BS: Primaries

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 06:15 PM

"How many of you have actually attended a caucus meeting!??"

                Frankly, I would never attend a caucus meeting, but I've voted in every primary for which I was qualified.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 07:18 PM

Well then, Rig, sorry to say it, but you are not qualified to say what goes on in caucus meetings. But unfortunately you're not alone. There seems to be a lot of that going around these days.

At a caucus meeting, you get a chance to exchange opinions, learn things about the candidates that you might not find out any other way, and try to persuade others to your view. Of course, that means you open yourself to the possibility of being persuaded by others.

In comparison to participating in caucuses, simple voting in primaries is a pretty passive way of participating in the political process.

Don Firth

(Re-reading my last sentence, that compares with "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." Sorry about that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 07:53 PM

YOU won't have heard of her, but Christine Samuels, a New Jersey politician, has assured herself a footnote in the history of the United States's primary election process. This weekend she became the first so-called super delegate of the Democratic Party to swap sides, announcing that she had switched from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

Ms Samuels' move has highlighted the controversial role these unelected delegates play in the primary process Ð and the nightmare scenario that is unfolding for the party top brass.

Unlike regular delegates, the 796 super delegates are not elected by the voters. They are appointed by the party itself, accounting for a fifth of the delegates who vote at the summer convention in Denver to elect the presidential nominee.

And the nightmare for the party leaders is what happens if Mr Obama wins the popular vote, but Mrs Clinton wins the nomination thanks to support of these supers delegates. Present trends make this ever more likely. Mr Obama is winning in the ballot box, but Mrs Clinton has a nearly two-to-one superiority in super delegates, partly thanks to the influence of her husband, former president, Bill.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Super delegates were appointed in the 1960s to give the party bosses a trump card in the primary process. "The super delegates were supposed to represent the institutional interest of the larger party, as opposed to the crazies in the street," said Phil Noble, a Democratic pollster.

Super delegates include all Democratic members of Congress and governors, as well as ex-presidents and assorted party officials.

In most primary contests they remain in the shadows, as a clear winner soon emerges. Even on the one occasion when they made a difference, in electing Walter Mondale against Gary Hart in 1984, Mr Mondale had won the most regular votes. Never have the supers had to go against the popular vote.

All that could change this summer. The Associated Press says that 213 super delegates are for Mrs Clinton and 139 for Mr Obama.

Already this has created a bizarre situation where Mr Obama has won more states, has more regular delegates and 200,000 more voters, yet is behind Mrs Clinton when all delegates, regular and super, are totted up.

Mr Obama has now warned super delegates to consider carefully how to vote. "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged (regular] delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters," he said. Translation: The party top brass can expect trouble from the millions of youngsters who have backed Mr Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:09 PM

No final figures yet for New Mexico - and the usual suspects are all playing the blame game. Sen. Clinton is about 1100 votes ahead of Sen. Obama. Since the delegates are awarded proportionately to the vote, of the 26 total she will get (at least) 13 and he will get (at least) 12 - the final one essentially depends upon the 15,000 or so "provisional" ballots. So far, as of earlier today, only about a third of those have been identified with registered Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 08:54 PM

Charley, you say 48,000 voted. There are 308,000 registered Democrats so really not too bad, but as the article posted by riginslinger points out, the method is fatally flawed.

Please explain these Maine figures from CNN Election Center. Not familiar with the system.
Obama 2079
Clinton 1396
They are marked *State Del.
How do they fit into the caucus vote?
(For states with primaries, e. g., Louisiana, figures in that column are the actual voters.

Poppagator, of course that 'trophy wife' business is nonsense. Only trolls would pick up on it.

MCain's wife is 54, 17 years younger than he, so she ain't no spring - oops, scrub that! They have been married 27 years. Apparently it was one of those love at first sight things.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:21 PM

"Well then, Rig, sorry to say it, but you are not qualified to say what goes on in caucus meetings."


                   Possibly not, but every other gathering of that nature I've been to has been dominated by blowhards. Of course, blowhards never seem to realize they are blowhards, so...

