Delegate Mirth ( the end has come! )

[Cerin]

I strongly object to the characterization of caucuses as somehow inferior vehicles for selecting candidates, by the way, especially the sort of well-attended caucuses we've seen this year.

I didn't suggest they were inferior vehicles for selecting candidates, but I think they are inferior vehicles for assessing a candidate's popular support among the electorate at large (which is what I was referring to -- determining the actual popular vote). What they do show, if I understand caucuses correctly, is who has a greater number of supporters willing to take the time to get more involved.

I've seen a lot of primaries in my time where the participation rate is below 20%, because the candidate was more or less already decided. Are those somehow a better indicator of how people actually feel?

If a candidate is already decided, then there isn't as much motivation for people to get out and vote. I don't think that example really relates.

I also support the notion of FL and MI each doing a make-up caucus--they certainly couldn't say their votes didn't matter THIS time around.

Unfortunately, both state parties are said to have rejected that idea.

edit

cross-post with Voronwë

Prim, I tend to agree that the Dems shouldn't have the super delegates in the first place, and if people feel that strongly about it, then we should take steps to get rid of them. But at this point, we do have them, and we have to live with it. They are going to have a part in deciding this if neither candidate accumulates enough votes in the primaries/caucuses to secure the nomination.

[Faramond]

Well, I think caucuses are inferior to primaries. If you have to work the night of the caucus, or can't afford three hours to attend, you're out of luck. And I don't like the threshold idea of caucuses either. If we want second choices to count too then go to a instant runoff primary.

None of this is to say that any of the caucuses held so far somehow don't count.

[Primula Baggins]

The caucus system seems like another relic of the smoke-filled room days to me. It's a system that's much easier for the party faithful (either party) to manipulate or at least influence, since "votes" must be cast in public, and I don't doubt it was intended as another safety valve to increase the likelihood that the nominee would be the one the party elite preferred.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The caucus system seems like another relic of the smoke-filled room days to me. It's a system that's much easier for the party faithful (either party) to manipulate or at least influence, since "votes" must be cast in public, and I don't doubt it was intended as another safety valve to increase the likelihood that the nominee would be the one the party elite preferred.

Except that in this case the caucuses have been very favorable to the candidates that are the first choice of the "party elite": Obama, and to some extent Huckabee.

That having been said, I too prefer primaries to caucuses, for the reasons that Faramond stated.

[axordil]

See, I don't necessarily think that for a primary/caucus, where the job of the voters is selecting a candidate for the general election, an election is actually any better than the caucus model, because it's not really about representing popular support. The point of the process is to select a candidate for the party, who THEN has to get popular support in the general election. But neither caucuses nor primary elections necessarily translate into general election success. The fact that some elections are closed and others open, as well as some caucuses, only further muddles the situation.

A candidate, to win the general election, must have sufficient overall popularity, but ideally also must be able to generate enthusiasm, in the core constituencies of the party AND among independents. Primary elections don't measure enthusiasm, they measure acceptability: someone who has a few minutes of extra time has the same say as a dedicated campaign worker. Caucuses measure enthusiasm: being there requires a little extra effort. The two are complementary in that regard. In a way having both, like TX, is ideal in my mind for showing just how broad AND how deep support for a candidate runs.

[Túrin Turambar]

The caucus system seems like another relic of the smoke-filled room days to me. It's a system that's much easier for the party faithful (either party) to manipulate or at least influence, since "votes" must be cast in public, and I don't doubt it was intended as another safety valve to increase the likelihood that the nominee would be the one the party elite preferred.

Except that in this case the caucuses have been very favorable to the candidates that are the first choice of the "party elite": Obama, and to some extent Huckabee.

If Obama was the first choice of the party elite, why isn't he winning most of the superdelegates? And why does Huckabee have no money and few high-profile endorsements?

[axordil]

Clinton and Romney were very much the choices of the party apparatchniks going in.

[Primula Baggins]

The caucus system can't overturn a strong wave of excitement for a particular candidate, nor should it. It probably works fairly well in a Dukakis year, but not when there is so much excitement about both remaining candidates, especially Obama.

(I would definitely agree that Clinton was and is the choice of the Democratic party elite.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Needless to say, there was a missing "not" in my post above. I meant to say:

Except that in this case the caucuses have been very favorable to the candidates that are NOT the first choice of the "party elite": Obama, and to some extent Huckabee.

I hate it when I do stuff like that.

[River]

I'm not sure McCain was exactly the GOP elite's first pick either. It seems to me that both sides are looking for a shake-down.

[Primula Baggins]

It's coming back to bite the current GOP elite that they recruited the support of the religious right, without apparently realizing that those voters would want to elect candidates who support religious-conservative positions on major social issues.

The GOP is really in a fork. They probably can't elect a Republican President without the support of the religious right, but a strong religious-right candidate probably can't win the election. And religious-right voters have caught on.They will no longer be satisfied with pious posing from candidates who do not support their positions on social issues, or who claim to support them and then give only weak lip service during their time in office.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Despite his unpopularity with certain parts of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, I think he probably was the first choice of a majority of the "party elite," at least more than any of the other candidates. If not McCain, who? Romney? I don't think so; he ran as a Washington outsider. Certainly not the pro-choice Guiliani. And certainly not the maverick Huckabee.

[vison]

I keep reading the title of this thread as "Delegate Myth".

Sorry.

[Túrin Turambar]

Despite his unpopularity with certain parts of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, I think he probably was the first choice of a majority of the "party elite," at least more than any of the other candidates. If not McCain, who? Romney? I don't think so; he ran as a Washington outsider. Certainly not the pro-choice Guiliani. And certainly not the maverick Huckabee.

Fred Thompson actually seemed to be the most popular among the conservative establishment (IIRC, he was endorsed by Dick Cheney). His poor performance is indicative of how bad relations are between the Republican establishment and base. Romney, for his outsider message, was still pretty establishment - Republican family, big business, moved his positions to try and broaden his appeal, did very well in the Midwest, ect.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

CNN is now showing Clinton and Obama tied in Texas

Texas poll shows dead heat among Dems

On the other hand, they have two polls from Wisconsin, one showing Clinton slightly ahead, and the other showing Obama slightly ahead. It should be interesting.

I keep reading the title of this thread as "Delegate Myth".

Sorry.

I don't know what you are talking about, vison. That IS the title of this thread.

[River]

Huh? I thought it was math...

**looks

**curses

Please. Make it stop. Just make it stop.

[Primula Baggins]

[Faramond]

Current Delegate Math


Obama > Clinton


Unless Obama implodes in one of the coming debates, this thing is over, in my opinion.

[Ellienor]

I see blogs predicting about an even showing for Hillary and Obama on March 4, with Hillary conceding March 5. She would have to win by big margins to pull ahead in delegates.

[Holbytla]

The only hope Hillary has at this point is her ties to the party and the hope that the super degenerates find an excuse to back her.
Well that and a Florida scandal.

I will be interested to see how close the popular vote is at the end.

After the last Florida voting scandal, there was talk of revamping the electoral college. One of the ideas sounded very plausible. Has there been any more talk of that?