Political Punch

From my recent, and first, caucus experience, the truly disenfranchised voters are those in states that select candidates based on a caucus. There is absolutely nothing democratic, or demonstably fair, about a caucus. They only favor those who can get to the caucus site at a designated time(7:15pm), stay at the caucus site, and fight like hell against dissembling and outright vote theft, ie changing preferences on sheets as perpetrated by Obama supporting chair. We were thank fully observant enough to see such and make her correct them.
I say this as a person whose candidate (HRC) actually won our “two-step” caucus 2 to 1. We had 15 delgates allocated for our precinct. We (HRC) supporters had 120 people present, Obama supporters had 40 present. We got 10 delegates they got 5, which should please me, and on the surface does. My wife and I came away feeling good about our efforts.

However, the next day when I checked the actual votes cast in my county precinct, one of 170 precincts in the county, HRC won over BHO by a 59.9% to 40.1% margin. By my calculation had our 15 caucus delegates been simply included with all delegates, based on the popular vote, the numbers would have been 9 for HRC, 6 for BHO. In other words, for the caucus, a popular vote of 59.9% in our favor bacame a 66.6% vote in our favor.

I have no doubt this anomaly occurred in most every precinct, favoring one candidate or the other. There is no way to label such as fair, reasonable, nor democratic. It is a farce!

I want my candidate to win, but more importantly I would like for the system to be balanced, truly democratic, and every voter in America to have the opportunity to go to the polls, cast their ballot, go home, and be assured that their efforts carried exactly the same weight as every other American voter’s did. That would truly be democracy!

Jade,

I don't agree with you as you said Clinton supporters are not excited as Obama supporters etc.
The reason Obama supporters mostly are younger people even most of them college students while Clinton supporters are mostly women with children, elderly people with some disability and working classes which can not leave the offices

while some of you in some states may not have experienced the same as others, you also may not live in a precinct that matters as much or has as many delegates as others, or needs just that little but of push to squeeze out another candidate's 15% to remain viable, etc...

the incidents of bullying, among other things, included supporters of other candidates spreading lies about the other candidates, saying they were reciting information from their "book."

Other problems arose actually outside the caucus, people misleading elderly folks to go to a different location, etc. unlike a primary election, if people don't show up on time, they will not be let in.

The caucuses were also supposed to have people speak about their candidates, and many precincts did not allow anyone to speak. Other bullying comes from the ability for precinct captains for a candidate to talk to undecideds, and some campaigns obviously trained their "supporters" to circle around undecideds to keep anyone from talking to them.

Lastly, and probably the most important problem, was the lack of id or address checking. in iowa, there were even some who said they had talked to everyone in their precinct before the caucus, yet over a dozen people showed up to caucus for obama, register day of, didn't show id, didn't stay long after, and the parking lots had lots of illinois license plates. those few people put obama over the top in that precinct, and it makes no sense, that no one knew who those people were. this is a lot more than a few college students, and obama's campaign needs to come clean with this.

(Post Continued)

"The proposals, which have been drawn up by Leicester City West Primary Care Trust, could be extended to other areas.

"The Leicester plans would involve smokers being given counselling and nicotine patches to help them stop. But the patients would have to give a blood sample to prove they had quit before being put on the waiting list and admitted for elective non-emergency surgery."

I don't know about other states, but in Kansas it does not matter what Dem wins in a primary. What matters is the general election and Kansas will never go to a Dem.

This is in response to comments from James Danley Mar 8, 2008 11:55:56 a.m. I am Canadian and I live under our Universal Health Care Program. I'm not saying it's perfect, but no one is ever denied treatment. They may frown on smoking and such, but myself, I've had open heart surgery and fair pharmacare paid for under our system and I've smoked for 43 years and still do.

Lauren,

Thanks for the explainations.
I agree with you because most of Hillary supporters are elderly people and women even some of them young people also.
Not to mention if the weather turn bad.
Unlikely Obama supporters are young mostly 18-29 years only.
I just feel this election is not right for the best of the country.
it's really frustrated if you think about it.

