is way overblown. The vast majority of blue-collar workers I know work Monday-Friday. No, not all, but most.

@30 - true dat. I can see the McCain/Clinton 08 bumper stickers now.

It is more than just blue collar workers who can't go -- mothers often can't, the elderly, the sick, and those who work two jobs and just don't have time to breathe, let alone spend three hours in a room which is often full of chaos and dischord. A lot of those people went anyway, got babysitters and pushed their parents in wheelchairs to the caucus sites, which in Texas was a sight to see. But many stayed home, and I completely get why.

#30, quotes from Hillary on torture, Iraq, and Iran:

As a matter of policy [torture] cannot be American policy, period. There is very little evidence that it works.

The American military has done its job. Look at what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein, they gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections, they gave the Iraqi government the chance to give the people of Iraq a better future. Now, I see the signs "Lead us out of Iraq now." That is what we are trying to do.

I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that's what the president should do.

Quotes from Barack on torture, Iraq, and Iran:

America cannot sanction torture. It's a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals & emergency situations & I will make that judgment at that time.

I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. I believe that we should have all our troops out [of Iraq] by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.

We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. We have been governed by fear for the last 6 years. Bush has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. It is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, "We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously and take action to make sure that the US is secure."

Sounds to me like Hillary is anti-torture, anti-Iraq war, and anti-Iran war, while Barack is maybe-torture, maybe-Iraq war, and maybe-Iran war.

Caucus voting is more engaging, less impersonal. I'ts better for democracy.

And besides, after all, it's the Democratic Party's system, and this is an election right now for the democratic nominee, and not for president. So get real people for Hillary.

I'm an Obama fan. But I hate caucuses, and I adamantly deny that they are in any way "more engaging". From my perspective, they appeal to people who think that meeting with a few of your neighbors every four years, and enduring their halting, poorly-thought-out one-minute speeches (and them enduring yours) somehow constitutes "activism" or "engaging with the political process". I think it, and they, are lame, lame, lame.

But I'm not a Clinton voter. And I reject this attempt of her to change the rules midstream, prompted not by any actual discontent with caucuses or anthing else besides her own desperation and sense of entitlement.

Could someone please call Fnarf and make sure he's alive? The fact that he hasn't been foaming at the mouth over this post has me . . . worried.

What BB @21 said. I'm gonna be mighty pissed off when Hillary loses in November and then starts whining about how unfair the Electoral College system is by favoring smaller red states, how voting on Tuesday disadvantages her working class supporters, blah, blah, blah . . . I thought the one reason for supporting her was that she was tough and battle-tested, not that she was prone to coming up with ex-post-facto excuses for situations that could have been planned for.

You don't have to spend three hours at a caucus. You can walk in, sign your name and preference, and go home. Your preference will then be counted. It ain't all that different from voting. It does take at least 30 minutes or so every four years. Some places have caucus by proxy for various reasons. But other places have less liberal mail-in voting privileges than Washington.

It takes an arrow sign to make me foam at the mouth, kk. On the subject of caucuses, I have always been a model of reasonability.