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:27 PM

So McCain was 54 and his wife was 37 when they were married. That's not exactly within "trophy wife" territory, but it's close enough that you could see it from a tall step ladder.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 09:39 PM

Q-

The Maine caucus system is probably not that dissimilar to that of other states:

"Please explain these Maine figures from CNN Election Center. Not familiar with the system.
Obama 2079
Clinton 1396
They are marked *State Del."

The short answer is that the above "delegates" are representative delegates.

Here's a longer answer about the relationship between Delegates to the State Democratic Convention and the Caucus attendees. Each caucus is assigned a number of Delegates to the State Convention based on the Democratic turnout in our town from the previous Presidential General Election. That's how the 109 of us who gathered together last Sunday ended up being represented by 7 delegates based on our proportional preference for Clinton, Obama, or Undecided; the actual delegates are selected from their Caucus subgroups. If every Democrat in town had showed up, we still would have only gotten 7 delegates. If only seven of us showed up, each one of us could have been a delegate. So the system ain't perfect.

Each delegate is also backed up by an "Alternative" who's selected as well within each Caucus subgroup.

CNN may not have adequately explained what we were busily doing.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:07 PM

The problem is the concept of the "caucus" itself. You can't participate if you're not there. If you fell like you are going to be talked down to, you probably won't be there.
                   If you're at work, or stuck in traffic, or picking up the kids, you can't be there. Professional people and retired people have no trouble getting to the caucus. College students can get there--even if they cut class, they'll probably be excused.
                   So the causcus provides a means of making decisions to help everybody except the people who need the help the most.
                   It's an elitest process.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 10:33 PM

Exactly. So it's interesting that Hillary's campaign protested so vehemently when an attempt was made to make the caucuses more accessible to a large group of workers in Vegas, who otherwise could probably have not participated.

And if I recall correctly, her campaign had in fact agreed to the arrangement months before, but faced with a possible loss, decided it wasn't such a good idea after all.

Basically the flip side of her charming maneuver in FL and MI, where after having agreed months before that those votes would not count, now that she has "won" in both states, she wants them counted. Not that her "winning" in MI has anything to do with the fact that she was the only one of the major candidates who did not withdraw his or her name. Of course not.

If anything can alienate the superdelegates--to the extent they have some choice-- that sort of attitude stands a good chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:26 PM

Rig, one can outblow the blowhards, and if it's an elitest process, it's because you let it be.

If some blowhard tries to dominate the meeting (which is not really easy to do, because in a caucus, you spend a fair amount of time split up in different groups), I've found that if one person interrupts and challenges them, that one person will suddenly have a chorus of a couple dozen people also challenging the blowhard.

Been there. Done that.

Think we need leaders? Okay! BE a leader!

Don Firth

(If you sit back and say "Let George do it . . . well, as we have seen over the past seven years, George might be the one who's doing it!)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:32 PM

BTW, the latest on the Florida Democratic primary:

Plan A: Seat the Florida delegation, splitting the delegates proportionally just as if we Floridians had never been told that our primary wasn't going to count for anything. (Why do I get a mental picture of Howard Dean saying, "Surprise! Fooled ya!"?)

Plan B: Seat the Florida delegation, splitting the delegates 50%/50% between Clinton and Obama. (Why there should be any difference between splitting 210 delgates 105/105 or splitting zero delegates 0/0 is a mystery to me.)

Plan C: Ignore the primary results and hold caucuses some time in March. (There's no way the state is going to foot the bill for a second primary.)

Anyone care to bet on which plan wins out? Anyone care to bet that it's not going to be a shit-storm regardless of which plan wins out?

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:44 PM

Dig this soul, brothers and sisters.

Fired up, and ready to go.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:45 PM

And judging by the caucuses I've been to, held, as I said, on a Saturday at 1:00 p.m. in an easily accessible elementary school's very large lunchroom, and by the number of people who come, I'd say that (with the exception of people who work that day, at that hour) it's no hardship for anyone who is really interested to be there.

Oh, sure, a lot of people didn't come. The usual response when asked "why not?" was not, "I had to work that day," or "I was stuck in traffic" (neighborhood caucuses are usually within easy walking distance. I usually go. And I'm in a wheelchair--self-pushed), or "I had to take the kids to tiddly-winks practice." It was, "Oh! Was that Saturday?"

