 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Primaries
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:00 AM The eyes of the nation will be on Maine, Charley. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:04 AM As Maine goes, so goes the Nation. I trust you folks will send Obama in with flying colors. It's what we-all need, methinks. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:27 AM A rather charming anecdote about the primaries from columnist Armando Ianiucci in the Observer today: "Final confirmation last week that Everything's Just Rubbish came from what everyone told me was the highly efficient Clinton campaign machine. Polls are about to take place in Virginia and Maryland, so her campaign team arranged for automatic telephone calls to every voter containing a message from her beginning 'Hi, Maryland' or 'Hi, Virginia' and urging them to get out and vote. Unfortunately, someone pressed the wrong button and every elector in Virginia got 'Hi, Maryland' and every Marylander got 'Hi, Virginia'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: GUEST,Guest Date: 10 Feb 08 - 11:31 AM Actually, that is a fallacy, Amos. It is now "as Missouri goes..." And this year, that ain't gonna work, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:52 PM You're right, Kevin. All taxes are considered coercion--in fact that's one of the WSJ's perennial favorites. They have an amazing number of creative riffs on that theme--and they must have managed to convince somebody. Republicans have been running on that for quite a while. And voting against Bush's tax cut once--or twice-- upon a time is considered McCain's worst heresy--a long trip to Canossa is probably in the offing. It evidently doesn't take much to get conservative Republicans apoplectic on the subject of taxes. There are already quite a few strong forces in US politics always on the alert for even the whiff of a new tax. But the main problem here is that those who do not want to participate in Hillary's plan will consider themselves singled out for a special tax. So they will portray the government coercion as worse than usual. And they will get a very favorable hearing from many in Congress--very likely a majority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM I've heard both, Janet. And you might note it's a bit premature to be sure about MO or ME--"and the nation". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:08 PM It is obvious that neither Clinton nor Obama will go into the Convention with a workable majority of delegates. According to CNN Election Central this morning, Clinton has 1108 (885 pledged plus 223 superdelegates) and Obama has 1049 (918 pledged plus 131 superdelegates). The 26 Edwards delegates could become important. The superdelegates may have to decide which candidate is electable. The stage is being set for a long and bitter Democratic Convention. www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/ __________________________________ The Krugman article in the NY Times was dated above in a post and in another thread. Again, it was published Feb. 4, 2008, "Clinton, Obama, Insurance," by Paul Krugman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Richard Bridge Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:21 PM Constitutional lawyers speak of the compact between the government and the governed, for we know that a government cannot endlessly enforce its will on the people. If elections do not palliate, revolution will solve. The USA should know that. How does it go, "No taxation without representation"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:44 PM It's not really fair to say that all taxes are coercion unless you are prepared to admit that all laws are also coercion. Not to mention the compulsory educational system. ;-) (and that it is coercion is clearly evident to most children) Now what would happen if we had no such coercion whatsoever? No laws. No courts. No police. No schools. No libraries. No telecommunications systems. No roads. No utilities. No armed forces. No rules of conduct whatsoever.... I think that is what Shane dreams of, and Shane is an idiot. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Don Firth Date: 10 Feb 08 - 01:46 PM GUEST,Guest, Janet, GG, or whoever or whatever you are, I am curious about something. It's easy enough for people who don't want to bother with such inconvenient processes as thinking—or especially for those who don't wish others to take the trouble to think—to invent a pigeon-hole, slap a label on it, and then try to stuff anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint into that pigeon-hole, thereby dismissing anything they have to say from that point on, no matter how accurate and to the point it may be. I might add that it's a little difficult to agree with you because other than indicating that you don't like anybody, you're fed up, and you think everyone should just give up (or possibly that you are trying to pave the way to urging bloody revolution), you haven't been at all clear about what your viewpoint actually is. (Are you intellectually up to following those sentences?) You have used the epithet "true blue" (with a variety of spellings) on several occasions and on several threads now. How, exactly, do you define "true blue?" Or do you actually have a definition, beyond "someone who doesn't agree with me?" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:06 PM Washington State- pop. 6,400,000 approx. Election 2000* 2,400,000 votes cast (*last I have complete figures for) Primaries 2008 Total votes 45,457 (approx. D-32000, R-13500) Questions about the primaries- Is this vote representative? Did the people of Washington have any interest in the primaries? Can such a small turnout be skewed by an active, partisan minority? I think the answers are obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Don Firth Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:54 PM I'm afraid you have the wrong end of the stick, Q. This was not the Washington State primaries. Saturday was the day the neighborhood caucuses met. What you have there are the attendance figures. These are people who either want to be delegatss, or want to choose delegates. The Wahington State primary election is on February 19th. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Stringsinger Date: 10 Feb 08 - 04:07 PM The point needs to be made. Those who are good at getting elected are not always the best at governing. They are two different talents. Hillary seems like more of an executive type than Obama but either one of them is so much better than what we have now. Obama is more of an orator. Hillary probably keeps a clean desk. I will vote for neither of them but will vote against McCain, who I believe would be a disaster for this country. Huckabee's Christian Nationalism is a dangerous precedent as well. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Feb 08 - 05:23 PM Don, you are right, my confusion about Washington- but CNN says Obama got 35 delegates and Clinton 15. Delegates also assigned to McCain et al. What happens in the Primary? The Democrats say that they go with the caucus on delegates (report in Washington Post), while the Republicans may change in the Primary. CNN says the primary is non-binding. Is it just a popularity contest? Would you please explain this? Change me to totally confused. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM Looks like a total of 3500 or so voters in the Maine Democratic caucus will select 24 delegates to add to their 10 superdelegates. Maine has 1,275,000 people. 3500 caucus voters select the Democratic delegates? 4540 caucus voters selected the Republican delegates? Only in U. S. A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 08 - 06:55 PM You'll notice today that Hillary's campaign manager turned over her duties to a friend in the team, and stepped back into a senior consultant role. "Patti Solis Doyle has stepped down as Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonÕs campaign manager, the campaign announced on Sunday. She will be replaced by Maggie Williams, a senior adviser to the campaign. Ms. Solis Doyle will stay on as a senior adviser and Òwill continue to be a key part of the campaign,Ó said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman." (NYT) In the comments of readers, following this story, two stand out: "Out with a Latina, in with a Black. Hmm. One thing this campaign shows is that Obama is a much better organizer than Clinton. Ñ Posted by joe" and: "Patti Solis Doyle is sister of Danny Solis, alderman of ChicagoÕs 25th ward. ObamaÕs honchos, e.g. David Axelrod and others are also quintessential Chicagoans. The difference - Solis is a part of the Daley ÒmachineÓ and old school Democratic Party. Axelrod was part of the movement that propelled Harold Washington in as ChicagoÕs first black, and first independent Mayor. Just an observation. Ñ Posted by susan" A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:04 PM 17 minutes ago AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) Ñ Barack Obama has won the Maine Democratic caucuses. (AP_) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:08 PM Wow! We have our Richmond, Maine, results ahead of 7:30 pm. The turnout was incredible. Three times as many people showed up as we've ever had. They filled up the Town Office and we had to shift over to the Fire House community room, 109 people plus a few observors and babies in arms. And there was snow incoming all afternoon and evening. We get 7 delegates to the State Democratic Convention, held at the end of May 5 will be for Obama 2 will be for Clinton When I reported the results to State headquarters they said that turnouts were record-breaking all over the State. Richmond is a relatively conservative town evenly split between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, with a few Green Party members in addition. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:11 PM AP beat me to it! Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 08 - 07:21 PM GReat news, Charley, and my warmest congrats to all Maineacs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:03 PM 3500 people (approx.) selected the delegates at the Maine caucus. Turnout incredible???? Yes, incredibly insignificant considering the state's population. CNN gives Obama 15 and Clinton 11 as of 5 minutes ago (34 total; 8 yet to be counted). ______________________________________________ Clinton finally was given the nod in New Mexico. The delay mostly was the result of difficulties in counting provisional ballots, and heavy snows making delivery of ballots slow, for hand counting. Clinton 13, Obama 12. At the Convention, New Mexico will have 5 electoral votes; Maine 4. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 10 Feb 08 - 08:51 PM Q- "At the Convention, New Mexico will have 5 electoral votes; Maine 4." I think you mean at the Electoral College, not the Democratic National Convention. So many ways we have to count votes! And that's not even counting the Super Delegates! So here's a more detailed explanation for those who live to know the inner working of our allocation system in Maine: Saturday 31 May 2008: State Convention. 24 of 34 delegates to the Democratic National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders based on the presidential preference of the delegates in attendance at the State Convention. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the congressional district or statewide level. 16 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally based on the delegates presidential preferences in each of the State's 2 congressional districts. CD 1: 9 CD 2: 7 In addition, 8 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based the support for the presidential contenders in the State Convention as a whole. 5 at-large National Convention delegates 3 Pledged PLEOs The remaining 10 National Convention delegates consist of 9 Unpledged PLEO delegates: 4 Democratic National Committee members. 2 Members of Congress (0 Senators and 2 Representatives). 1 Governor. 2 Distinguished Party Leaders (former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and former DNC Chairman Kenneth Curtis). 1 Unpledged "add-on" (selected during the State Convention). These 10 delegates and will go to the Democratic National Convention officially "Unpledged". Now you know! Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:03 PM I am sorry but I have no idea what a PLELO is. Pretty largely endowed leonine oliphant? Just a wild guess. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:12 PM No, Q, you again have the American terminology wrong. There are no "electoral votes" at the convention. That is specific to the Electoral College--and to the fall election. I'm glad to hear the NYT article is very recent. At least you have not pulled a favorite trick of some Mudcatters--to post an article about a supposedly significant development or quote--which turns out to be seriously out of date. But it does not change the fact that "broadly resembling the Obama plan" won't cut it--much as you like to denigrate Obama, for whatever reason--who knows why. Just as you've just denigrated the Maine results--again who knows why. At any rate, Obama's plan will be adjusted to include far more people than you and Mr Krugman seem to think--he is not about to leave 20 million without coverage. I wonder if Mr Krugman has endorsed Hillary--or what the connection there might be. I may check into that. And I note with interest that you have no counter to my explanation of why Hillary's plan is DOA--and she probably knows it. Of course your dislike for Obama may have something to do with your evident conviction that the US should not "cut and run" from Iraq--and Obama, in contrast to Hillary, says he will withdraw all combat troops within 18 months of taking office. But it would be good to know from you just why we should stay--except in "Kurdistan" where they want us. We are constantly threatened by McCain etc. (and you?) that if we leave Iraq, al-Qaeda will take over in Iraq. However the Iraqi Shiites hate al-Qaeda, the Iraqi Sunnis hate al-Qaeda (having been thoroughly alienated by al-Qaeda's conduct), and the Kurds hate al-Qaeda. So exactly how, with very few sympathizers in Iraq, is al-Qaeda going to take over in Iraq? And if the danger of this is virtually non-existent, the threat that McCain etc. hold over our heads is hollow. And Obama is perfectly justified in removing US troops--to let the Iraqis sort out their secular problems themselves--and stop the steady drain of troops and funds to Iraq. In fact, Afghanistan is a far more reasonable place for US involvement--except as I said, in "Kurdistan", where we are wanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:14 PM Amos I do like your interpretation of PLELO but it how the Democrats in Augusta (our capitol) refer to Party Leaders and Elected Officials or "Superdelegates" in Nartional Speak. Now what does PLELO rhyme with? Yes a few grey PLEOs say They could of endorsed him any day They only let him go so long Out of kindness, I suppose. Cheerily, Charley "Lefty" Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:19 PM "sort out their sectarian problems themselves" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Don Firth Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:25 PM Frankly, Q, I don't know what the hell the Washington State board of elections think their doing. I had thought, judging from local news a few days ago, that the neighborhood caucuses were going to be turned into informal discussion groups and generally disregarded (much unlike previous elections) and that the party's delegate commitments would be based on the results of the primary. But—it seems that it's just the other way around! I didn't go to my neighborhood caucus, which I normally do, because of this, assuming that I would make my will known in the primary (I already have my mail-in ballot). But now it seems that the deed is already done and they are just going to count the votes in the primary for curiosity's sake, but that will have no effect on the allocation of delegates. But apparently it was an equal-opportunity screw-up. Same deal for the state's Republicans. Then why go to the expense of having a primary at all!?? A lot of people assumed as I did, didn't go to the caucuses, figuring they'd make their will known through the ballot, and are suddenly very ticked off about this. In my opinion, the whole state elections board needs a good, solid dope-slap! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM Yes, Charlie, I skipped a cog there. I knew the figures ended up at 5 and 4 at the end and that was about all. Thanks for the explanation- I know many of the other states go through similar exercises. Boggles the mind. I now understand the system less than before, which understanding was lower than a Dach's belly anyhoo. I was hoping also to get an explanation of the Washington state caucus-primary set-up, but I probably would be happier if I remain ignorant. Maybe I'll watch the Democratic 3-ring circus and maybe not- it looks to be protracted and painful. If it is not handled carefully it could hand the election to McCain. PLEO- I take it these are what the press calls 'superdelegates.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 10 Feb 08 - 09:32 PM Don- "Washington State" Ugh! I suppose someone mentioned something about reading the "fine print" wherever it was posted. I'd certainly be pissed. Was the Board of Elections trying to undermine the party caucuses by holding the "beauty contest" primary? Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:09 PM Don - Re: Washington. It really does seem like there is something weird going on with these caucuses, all the way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Don Firth Date: 10 Feb 08 - 10:18 PM I have a friend in the state legislature. I'm going to try to check with him and see if he knows who's trying to do what to whom. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Peace Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:09 AM They all be trying to do what to each other. They are the aristocrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Feb 08 - 12:31 PM Many of the states seem to hold small primaries or caucuses at which a miniscule number vote, and, like the ones in Maine and Washington, seem to be skewed to express the views of the party elite. I can't see that the public has much representation in these exercises, or should believe the results. The press reports fail to remark the singular lack of public participation. The American system puports to be something it isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM Q - I've noticed the same thing. And now the same people are suggesting that they go back to Michigan and Florida and hold "caucuses" to come up with a decision. So they want to eliminate the working people from those states as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Don Firth Date: 11 Feb 08 - 01:52 PM Q, I don't see how the neighborhood caucuses can be "skewed to express the views of the party elite," because anyone who lives in the precinct is able to come. Indeed, is urged to come. If you, as an individual, want to make your views known as to which candidate you prefer or issues you want addressed, this is the place to do it. It's about as "grass roots" as it can get. A lot of discussing, arguing, and arm-twisting goes on, but you still get to express yourself and try to influence other people. You can't "fix" a precinct caucus. And you can't limit who goes to them. They're open to the public, and anyone who wants to can come and participate and have their say. At the risk of being called "naïve," what happened here in Washington State, I think, is less a matter of hanky-panky than one of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Due to the rather bizarre, and as far as I know, unprecedented early scheduling of caucuses and primaries around the country, by the time the Washington State elections board got their socks pulled up, primaries in other states were already winnowing the candidates down. By the time ours came along, several