Twin Mom, you are SO SO Right, sister. LOL

The Commander Guy, you are right. I could have written for days! But I was under time restraints at the time so I very briefly covered the two points I wanted to make. Besides many of the Clintonistas are so enamored with Bill & Hillary that they can't see the trees (truth) through the forest (Clinton lies). So if that is the case, why throw all the trees (truth) at them at once. A tree (truth) at a time might open their eyes to further trees (truth) down the road.

Caucuses -- err cauci, aren't all the same. In Minnesota you sign in and then complete your Presidential preference ballot. There's no bullying. No one has to know who you vote for. Then you go on to a meeting room to select the delegates who will go on to the district convention. Some people were frustrated by the long lines and disorganization, and I sympathize. However, I came away from it feeling energized and like I was actually participating in a democratic process. It was exciting.

"Clinton talks about caucuses like there's something inherently discriminatory and wrong with them, like organization and enthusiasm in supporters is to be disdained."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The fact that you don't see the discrimination doesn't surprise me what with you being so objective. Clintons support comes from people who must work and elderly who may not be physically up to "fighting" for their candidate. The right to vote should not be a burden that many can't endure. I read in the paper of an 87 year old women with a walker and a huge flashlight (because she was all but blind) trying to caucus for Clinton. You Jake, and the other Obama supporters are all about the rules but only when they work in your favor. I hope Hillary gets the nomination with the help of the super delegates. When she does you will not have any reason for whiny temper tantrums because it will be within the "rules".

Oh and BTW O is leading 59-40 in wyoming with 78% in.

James Danley:

You can do better than that with your al Qaeda discussion.

It is totally inadequate.

Jacksmith, there is so much I could write. But I will address only two items.

First, President Clinton did not recognize that al Qaeda was at war with the United States and the Civilized World. He treated the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal act and not as an act of war. His 1998 bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and launching of a few cruise missiles against al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in response to al Qaeda's bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania was totally inadequate. And once again, he did not recognize these attacks as an act of war. And he did absolutely nothing in response to al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in 2000 -- another act of war. In the meantime, he cut back our military strength and weakened our intelligence capabilities. That, coupled with his failure to understand that al Qaeda was at war with the United States, and his lack of retaliation to their attacks only emboldened al Qaeda even more -- which led to the attacks of 9/11.

Second, be careful what you wish for regarding universal health care. In a recent debate, Sen. Clinton told the American people that those who are satisfied with their private medical health insurance will be allowed to keep their medical insurance..."FOR NOW." That is a clear indication that the talk about making sure that everyone has medical insurance is nothing but a smoke screen. She (and Sen. Obama) want to do away with all private medical insurance. They want either Medicare or a new federal bureaucracy to eventually run our health care system. Then when the preventative care program takes effect, the federal government will mandate what you can or cannot eat, what you can or cannot drink, what products that you can or cannot buy -- all in the name of preventative health care. Right now in Canada and Europe individuals are being refused specific treatment (i.e. transplants) because they don't conform to a healthy lifestyle (i.e., they smoke). Socialized womb-to-tomb universal health care will strip us of our freedoms (i.e. pursuit of happiness).

If we like caususes or not, if we prefer Hillary instead of Barack or the other way round, if we do or no not like chicken soup, this is reality today:

Barack Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged and total delegates. At this stage of race there is other possibility than that he will be the presidential candicate for the Democratic Party in this year's general election.

Simply get used to that idea and stop fighting on issues that no longer matter.

The fact is that people in Primary states don't get the appeal of caucuses. We want to exercise our civic duty by informing ourselves in the privacy of our own homes (while we take care of our families), stopping by our polling place, sign in, vote in the PRIVACY OF THE VOTING BOOTH, sign out and return home - many accompanied by young children or elderly neighbors or family members that we're also chauffering. That's how we do it in those states that have been reliably democratic all those years. Caucuses seem from another place and time - before the mass media, when we knew and were willing to follow the advice of our neighbors. Today, as a middleaged mom whose kids still need supervision the idea of being trapped in a large hall - listening to yuppies complaining about declining real estate prices on their McMansions and gas prices for their huge SUV;s while conducting business on their blackberries - turns me off. Today, caucuses only survive because state democratic parties don't want to emphasize the wide disparity between republican and democratic turnout during the primary season in these RED states.