Now, what was that Thomas Jefferson said about the survival of democracy depending on an informed electorate?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Feb 08 - 11:46 PM

Seating the Florida delegates- More fun, more people killed, etc.
Same problem re that state up near the Canadian border somewhere.

Caucus? Oh, gods, please NO!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Azizi
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 12:23 AM

Amos, re. the video you linked to in your 11 Feb 08 - 11:44 PM post:

I posted a link this evening to that video on your Popular Views on Obama thread.

That YouTube video is made up of several John McCain speeches and is called "john. he. is."

I think it's a really creative, and funny spoof {if that's the correct word} on will i am's Obama video "Yes I Am".

Check it out!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:19 AM

Don - I can see that there is an advantage to a caucus for the people who can and will attend. And I never would have given it a thought, I don't think, if it wasn't for the way this primary season is playing out. Usually, the whole thing would be over by now and these issues never would have materialized.

                But what we are seeing is this: in primaries, where the working poor participate, Hillary often wins. In the caucuses, where the working poor seldom participate, Obama often wins. The people who would vote for Hillary in the primaries, do not participate in the caucuses.

                Like I said earlier. I don't think I could or would ever participate in a caucus. It would be something I would find very intimidating.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:34 AM

Rig-

"You can't participate if you're not there" (in caucuses)

Not that you'd pay attention but in Maine, and maybe some other caucuses in this universe, one can participate by absentee ballot. About 10% participated in that way in our local caucus. Of course they could only indicate their preference and could not debate or change their preference after debate but they had the option of participating. Of course they did have to plan ahead and request the absentee ballot, fill it out, and mail it back by the deadline. It's a tough and rigorous procedure but some managed to execute it.

Two of our "absentees" decided to show up in person anyway and we had to void their absentee ballots.

IIn my opinion, your generalizations about caucuses reflect your inexperience in caucus participation. But I must confess that a poorly attended caucus is a boring experience, like the ones we had in the late 1990's. Since 2004, the process has been reinvigorated.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

Apologies--I meant to post the link to this Soul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJ72iZ3tW4

called "Fired Up and Ready to Go".



A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM

Well, that might be a solution, Charley. I'm in Oregon, and of course, we have "mail in" elections. So everybody who wants to vote has to fill out a ballot and mail it in. That's the only way to do it. If the caucus states would automatically mail a provisional ballot to every registered voter, and then let them attend, or not attend, the caucus if they wanted to, that might fix the problem.
                  Like I said earlier, this would nor have become an issue in any other election. You have to have a close election for these kinds of problems to surface. But when you see the results of Clinton winning primaries, and Obama winning caucuses, and it's widely known how the demographics break down, the process screams out for some attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 11:58 AM

Clinton Campaign Manager Out

Sen. Hillary Clinton replaced her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, after Barack Obama swept four state primaries this weekend. What do you think?


Dick Ystremski,
Museum Guard
"She did a fantastic job to date, but running a 15-plus-year presidential campaign is bound to take its toll eventually."

Shannon Lee,
Perfume Salesperson
"There are plenty of capable, talented women out there with three names that can take her place."

David Lewis,
Teacher
"This is exactly the kind of minor reshuffling that Hillary Clinton needs to do in order to revitalize her campaign...".


(From The Onion)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 12:00 PM

The logic of a caucus system, as against a primary, is that in principle anyway it seeks to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of discussion and the sharing of information rather than merely on pre-judged and pre-packaged opinions.

There is some analogy with a jury system - and a jury system that relied on people coming in and voting "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" on the basis of what they had read in the papers would not be a very desirable one.

The difference is that juries are not self appointed. Perhaps a system of citizens juries for selecting candidates might have some merit.

But seen from the perspective of British politics the caucus idea does have a lot of appeal. We generally don't get any say at all in picking (or rejecting) candidates in advance of the election itself. That even applies to people who are member of political parties, as often as not.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM

In this poignant and keen article, the author throws away the "Beulah" myth and argues that HC will not draw the woman's vote from African AMericans for good reason.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:40 PM

Like Riginslinger, No way I would participate in a caucus.

