How come after Hillary gets a win in a big state Primary, Obama wins in insignificant caucuses. Idaho, Guam, Wyoming and Nebraska are not where the Dem Victory in 2008 is going to be. They tell us nothing about November and Caucuses aren't even democratic.
Caucuses are not even democratic? That's a little strong don't you think? There are problems with every system of voting. One of the advantages of caucuses is that they measure intensity of support better and for a primary that is good because you both want your base to be motivated for your candidate in the general so that they are sure to vote and for them to use that energy to mobilize others. Additionally, no system is purely democratic. Requiring people to go to a poll is not as democratic as mail-in balloting, and mail-in balloting might be arguably less democratic than phone-in balloting. Ultimately the only criterion which defines how "democratic" an election system is, is whether there is a formal barrier to participation. There is not in any of these systems.
Furthermore, no one in the Clinton camp expressed that concern in 1992 when Bill Clinton benefitted from caucuses, and Hillary did not change the system in the last 10 years when she had enormous influence over the party and could have changed it. She never even voiced a problem with caucuses.
A system that requires an 85 year old lady to wait on line for 2 hours in subzero weather in the midwest is undemocratic. A system that requires working people with children to take off an evening of work and hire a babysitter is undemocratic. A system is undemocratic when people have to drive 70 miles to get to a caucus site. A system where young enthusiastic bully's terrorize voters may be democratic in a third world country, but not in America. We would all be outraged if we had caucuses during the General Election. The Democratic party should try to be as democratic as our nation is.
I couldn't have expressed it better.
My first choice for the nomination was John Edwards, but even I'll tell you that based on the anecdotal evidence I heard from people in Iowa, there were literally thousands of "little old ladies" who vote at the polls in nearly every election, who expressed a preference for HRC, who didn't participate in the caucuses because they were held at night and because of the snow and ice on the ground.
Point being, that caucuses can quite radically distort the outcome of elections.
So can campaigning.
And being on the ballot.
dude, we had (by iowa standards) balmy weather for our caucuses. that's part of the reason it was such a joke that hillary blew so much of her $ buying snow shovels for those "little old ladies" to get out the door to the caucus.
I worked in Iowa in 2004 and basically all there were at the caucus site were little old ladies. So no.
If Clinton had won those caucuses, you wouldn't be complaining. This is what really bothers me about Clinton supporters, and group thought in general; it's not about what's right, but what's right in the context of Clinton becoming president. All of a sudden, caucuses are an undemocratic process that alienates and disenfranchises voters who would otherwise participate in the democratic process; all of a sudden, caucus voters are victims of a group of well-imagined, but conveniently poorly-documented young Obama supporters, who force them out of a vote; all of a sudden, the election has become about republican fairness, something we never heard about from either of the candidates or their supporters before Clinton's perpetual losing act in caucus states.
Uh, no offense, but Hillary's wins in New York state and Massachusetts also tell us nothing about November.
They tell us nothing about November
That is correct. Obama had (delegate) victories in Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, DC, the Virgin Islands, and among Democrats abroad.
Will he win any of these states in November? Some yes, some no. But a solid victory in Idaho during the nomination race most certainly does not translate into a general election victory. So yes, you are correct.
Clinton, however, has won (delegate) victories in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachussetts, and American Samoa.
Will she win any of these in November, if somehow she's the nominee? Like Obama, some yes, some no. As with Obama, a solid victory in Oklahoma does not mean Clinton puts that state in play.
The fact of the matter is, these are two different campaigns, and winning or losing states in the primaries and caucuses has nothing to do with general election viability, and that goes for both candidates. If it didn't work like that, then John Kerry would have won in a 47-state blowout!
Obama's team did a fantastic job planning for the nomination campaign, and they came up with a winning strategy. Clinton's team... did not. I have no doubt that, once nominated, Obama's campaign team will come up with an equally effective strategy for the general election.