Clinton HAS to win AA votes...SHE has to win over the over-$50,000 Voters...and she can't.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Well, clearly there is difference between caucuses and primaries. Just take Texas for example.
Also, if you only count primary votes Clinton is clearly ahead.

Hillary has not done even better because there have been some unfair forces working against her - there are complete double-standards, and some people are representing her in very negative ways that she does not truly deserve. Those people create their own self-fufilling prophesy of seeing her in a negative light. But she is truly our most qualified candidate, and would be able to do the most to help our country, and especially our economy.

We have caucuses this primary season - but I think this should be their last season.

There are plenty of other ways for people to rally and express enthusiasm.

From reading of people's experiences here, and what I have heard, caucuses can be very bullying, and discriminate against a large portion of the electorate who have a harder time attending them.

If Clinton would be winning caucuses, you wouldn't be saying they are dumb, they are mob-liked,etc., wouldn't you? The Constitution doesn't say anything about playing dirty politics, and stating false statements as if they were true manipulating simple minds to get votes. Everybody knows the War Room tactics of the Clintons, if that is the way you think the nomination should be won, then you are part of the corruption in Washington and do not want to give America an honest, fresh start Shame on you!

Caucuses are "democracy by mob mentality."

I have met many people who felt there was way too much peer pressure to vote a certain way. One person kept saying, "I wish my vote could be private. I wish I could be anonymous." Because she really wanted to vote for Hillary, but some of her friends wanted her to vote for Barack.

Caucuses are much more inconvenient for many people to attend including: women with children, seniors and the elderly, people who work swing or night shifts, people who don't have easy transportation, people who are disabled, people who don't really have enough time or energy.

There are many older, wiser more experienced people who support Hillary who for many reasons above, cannot go to caucuses.

They are really backwards, and not a convenient tradition in the year 2008.

I'm really surprised they still exist, and I think their existence needs to be questioned because we don't live in quaint times anymore where we can afford to make such mistakes when electing nominees, and presidents.

Some traditions need to go bye-bye for there to be true democracy.

Say bye-bye caucuses...

(It's late here) :)

More than half of the popular vote has supported Hillary, even with the caucuses, him out-spending her 3 to 1, and all the Obama-hype.

Caucuses may be a tradition, but it is common sense that they are not truly as democratic as regular primaries, because they involve so much more time, so many fewer people vote.

You make them sound like a Norman Rockwell painting, Jake, but I have heard many politic experts agree that they do not represent the majority of the electorate - you are oversimplifying the situation, and making them sound easier to attend than they are. Many people cannot work them into their schedules very easily, because of schedules or even physical limitiations. The party can always rally in other ways.

What would be interesting, would be how the outcome might be different if the caucuses had been regular primaries.

I live in Oregon where we vote by mail ballot, and it's the best and easiest voting system I've ever experienced.

It's utterly logical that she's lost in states where there's a large african-american population who are voting for Barack.

Of course, more than half of the population are women, and white - but we are a diverse society - so of course people will vote different ways.

People are just explaining reality, Jake - not making excuses.

They're not excuses - they are reasons.

If journalists and pundits explain them the same way are they 'excuses'? No.

No le double-standard.

The biggest part of Clinton's resume is her experience in coming up with creative excuses for why so many voters give her only grudging, reluctant support.

The longer the campaign goes on, the more voters get to know Hillary (as opposed to Bill, who they did like - at least at the time), the more they're ready to give Obama a chance.

Roll the dice with Obama? Better than playing a fixed game with Clinton.