Looking at demographics for the 12th-

Virginia- 7.7 million
Black 20%
Hispanic 6%

Maryland- 5.6 million
Black 29.5%
Hispanic 6%

Texas- 23.5 million   (March 4)
Black 12%
Hispanic 36%

Looking at past primaries, MD and VA will go for Obama, based on some 80% black vote for Obama; the white vote favoring Clinton but the young people for Obama. Many D. C. whites associated with the government live in VA; I have no idea who they will support but I don't think there are enough of them to strongly skew the results. Many of those associated with the military will be McCain or Huckabee supporters.

Texas will be extremely close, depending on the degree of participation by Hispanics. Candidates have not appealed to them directly, which is difficult because many, if not most, Hispanic Texans speak Spanish at home. The state has strong divisions. Based on California, I think the margin will be Clinton's.

I am posting my guesses (Democratic primary only) so that I can compare with the primary results and previous trends; they do not necessarily reflect how I would vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 01:54 PM

With the exception of DC, I fail to see why Clinton should view Virginia and Maryland as races she is unable to win, unless she is no longer a viable candidate. The population statistics alone don't seem a compelling argument, unlike in DC.

I do concede that Texas and Ohio will be much tougher states for Obama to win. But his campaign has already presented a series of surprises, exceeding many a veteran's prediction.

I finally joined the Obama supporters last Sunday at our Maine caucus. It will be an interesting campaign and with more surprises to come.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM

"It was substantial, sustained opposition from organized African American women and the black press that killed the Mammy monument proposal." from the article that Amos linked to.

In 1923, were African American women all that organized? Was the 'black press' at that time that influential? It doen't sound factual.

That article raises several questions in my mind. I realize the author is a professor so she may be correct in all of her assumptions but to me it sounds like opinion. I'll have to do some research.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:13 PM

That's cool, Charlie. You may get to meet Chongo at the Democratic Convention. He's easy to recognize...the tough-looking chimp in the fedora and the "Frank Sinatra" suit with a rose on the lapel. He has put aside the old trenchcoat now that he's politicking for the Obamarama instead of sleuthing the back alleys of the Windy City.

If he suddenly yells, "KREE-GAH!!!" and reaches inside his jacket...hit the deck! (he's a good shot, and he will not hit you, but you can never tell about the opposition)

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:36 PM

Q says "Candidates have not appealed to them {Hispanics} directly, which is difficult because many, if not most, Hispanic Texans speak Spanish at home." Interesting comment - in the neighboring state of New Mexico, most second generation and thereafter (and some are 10th generation) people of Spanish or Hispanic descent speak only a little Spanish (or none at all), inside the home or otherwise. Almost all, with the exception of new arrivals, are completely fluent in English.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: PoppaGator
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 02:52 PM

In 1923, black women may not have been all that organized, BUT ~ the black press was very much alive and well. The fact that white folks were not especially aware of it doesn't mean squat; black folks all over the country regularly read newspapers (many of them weeklies rather than dailies, I believe) based in Chicago, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New York (Harlem, of course) and other cities.

The great African-American migration from southern farms to northern factories was largely prompted by articles and ads in these papers, alerting propective migrants to job opportunities. The papers also reported national news of special interest to their readership, and of course took editorial positions and published opinion pieces.

Segregation was certainly not a good thing, of course, and had to end sooner or later; however, the flawed Jim Crow system did create a separate and unequal society that provided opportunites for black individuals and institutions that,in some cases, are less available in today's imperfectly integrated society. The editors and columnists at those nearly-forgotten newspapers are one example.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:09 PM

Rig's criticisms of and antipathy toward the caucus system are those of someone who is simply not acquainted with it, as he admits.

First of all, the precinct (neighborhood) caucuses are held in some public location, such as a neighborhood school (generally within easy walking distance), and in a large room, such as the school lunchroom or cafeteria. And it is scheduled on a day and at a time to make it convenient for as many people as possible. The ones I've gone to have been at Lowell Elementary School two blocks from where I live, on Saturdays beginning at 1:00 in the afternoon. Hard to find a time that would be more convenient for most people, and anyone who wanted to come could have, and indeed, was urged to come, through the local media, mailings, posters, and those annoying phone calls you get from political parties ("We need your input! Can you be there? Please try!").