people had dropped out—such as Kucinich (blatantly and obviously ignored by the media), for whom I was prepared to argue in my neighborhood caucus. Frankly, I rather lost interest in going to the caucus because I knew that it was going to be either Hillary or Obama, and with no Kucinich in there, I figured either one will be better than another Republican in the White House. Okay, if somebody wants to sneer and call me "True Blue," I say go right ahead if it makes you feel smug. But would you rather I vote for McCain or Huckabee? Well? Since the state has already gone pretty solidly for Obama, I think I can live with that. In the meantime, since the primary isn't going to count, other than as a sort of poll, I can go ahead and vote for Kucinich (ballot printed before he dropped out) without fear that I'll be taking a vote away from the leading Democratic candidate. At least make my real wants know. If others do the same thing (vote for who they really want), it will be interesting to see the results. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Feb 08 - 02:26 PM Don - I think what you are saying is true in theory, but the people I know who carry lunch boxes would never go to a place like that and speak out in public. If they go there, and there are college professors and attorneys voicing their opinions one way or another, they would probably just leave. On the other hand, if you hold a primary where they can simply go in and cast an anonymous ballot, they'd be happy to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:05 PM Maine has recently tried both primaries and caucuses. Last weekend's caucus turned out more than 46,000 Democratic voters. The previous record turnout was in 2004 when 17,000 Democrats participated. About 175,000 Democrats voted in the 2004 General Election, for a turnout of more than 70%. Therefore the caucus turnout was about 18%. Whichever way one looks at it, caucus participation has substantially improved in Maine during the last four years, thanks primarily to the abysmal record of the Bush Administration. Conventional wisdom, as reflected in the above posts, might need to be adjusted. Of course there is still room for improvement, but all the tinkering in the world by party and election officials doesn't affect turnout as much as good candidates, reaction against the previous administration, and specific issues. All three were on voters minds in the caucuses last Sunday, and those of us responsible for running them tried hard to adapt to the demand. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ebbie Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:23 PM Riginslinger: "Don - I think what you are saying is true in theory, but the people I know who carry lunch boxes would never go to a place like that and speak out in public. If they go there, and there are college professors and attorneys voicing their opinions one way or another, they would probably just leave. "On the other hand, if you hold a primary where they can simply go in and cast an anonymous ballot, they'd be happy to do that." I can't say what it would be like in your community (I agree that citizens of southern Oregon may have reasons to be secretive) but in my community, the working man and woman feels free to speak up. Unlike a ballot, one thing that a caucus is NOT is secret You stick your neck out so you can be counted. Ino, that is the American way. Fear ain't becomin'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM These little caucuses (Maine, Washington) attract the people mentioned by Riginslinger, but put more broadly, the people who are active in politics, canvassing for candidates, writing to the papers, attending political discussion clubs, kaffeeklatchers, eating and sleeping politics during election years- the activists. Contrasting with Louisiana- Although percentage relative to possible voters not very large, the Louisiana primary vote does seem large enough to be fairly representative. Looking at Democrats alone, 358,000 turned out- and we are able to see the demographic splits in all their divisiveness. [Louisiana- 4.5 million, 64% white. Last election, Gore 792,000; Bush 928,000 (total 1,720,000). 2008- 1,500,000 registered Democrats (but perhaps only 50-60% vote)] 2008 Primary Total- 358,000 Whites- 70% voted for Clinton Blacks- 82% voted for Obama Female- 60% for Clinton (exit poll figure) Youth vote- Obama (can't find percentages) Voters over 40- Clinton ( ") For Maine and Washington, the numbers are too small to take the pulse of the State, and I can find no demographics on those attending (age, race, sex). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Amos Date: 11 Feb 08 - 03:52 PM In other news, Ann Coulter has gone bonkers on the subject: Unhinged Coulter Uses Hitler Analogy To Bash McCainFebruary 8, 2008 05:26 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:10 PM Ebbie - the concept of the secret ballot is essential for Democracy to work. This today in the "USA Today." Sorry, I can't seem to bring it up, but there was a column today making that exact point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:13 PM Here it is! Our view on presidential nominating process: Caucuses are no way to choose a candidate Flawed method produces lower turnout, allows for intimidation. This year's presidential nominating caucuses have featured large numbers of voters coming together in crowded rooms, arguing vigorously for their presidential candidates and voting for their choices. On TV, the process looks like the very model of democracy. Except that it's not. Caucuses in Washington, Iowa and the more than a dozen other states that use this method are a flawed way to choose presidential candidates. They're run by the political parties, not state election agencies that typically oversee primary elections. And their purpose has always been more to help organize and strengthen the parties than to give as many voters as possible a fair way to pick candidates. Among the flaws with caucuses: * Turnout is much lower at caucuses than at primaries. The caucuses in Washington state on Saturday drew fewer than 50,000 people. That's about 1.3% of the state's registered voters. This isn't just a Washington phenomenon. In the more than 20 Super Tuesday contests, average turnout at caucuses was only about 6% of eligible voters, while primaries averaged about 29%, nearly five times as many, according to the U.S. Elections Project at George Mason University. * Caucuses disenfranchise some voters. Attending a caucus can be prohibitively difficult. Caucuses are typically held for a limited time on a specific day — an hour or two on a Thursday evening in Iowa, for example. Though some states make provisions for those who can't show up, caucuses usually exclude people who are working, out of town or serving in the military overseas. By contrast, primaries allow voting from early morning until the evening, and provide ample opportunities for absentee ballots. * Caucuses violate the tradition of the secret ballot. Though some caucuses allow a private ballot, others require participants to publicly "vote" — by standing in a designated part of the room in Iowa's caucuses, for example. For anyone worried about pressure or retribution from spouses, friends or colleagues — or, more ominously, from bosses or government officials — it's a significant disincentive. Former president Bill Clinton claimed he witnessed union officials pressuring workers before Nevada's caucuses last month, threatening to change their work schedules so they couldn't attend the caucuses unless they promised to vote for Barack Obama. The disadvantages of caucuses are important not only for future presidential races, but also for this one. Democrats and Republicans each have three caucuses yet to come. Meanwhile, Democratic party officials are wondering whether to offer Michigan and Florida "do-overs" after both states held their primaries before party rules allowed, causing officials to disqualify their delegates. Those delegates now might be crucial to determining a Democratic nominee. Any redo should be fair to both candidates — and accessible to large numbers of voters. There's no reason Democrats and Republicans everywhere can't schedule party-building exercises around presidential nominating votes, but the caucuses shouldn't be the vote. There's a perfectly good alternative that maximizes the number of people who can attend, guarantees higher turnout and respects the tradition of the private ballot. It's called a primary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:18 PM the concept of the secret ballot is essential for Democracy to work But not necessarily in all situations involved in the democratic process. People involved in public demonstrations or pickets, for example, do not generally wear disguise. Nor when it comes to discussions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM Well, here's the scenario: Hillary's constituency seems to consist mainly of poor working people and women, while Obama's constituency seems to consist of blacks and professional people. When a primary is held in an industrial area with fewer black voters, Hillary usually wins. When a caucus is hald in an industrial area with fewer black voters, Obama usually wins. The difference in these cases seems to be caucus vs. primary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:39 PM Riginslinger, thanks for the article. It states the objections to caucus that I was arriving at, clearly and succinctly. I didn't realize just how undemocratic they were until the insignificant vote totals for Maine, Washington, triggered that 'light bulb'. They must be replaced by open primaries. And our media must publicize their inadequacies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Feb 08 - 04:49 PM Q - Yes, they seem problematic to me too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Charley Noble Date: 11 Feb 08 - 05:51 PM I beg to disagree. The turnout of 18% for Maine may seem insignifant to you but 46,000 voters are a hell of a lot more than are posting on this thread. Of course the Republican caucuses in our state attracted only 5000 attendees. That was a pathetic turnout by any measure given that there are, or were, equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats registered to vote in Maine. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Don Firth Date: 11 Feb 08 - 05:58 PM That doesn't reflect my experience, Rig. In the caucuses I have attended, there were plenty of my neighbors there, which include lunch box toters, college students, Microsoft employees, a minister or two (non-fundamentalist), grade school teachers (my precinct caucus was held in the lunchroom of the Lowell School, two blocks from where I live), a couple of bookstore owners, and, all-in-all, a pretty fair cross-section of the people who live in this neighborhood. No one was at all shy about speaking their mind, nor was anyone the least intimidated by any college professors or attorneys they encountered. A couple of officials from Washington Democrats convened the meeting, then retired while we took it from there. And the meetings are held on a Saturday, starting at 1:00 in the afternoon. Since you have to choose some time, that would probably be the most convenient for the most people. No, what I have seen in such neighborhood caucus meetings is either grass-roots democracy in action, or a damned good imitation. I attended the caucus in 2004, and found that when I spoke, people listened. And others had plenty to say, to which we all listened. I spoke pretty strongly in favor of Kucinich, and as a result, the Kucinich group nominated me to be sent as a delegate to the regional convention, but in my wheelchair, I don't travel very well these days, so I declined with thanks. But the young woman who was elected in my place shared my views and was quite outspoken herself. I wish I had gone to this last one. Had I been there, I would have been able to find out who the Kucinich supporters were going to go with, since he had withdrawn. I have heard that the place was jam-packed, and when I asked, I was informed that had anyone tried anything untoward with that crowd, they would have been dope-slapped until dizzy. I know that crowd. They weren't about to let anyone cram someone down their throats that they didn't want. They may have preferred a different candidate, but they wouldn't accept anyone unless they deemed then "acceptable." How many of you have actually attended a caucus meeting!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: PoppaGator Date: 11 Feb 08 - 06:00 PM As noted earlier, I spent 14 hours on Saturday helping to run the election in Ward 8, Precinct 16, New Orleans, Louisiana. We're a small precinct, and served a total of 69 voters between 6am and 8 pm. 69 Democrats, 0 Republicans. 67 African-Americans, 2 European-Americans (my wife and I). 60 votes for Obama, 9 for Clinton. The missus and I voted for Obama, so Hillary's 9 supporters were all black folk, and I'd guess most if not all of them female. *************** I haven't checked into this thread since before the weekend, so please pardon me for bringing up something that may have been forgotten by now, BUT: Barack Obama is not OLD enough to HAVE a trophy wife. Also, since Michelle is the mother of his children, and (I assume) his first and only wife, the term "trophy wife" is completely inappropriate. I think that particular remark was the final proof that "GG" is completely around-the-bend nuts. She has posted a few scattered rational comments over the last week or so, and I began to soften my position as to her insanity, but the trophy-wife comment reaffirmed for that GG is a hopeless nutcase. What could her problem possibly be? Is it just that Mrs. Obama is attractive? Most politicians, and most politicians' spouses, are reasonably good-looking. They wouldn't have gravitated to public life otherwise ~ although extreme good looks are not required, and politicians are generally not quite in the movie-star category. (Some politicians, indeed, have characterized politics as "show biz for homely folks.") I'm sure that no attractive spouse of a white candidate, male or female, Democratic or Repuiblican, would have prompted such a response. Are black (or even half-black) officeholders, in contrast to white ones, expected to marry homely partners lest they be accused of "trophy marriages"? If anyone in the race is open to criticism on the "trophy wife" front, it's that old geezer McCain. I don't know Mrs. McCain's age ~ maybe she's not as young as she looks ~ but she could certainly pass as ol' John's daughter if she wanted to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Primaries From: Ebbie Date: 11 Feb 08 - 06:01 PM "...take the pulse of the State," That is what I think a caucus is good for. I agree that when it comes to an actual election a secret ballot is essential. Not so much so no one knows who I voted for but to protect those who may feel intimidated, whether by someone in their own home or by their own government. But before then, a populace that is afraid to let anyone see who they are working for is a fearful people, imo. |