"We can see the point by just looking who Hillary's most supporters are, people with limited English or limited education"

Obama supporters, when will you stop with your personal attacks... I think some of you give Obama (who i feel is a decent man) a real disservice by acting this way.

Caucuses are a great way to:

1) Eliminate cross-over votes (eg the Rush Limbaugh thing).

2) Party Nomination is not the same as a general election. The Constitution actually doesn't give you any right to elect a nominee for a party. Caucuses allow those who are devoted to the party to participate in the selection of the nominee.

3) Caucuses are a lot cheaper than Primaries.

4) Caucuses are held at night, so most working-class folk can attend. Someone with a night job who is really interested in their political party will find a way to attend.

5) Caucuses (greatly) reduce vote harvesting, which is unethical and (I think) illegal.

6) Caucuses do not disadvantage the poor. They do however advantage those that are more passionate about their candidate.

Caucuses may be archaic, but the tradition is deeply rooted and they won't be going away any time soon. The first occurrence of the caucus format for political purposes goes back to at least 1724. And the political parties have used the caucus format for determining their nominee for president since 1800. Primaries are a "recent" format.

Josh, you wrote: "....there were only 30,000 caucus votes in the entire state of Washington where you would have had 10 times as many if it were a primary." Actually if you notice that was NOT the number of votes. That was the number of PRECINCT DELEGATES SELECTED. Most states don't post the total number of caucus participants.

I think the caucuses really offer an advantage for Obama in a way. The core suporters of Hillary, older people for examply, might be less willing to take part in that kind of chaos (think Texas) and many working class people simply aren't able to take time off from work.

It's also proven that much more people take part in primaries than caucuses, and i think it's important that everybody has an equal chance to participate.

That being said, the rules are rules, and we must abide by them. Luckily, there aren't many caucuses left this spring, so we can concentrate on winning the primaries.

For the folks here who are touting the fairness of caucuses and how we Hillary people are complaining because she has lost the majority of them, you should be cautious in your tone.

These may be the rules and I for one am willing to live with the results. I may not like the method, but those are the rules.

Just remember, since the implementation of the super delegates in 1984, their role is to vote their conscience. Period. There are no rules about voting based on the popular vote, delegate count, etc. They are free to vote as they choose, with the goal of ensuring they nominate a candidate who has the best chance of winning the general election.

So before you say that they are stealing an election, not voting the will of the people, etc., remember, those ARE the rules.

Ladyvoter people have been complaining about caucuses forever maybe you never noticed because you never bothered to vote or listen to others on thier voting experiance.Long before Clinton or Obama came around

The hilarious thing is that caucuses classically favor establishment candidates, who can take advantage of existing networks, over insurgents who have to create those networks from scratch.

The fact that Clinton has gotten stomped so bad by Obama in the caucus states just speaks to how awesome his organizational and inspirational talents are.

Jake Tapper-- You get 1,000 blogging bonus points for "cauci." I nearly spit my beer out all over my keyboard with that one. Phunny stuph, indeed.

Caucus is a 4 letter word, because Clinton just isn't winning them. Though I am biased as an Obama supporter, my thought is that she isn't getting the support because she simply does not inspire people enough to get them engaged and willing to caucus.

If one looks at the 2 camps, one cannot fail to see that there is a huge difference between them re: supporters. Clinton supporters are not very into the whole process. Sure, there are some among them that are engaged and outspoken, but they simply do not have as many supporters who are as excited about their candidate as are Obama supporters.

Bill Clinton never had a problem with caucuses did he? Nope. What's different, besides the energy of the campaigns is that most folks never even knew what in the hell a caucus was before this year! So Clinton can play the class-card as much as she wants but the truth is that her supporters aren't any poorer than Obama supporters or disadvantaged with their time or ability to get out--they are just simply not as informed, organized, or excited as Obama supporters. That, and she simply doesn't have the gaggle of supporters that Obama does.

That's my deluded, biased take on the situation, anyway.

Texas Voter: The "wink wink" column for Obama still includes NAFTA, and also now, the BBC report about his plans for withdrawal from Iraq --- information given out by his recently fired,"wink wink" resigned foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power.