The routine, at least in the caucuses I have attended (most recently 2004, although now I wish very much I had gone last Saturday), is that when you arrive, you sign in the same as when you go to the polls to vote, so they can check the books and make sure that you are a registered voter.

This does not violate one's right to a secret ballot any more than going to a polling place and signing in before you actually mark that secret ballot. Of course, these are party caucuses, and if you go, it can be assumed that you are interested in that party's candidates, although a few members of the opposition party often go just to see what the other guys are up to.

A party official then convenes the meeting and gives a brief explanation to newcomers to caucuses as to what to expect. First, those who already favor a particular candidate gather in groups so they can become acquainted if they aren't already, and discuss things among themselves. "Kerry folks over in the corner by the windows, Dean folks over there" (pointing), Kucinich people in the back corner by the windows. . . ."    And on through the list of those who have declared their candidacy.   Those who are undecided can wander from group to group, listen, and ask questions.

After about half an hour or forty-five minutes, people begin moving from group to group and some of the more confrontational discussions begin as a couple of, say Howard Dean advocates join the Kucinich group and another couple of Dean folks join the Kerry group,   And some of the Kucinich group moves over to the Kerry group, the Dean group, etc. The main bodies of each group stay in their original locations, but there is a general milling around as the Dean folks try to talk the Kucinich folks into shifting over to Dean and vice versa. You get the picture.

This goes on for some time. Then, after some shuffling of people from group to group, the hard-core Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, etc., folks reconvene in their original groups and elect the person or persons from within the group whom they feel will best represent them as delegates to the regional convention. Depending on the extent of the hierarchy in any given state, some Joe Schmoe such as myself, by being elected at a neighborhood caucus as a delegate, could end up as a delegate to the National Convention. That's pretty "grass roots."

As I mentioned in a post above, in 2004, the Kucinich group wanted to elect me as their delegate, but for reasons explained, I had to decline. I think one of the reasons they wanted to choose me was that I had come to the caucus pretty well informed about Kucinich's positions (I had downloaded and printed off a copy of Kucinich's "Ten Key Points" from his website—someone borrowed my copy, dashed off to find a copy machine, and made copies for the rest of the group) and some of his history, particularly when he was mayor of Cleveland and refused to sell a local public utility to private interests. By doing this, he incurring the wrath of a lot of people which cost him the re-election, but who later realized that he'd done the right thing. Personal integrity and the guts to stick to what he knew was right, even when he knew it would cost him—a rare commodity in politics! Oddly enough, most of the Kucinich folks didn't know all this, so I was able to give them some talking points. We gained a few folks from other groups simply by being well-informed.

Kucinich didn't make it, of course, but the caucus was my chance to spread information—and talking points—that I had to the others, who, in turn, became better advocates for the candidate that they wanted. And I learned a great deal about all the candidates that I probably would not have learned any other way. Enough, for example, that when it finally boiled down to John Kerry, I still would have preferred Dennis Kucinich, but I didn't feel all that bad about supporting and voting for Kerry.

This is one of the major values of caucuses. You get to express yourself, exchange information, and learn a lot that you didn't know before about the various candidates, most of which you aren't going to learn from the media.

And during the whole afternoon, we didn't have anyone—party officials—trying to dominate the meeting or cram anything down anyone's throat. There were plenty of heated discussions, but these were between the people on the floor, strongly advocating for their favorite candidate and trying to give reasons why someone else should change their position.

To me—and I think to the other people who were there—it was a very educational, informative, and generally well spent Saturday afternoon.

Don Firth

P. S. If you ignore the caucuses and only vote in the primary, all you have to go on is what the media tells you, plus whatever other information you can pick up, provided you are sufficiently motivated to actually investigate.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM

Don, our (New Mexico) caucus was indistinguishable from a primary - that is, we stood in line, checked in, filled in a box on a paper ballot, put it in a box and left. I wish I had had your experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:31 PM

"Candidates have not appealed to them {Hispanics} directly, which is difficult because many, if not most, Hispanic Texans speak Spanish at home."

What's so difficult about learning Spanish? I'd have thought that a combination of basic courtesy and self-help would ensure than any serious candidate for political office, in a country where there is a very sizeable Spanish speaking population, would have a fairly good acquaintance with the language.

It's probably about the easiest foreign language for an English speaker to learn, because it is so regular. Much easier than French or German. And far easier than English is for Spanish speakers, which must be a nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 03:38 PM

Q - Most the blue collar workers I know would feel the same way about participating in a caucus. It wouldn't happen.
                      If they could vote-by-mail, though, in lieu of participating in a caucus, that should take care of it. The thing is, they should have the ballot maile directly to them, so they don't have to request it weeks in advance.

                      The way it's described above, the caucuses seem to work for everybody except for the people who are supporting everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:50 PM

Art, that sounds less like a caucus and more like a primary.

I had always thought that the word "caucus" came from the Latin (it sounds Latin), but apparently not. One theory holds that it comes from an ancient Greek word for "drinking cup," implying sitting about at a symposium and discussing things political. Another says it's a North American Indian (probably Algonquin) word for a person or group who pushes for or advocates a particular position or idea (many eastern Native Americans tribes, it seems, had remarkably democratic systems of government). Be that as it may, Webster's defines a caucus as

A meeting, especially a preliminary meeting, of persons belonging to a political party, to nominate candidates for public office, or to select delegates to a nominating convention, or to confer regarding measures of party policy.

A caucus—by definition—is supposed to involve discussion, not just marking a ballot and sticking it into a box. That is a primary election.

Maybe the New Mexico Democratic Party needs to check a good dictionary. As, apparently, should the political parties in a number of states!

Maybe you need to get a few like-minded people together and all go yell at somebody.

Don Firth

P. S. I just watch "Sick-o" (got it on NetFlix) a few evenings ago, and that great philosopher, Michael Moore (!) makes the point that the reason France has an excellent government-supported national health system—excellent care, no doctor or hospital bills, and doctors make house calls—is because the people demanded it, and because elected officials are basically afraid of the voters.

Like him or not, Moore makes a lot of sense.

For anything you feel needs changing, locally is a good place to start. Visit the appropriate elected official, look him or her straight in the eye and tell them what you want. Nose to nose if need be. Make him or her a little bit afraid of you.

Think nationally. Act locally.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:51 PM

But surely most people generally don't take part in these caucuses anyway, whatever their collar.

The published figure indicate it's a minority who choose to do so, but the assumption that "blue collar workers" can't be expected to be in that minority is an assumption; the fact that Trade Unions exist suggests that just possibly it might not stand up to close examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 04:57 PM

I know the quote is usually "Think globally. Act locally," but I think we need to launder the skid-marks out of our own shorts before we start trying to tell the rest of the world how to live.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:13 PM

Kevin--and Rig--I belong to two unions, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the Comunications Workers of American (CWA), and my wife, who works for the Seattle Public Library, belongs to the Seattle city employees' union, and we received mailings from all three unions urging us to attend our precinct caucuses.

Most unions have candidates that they endorse, and they urge their members--generally "blue-collar" workers--to attend caucuses and support those candidates.

And there were plenty of "blue-collar" workers at the caucuses I have attended.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:16 PM

McGrath - I don't know where you are, but the concept of a trade union in the US is almost laughable any more, with the exception of the public unions--teachers and etc.

             I think there is something troubling about a small number of people making the primary decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:21 PM

Amos, that is an incredible article. I wonder if anyone emailed it to camp Clinton. Whew!

Don, "Maybe the New Mexico Democratic Party needs to check a good dictionary." HA! I nearly busted a gut on that one! I orter send that quote to his highness the exalted King of Richardson.

New Mexico is a strange and wonderful state. We seem to like to alternate governors, going from a wacked out lefty like Toney Anaya to "Gov. Veto" - the last Repub. governor whose name completely escapes me right now, but who was elected to two terms. Now Richardson, and if the trend continues we will go back to a Repub. when its time to change the linens in Santa Fe.