PA will get it right too! Hillary Clinton is polling 15 points ahead of Barack Obama.

From a social standpoint caucus is no longer suitable for our busy lifestyle, but as a politician one has to prepare to fight battles anywhere. HC was caught unprepared for an impressive insurgent candidate. I don't support BHO, but I have to say his campaign program has been brilliant. It will be a textbook case study for how a campaign should be conducted. I can't imagine anyone could beat him if he came in with more experience and better known, say 2 terms of IL governorship or 2 terms of Senator (or even 2 terms of First Gentleman :). If he loses to HC, he can still come back. But if he loses to JM, it will be tough for a 2nd chance.

I had never lived in a caucus state until this election cycle. I had no idea they are so inherently undemocratic and unfair, it is rather unbelievable to me even exist at all, let alone play the important part they do. I suppose part of my problem is that I had always listened to the news reports describing the noble Iowa citizens braving the cold to farmhouses and fire stations in the great American tradition. What could be so bad about a caucus?
But now I know the rest of the story. What about all the people that have to work, seniors, single parents, soldiers? What about the bullying that goes on, the open balloting in front neighbors and co-workers? The fact that in may states no one knows if you are a resident of the state or even registered to vote! Just think about some of that for a microsecond. While it is true that most people who are complaining in these forums are Hillary supporters, this nomination season has created an independent voter out of a lifelong democratic. Any party that is going to nominate their candidate by such means is a farce.

@Posted by: CK Canon/ Wash state | Mar 7, 2008 10:39:40 PM:

I completely agree. We are assigning our 78 delegates based on the turnout of roughly 31K people in the caucus (68%-O/31% 31%-C) versus the 663K votes cast in the primary (51%-O/46%-C).

Doing the math, using the primary system, 1 delegate would represent about 21 times more people than 1 delegate using a caucus system.

I get it -- those are the rules. I just don't see how that is putting our best democratic foot forward though.

The author of this article is sooooooooooooooo biased against Clinton ... and so angry!

... it is a fact most people do not attend caucauses.

Win or lose, just do NOT call Wyoming a small state and just do NOT say small states do NOT count. Senator Clinton is behind on Pledged delegates because small states DO count. Be a fighter, but don't be an arrogant one. Releasing the tax return will help too. Both Clintons must let go the sense of entitlement, what made them think they owned the White House? Let the voters speak. This is America. Play fair, you win. Play dirty, you lose. It never fails. Senator Obama deserves some credit, who would have thought he could fight two Clintons and still winning so far?

Hillary learned the art of cherry picking from husband Bill.

I wonder is she'll follow husband Bill's pardon policy as well and pardon Marc Rich's partner Viktor Bout, the merchant of death.

If Viktor is smart, he needs only to drag a $50 dollar bill through Dollar Bill's trailer park. Hillary wont be able to resist Dollar Bill's charm offensive.

@Posted by: pat | Mar 7, 2008 10:29:12 PM:

The Washington State Democratic Party had scheduled county conventions in conflict of the First Seder of Passover. Initially, the Democratic Chairman turned down a request to have it moved to a different day.

There was a lot of opposition to his decision from the Jewish community and a petition on movetheconvention.org was initiated to urge him to move it. The movement quickly amassed a lot of support and lo and behold, the county conventions were rescheduled.

Caucuses definitely have the potential to disenfranchise a lot of people because of not only religious conflicts, but work, family, life, etc.

I don't know though. After the 2000 election, many people said that the electoral college was antiquated and that hasn't changed 8 years later.

Caucuses are a joke. What is democratic about disenfranchising people who have to work, seniors, disabled, soldiers, etc.? In Washington state, BO won 70% of the caucus vote and 52% of the primary vote. In Texas, similar results. One person, one vote.