Likewise, we typically keep our senatorial delegation to one Dem. and one Repub. That will probably change this year, if the Dem. presidential candidate has long enough coat tails. Sen. Domenici was a favorite of both parties for a long time - Dems may discount that statement, but they never really mounted much of a charge against him.

Locally, however, the Democrats meet in a huge conference room and the Republicans meet in a broom closet. The Democrats have it exactly as they want it, and no dictionary is going to change anything.

Here is one sure fire prediction: the rest of the nation will know within hours of the closing of the polls on election night in Nov. which presidential candidate won the electoral votes from their state. For New Mexico it will be days, if not weeks. I guarantee it.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 05:40 PM

Out of date, I guess- my Webster's Collegiate (10th ed. 1996) defines caucus ("origin unknown") as "a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political or faction usu. to select candidates or to decide on policy; also: a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause."

OED- alleged to have been used in Boston as early as 1723; "Already in 1774 Gordon (Hist. Amer. Rev.) could obtain no "Satisfactory account of the origin of the name.""
The word has been transported to England and New Zealand and has been used in various ways; see OED.

I am not blue collar, but I avoid meetings of that type, especially political. If I did attend, it would be as a silent observer. My vote is nobody's business but my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM

Yeah, Freightdawg, no problem. My old home state of New Mexico will complete its primary count of provisional ballots before the Conventions- what's the hurry?

The split is so even that the delegate count will remain close to 13 all, so doesn't make no nevermind anyways. The superdelegates will determine convention attendance and how soon the pledges are re-assigned after the first vote, so everything hotsy totsy as usual!

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:14 PM

Q - I feel the same way you do.

               Another piece of it is, some people have a lot more time to devote to this process than others.

               Young people with small children probably have the least amount of time, but they are probably impacted the most by the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 06:54 PM

Ok,,,I just voted today in Maryland. First time in ages that my primary vote has a chance of meaning something.
It was cold and windy and there is now icy conditions on many roads. Polls were pretty quiet where I was. We'll see soon how it went.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 07:21 PM

A lot of people must feel that way. This is the first time I can recall when everything wasn't decided in the first few weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 07:54 PM

Yikes, Bill! You should not have revealed that you are located somewhere in Maryland. Don't forget...George W. Bush (aka King Arthur reincarnated) is still lookin' for that sucker out there called "Bill D" who doesn't believe in him (the King Arthur part, I mean), and you have now provided a valuable tip which will allow his minions to narrow the search! The reason you ain't been hearin' so much about Condi lately is cos G.W. is ticked at her for not finding you so far. You have now given her the clue she needed.

Lie low, man. Watch for black helicopters.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:05 PM

Obama is tops in Virginia primary. Haven't heard the exact percentage yet. Virginia is an open primary, and theory I'm hearing is: since it's obvious McCain has the Republican nomination---(despite Huckabee's dragging it out)--- many Republicans--especially moderates to liberals--(and of course independents) are voting in the Democratic primary. Obama is lopsidedly getting the benefit.

I've also heard on the call-in radio show (CNN?) several voters say they voted for Ron Paul--but will vote Obama in the fall. Iraq war stance was cited, as was ability to unite the US.

Maryland primary closing time has been extended to 9:30 (from 8), due to traffic problems influenced by the "wintry mix" we are enjoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM

And, by the way--in anticipation of the inevitable coming contribution to this thread-- no, Rig, for the n'th time, it is not a plot by Republicans to get the weakest Democrat nominated.

Your wonderful theory fails for the obvious reason that Obama is actually by far the stronger of the two remaining Democrats for the fall.

He will be able to unite the Democrats, and will get far more independents and Republicans than she could dream of.

Her main achievement would be to unite the Republicans.

Sorry, it's back to your conspiracy drawing board. You'll have to think of something better.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Charley Noble
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:18 PM

Obama's victory in Virginia appears solid, on the order of 60/40.

McCain is building up a lead now that the urban votes are coming in. Huckabee was beating McKain by embarrasing margins in the early returns from rural districts.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:27 PM

So, the results are exactly what was predicted, in other words.

That's thrilling news.

Subject: RE: BS: Primaries
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 08 - 09:31 PM

Glad you like it, Janet. The only goal of the voters is to please you, as you know.