I think the point about why HC lost a lot of caucuses is valid. The same question has been bothering me. Not sure if she took the labor unions' support for granted and never built up an alternate organization. But, I think the point about BHO fighting for white votes and female votes everywhere is tainted by the lopsided vote by a large block of blacks. She had her hands full trying to win the white vote while he had to do nothing to win 80-90% of the black vote. It should be obvious that in a state with 30% black voters, with 80% secured black vote BHO starts out with an 18% overall advantage (assuming she gets all of the remaining 20% black vote). That's a huge margin to overcome. I can imagine HC would fight for every vote - white, black, men, women - if she had 65% of the white vote (assuming 60% white in the same state) locked up securely for her.

Caucuses are undemocratic. Period.
They should be banned.

Caucus is aflawed system for choosing a president

Imagine a system that requires some voters to choose between following the dictates of their faiths or participating in an election. Imagine a system that disenfranchises voters who are hospitalized, or scheduled to work, or out of town on the day and time set for the election. You don't need much imagination for this, because America has just such a system and is using it to help pick the next president. It's called caucuses, and it is the way that citizens express their presidential preferences in more than a dozen states.

Consider tomorrow caucuses. Saturday is celebrated as the Sabbath by Jews and Seventh-day Adventists. Synagogues hold Shabbat services on Saturday mornings and, perhaps more important, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from driving or doing other activity that could be viewed as work, which would include participating in caucuses. As the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, put it in a statement this week, "In a country that values religious liberty, no person should ever be forced to choose between practicing their religion and participating in their democracy." This is not a hypothetical problem; Nevada has one of the fastest-growing Jewish populations in the country.

There are legitimate considerations that could prompt states to choose to conduct their presidential nominee selection process by caucuses rather than primaries. Caucuses are party-building events designed not only to express presidential preferences but to hash out party platforms. They can create a sense of belonging to a community. But these advantages seem more theoretical than real -- most caucusgoers do not stick around to debate the fine points of platforms -- and in any event they are outweighed by the all-too-real drawbacks of a system that cannot help but disenfranchise some would-be voters.

I was initially really excited to participate in our state's caucus, even though my vote was going to be in the minority.

Both sides had multiple opportunities to give a short speech in support of our candidates. The small group of Hillary supporters listened and clapped respectfully when an Obama supporter spoke. There were some Obama supporters who did not reciprocate and actually booed us.

I was disappointed to witness this type of behavior. It didn't feel like democracy at its finest. And at the risk of sounding weak, whimpy or whatever you're going to call me, it was a demoralizing experience.

I knew it was time to go home when someone on the Obama side stated the most compelling argument of the day in support their candidate: "Obama rules, Hillary drools." Wow. Senator Obama, you can have them...

I am glad my state votes. And 1 vote for everyone. It makes you take a serious study of each canidate, & weigh every issue & their stand on the issues. Using wisdom & common sense to pick the one whom you think will help this country the best. Then cast your vote. It seems more civil, & fair as everyone gets to have their voice heard.If you can't be at a caucus
at a certian place & time it's tough kitty. Doesn't seem very democratic to me.

O-Yikes, so you're from Illinois.

How come Obama is so immensely popular in his home state, as the Illinois primary results indicate; percentage wise much more popular than Clinton in New York?

One would assume the people from Illinois knew very well what they're voting for when they voted Obama.

Oh, come on. Everybody knows this is an issue that goes to the demographics of the voters they are attracting. Beside the fact, caucuses are less democratic. The only reason they are used instead of a primary in some states is because of the cost of putting on a primary is much higher.

Why hasnt the MSM did any articles on the bullying go on at these caucus sites? Because its favoring obama instead of Hillary? Hillary's base of voters are older than obama's who are bullying them.

Jordan: Since you and the UK Telegraph seem to know so much about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience, how about stating Barack Obama's? I can't seem to find one thing.

By the way, I am an independent voter and do not support Clinton, McCain, Nader, or Obama...yet.

Regardless of who I choose to vote for in November, I am thankful that it will be my vote, privately cast, in a voting booth.

The overwhelming response, so far, seems to be the that the modern caucus method is actually quite removed from fair, representative government.

"I've seen this movie before. The Bill Bradley character dies at the end."

The caucuses favor the impassioned liberal elites who keep pushing the replay button.

Dukakis, Kerry, Obama--a proud tradition of democratic defeat.

Vote Clinton.

we've been compiling a list of observations from the various caucusing, and "so saddened"'s comments here are pretty typical of what we're seeing. bullying by obama's crowd is pretty standard, and it's nothing to do with the person's race, in places like iowa, his supporters were all white...although many may have actually been from illinois, and not iowa--there was no id or proof of residency check.

i'm hoping that as obama finally gets some scrutiny from the media, that the media will finally investigate and report on it. we definitely need to re-think the primary system.

the caucuses are an older system, from the days when only party big wigs had any say over nominations anyways, the primaries were the reform to get more people involved. some places have gone to caucuses to keep costs down, while others have kept theirs cuz it would insure that only the most dedicated people who are really looking carefully at the candidates would choose. it's got little to do with the Constitution of the US, it's individual party rules.

I caucused for the first time in Washington state and I thought it was a very stressful experience.

It was extremely disorganized, loud and tiring. I wasn't happy about investing hours of my time to have a say in the election when 10 days later I could draw a line for my candidate of choice in our state's primary (which doesn't count for squat for the democratic party, but still costs us a cool $10M).

Because of the increased turnout from previous years (which is great to have big numbers turn out), there were few places to sit which tired many people, folks had to leave to go to work or remove their very patient-turned-grumpy kids from the location. Even though their "vote" got counted via the sign-in sheet, having to leave early doesn't seem to be in the spirit of a caucus.

It is what it is, but I definitely enjoy sending in an absentee ballot much more.

I also think it's a tough pill to swallow thinking about how many votes a delegate represents in a caucus versus a primary. Looking at some numbers of votes and pledged delegates in both types of settings, on average, 1 delegate in a primary represents 7 times more people than 1 delegate in a caucus (Source of votes and pledged delegate count: CNN.com).

In my home state, Kansas, the Democrats and Republicans both decided to resort to the debacle of caucus determination of support for a Presidential candidate.

Elected Republican representatives in the Kansas legislature outnumber Democratic counterparts between 2 and 3 to 1.

Elected Kansas Republican representatives in Washington favor the Republican party by the same ratio.

Registered Republican voters in Kansas outnumber Democrats by a similar 2 to 1 margin.

Yet, over 20,000 Democrats were counted at the caucuses while about half that many attended Republican caucuses.

The winners of the caucuses in Kansas were Huckabee and Obama, the candidates of both parties with the most extreme positions in what is viewed a moderate state.

The Kansas caucuses were held on nights when the average working class person had to get up the next day to go to work thus disenfranchising a significant number of the working class.

The Kansas caucuses were also open to all participants regardless of party affiliation which potentially allowed for returns that did not reflect the wishes of registered, party voters.

Single parent working class voters were further disenfranchised in that they would have had to incur the additional cost of child care to attend a caucus, if child care was available.

Caucus in Kansas (and I would guess in other states) comes closer to resembling Chicago style politics than a true democracy.

Caucuses make no sense whatsoever Mr. Tapper. I want to see you stand there for hours battling it out when you have a family at home to tend to. Don't give that speech about if Clinton were worth enough to caucus you'd do it. It's not about that. People feel bullied, they feel that voting should be a private matter. Caucuses I feel are undemocratic. Black people feel empowered when they vote for Obama (yet are not called racists), white people are called racist if they stand up for Clinton. So this whole article is inane.

they all show up because they think it's AMERICAN IDOL they are voting for

Noone complained about the Caucus system in the Democratic Party until Hillary started complaining.

Why? Because she lost most of them. She also complains about primaries she lost as being full of a) blacks, b) yuppie elites, or c) Obama supporters pretending to be typical voters.

She probably thinks that she should have been appointed the nominee by the Party, and is insulted she actually has to go out and beg for votes just like any old fool running for this soul-crushing job.

Nice thoughts, Jake, but what about a piece on Sen. Clinton's foreign policy experience claims? These DO matter, don't they?

Abroad, in the countries she says she made such valuable contributions, the people involved are making fun of her in the foreign press.

In the UK Telegraph I just read the 'Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's "silly" Irish peace claims' article which isn't exactly convincing me that Clinton did anything else than talking about teapots and cooking to N-Irish women.

The Nobel winner making fun of Hillary's claims is Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province. He calls Hillary a 'cheerleader' instead of a player in the field.

Seems a pretty important thing to me, after hearing the details about Hillary opening borders in Kosovo that were already open when she first arrived there.

It amazes me that it should be the foreign press that does the job of 'vetting' Hillary Clinton, while the American press simply repeats her highly unconvincing phrases about all the experience she got.

Just some thoughts.

I don't know how you write an entire column on "caucuses" and not mention that only a small percentage of the electorate participates vs. a primary ... exhibit A: there were only 30,000 caucus votes in the entire state of Washington where you would have had 10 times as many if it were a primary

Caucuses were designed for highly aggressive people. Only about 1 in 10 people are designed to handle them. Why disenfranchise the electorate?

I just voted in the texas caucus and that was the most stupid thing i have ever seen ...maybe Clinton voters can't be at these places for hours , most of us are the middle income hard working people, i don't have a problem with people voting for Obama but vote for him because he is the better candidate, not because he is black, if 90%of the white people wouldn't vote for him it would be because they are racist , what does that make the blacks..just a thought

Caucuses are a pathetic sideshow that in no way reflect the actual preferences of the electorate.

Contrary to the assertions in the post, caucuses are generally not attended by people who actually have jobs.

Instead, the caucus outcome is determined largely by those who have the time and energy to waste as they no job to get up for in the morning.

If you don't agree, consider the Obama caucus wins. For the most part, these "wins" were in low population, traditionally red states where Republicans will win by huge margins in November.

Caucuses are a simply a circus-style misrepresentation of voter preference that bear a strong resemblance to herding chickens in a tornado.

While the word democracy may actually mean "mob rule" when traced to Greek origins, caucus is a much better representation of mobs ruling what should be a private decision by individual voters.

Caucus is a dump way. why not just to get delegate number proportionally based on popular votes? we all know, Hillary's popular votes are more than Obama's.

Just some thoughts, but some good thoughts Jake. There's always that same pattern in Clinton's 'reasoning' (= spinning) about wins and losses. I sincerely think that it in the end is damaging her credibility, which is not something I like to see in a President.

I especially liked your last remarks, very much on the spot. The closer one listens to what both Clintons have been suggesting when it comes to black voters, 'black states' and last but not least their black opponent is pretty shocking, also for a white guy like me.

No wonder that she pretty much lost all black votes in this campaign; it shows how closely black voters are following what Sen. Clinton is doing, saying and suggesting in her campaign.

btw, i voted for hillary, the first day of early voting. i did not go out to the caucus, even though i'm a strong hillary supporter. like many not so young people, i did not feel comfortable going to the area where my caucus was at night. just another of the many factors that make caucuses so undemocratic.

in texas, hillary supporters were bullied and intimidated by obama supporters. it's a lot to ask for us middle-aged and older people to go out at night and put ourselves in a position to be bullied. and even in places where bullying is not an issue, there's the obvious social pressure. what if your boss/neighbor/minister/whatever is there? it's hard to stand up publicly and disagree with them. and if it's a boss, coworker, etc., it could adversely affect your livelihood. secret ballot is the only appropriate method for an election.

re race issue, obama gets 90% or so of the african-american voters, no questions asked. caucasian voters are basing their decisions on factors like knowledge, experience, judgment, honesty, as shown by the fact that they aren't 90% voting for hillary. who has the right to complain about unfair racial treatment? and, regardless of how you view this question, the reality is that the general election will require the candidate to be able to win over the electorate, period, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. if he can't do that, whether you think he should be able to or not, why would we waste our nomination?