Seriously: why is it obvious that O should do well in caucus states and H in primaries?

[thereismore]

What is the logic there?

[tyne]

1. Because

caucuses require a commitment of around 3 hours. Primaries require that you stop and pull a handle.

[CoffeeCat]

9. Not true....where did you hear that? LOL

Caucuses last an average of one half hour to an hour--depending on how heavy participation is.

Some caucuses, in low-population areas--last 15 minutes. You go in, pledge your support, get counted and leave.

If turnout is heavy, you can expect to stay for 45 minutes to an hour.

Considering that heavy turnout requires a person to stand in a long line and
vote--the time commitment is pretty equal--between caucusing and casting a vote.

In many cases, I've heard of people waiting in line for more than an hour, so
there are times that pulling a lever could require more time!

What you said is simply not true.

[tyne]

31. Where did you hear this?

"Caucuses last an average of one half hour to an hour--depending on how heavy participation is."

The doors open for caucus about an hour to an hour and a half before the caucus begins.

Then, there's about a half hour to hour of rules, regulations, and then the first count.

Granted, the time commitment could be less if the turnout is low...but, how often has that happened in this season?

At my caucus (Idaho), I was there for 3 hours and Hillary supporters simply didn't show up. *shrug*

This excuse about "working people" don't have the time to invest doesn't hold water either. It's an excuse.

It all has to do with "Yes, WE can"....and "Yes, SHE can".

JMO

[CoffeeCat]

41. The fact is...caucuses last an average of 45 minutes...

...to an hour.

I am in Iowa. I was a precinct captain in one of Iowa's largest precincts.
I've participated in many caucuses.

Our attendance increased by 100 percent from 04. And 04 was a record year.

In o4, the caucus lasted about 45 minutes. This year, it took about an hour,
because the attendance was through the roof.

I agree with you that this year---the record-breaking attendance caused some caucuses
to last longer than usual. However, the vast majority of caucus sites ran smoothly
and on schedule.

Yes, the doors open an hour early. However, people don't show up an hour early!

People generally show up 20 to 15 minutes early and take their place. Then the rules
are read--which takes about ten minutes. Then the counting and voting begins.

I understand your caucus took longer, but yours is a worse-case scenario and it doesn't
represent the average caucus experience. I don't want people to be misled, and assume
that it takes 3 hours to caucus!

Many states that caucus late in the primary process--have never experienced the high numbers
that happened on Saturday and Sunday. In most of these states, the elections
are "in the bag" by now, and not hotly competitive like we see now. These state had little time
to prepare for a complete deluge. That doesn't mean it takes 3 hours to caucus. That is
not representative of a typical caucus, although it was your experience this time.

[shadowknows69]

67. So?

[Egnever]

2. Cause his ground game is incredible

Primaries rely more on name recognition.

[cloudythescribbler]

57. Yes, caucuses get the more motivated and activist voters; primaries can more reflect inertia ... nt

[KittyWampus]

3. before Hillary LOST most, the wisdom was whoever had the ground organization & political machine

set up to organize voters would win.

Apparently, Hillary ignored caucus states or lost them outright despite having pols and their resources made available.

Could it be that her campaign just sucks?

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Peer pressure and intimidation by people in the other camp. Husband's who hate

the thought of a female President and the wife REALLY wants to vote for Hillary, but hubby will pressure her to do otherwise when at a caucus. People vote differently behind the privacy of a curtain.

[KittyWampus]

8. is that what happened in Nevada?

[papau]

11. I agree - plus exit/entrance polls show Obama gets rich and liesure who can do 3 hours at anytime

[Occam Bandage]

13. Not all caucuses have public voting, and cases of intimidation are very rare.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. How do you know? Do you attend all caucuses around the country? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

24. There exist things called "newspapers."

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. I see. Maybe you should pick one up someday and read it. n/t

[jakem]

68. or vice versa

we have seen several reports of un-enthusuastic looking husbands at clinton caucuses

[rox63]

5. Obama's supporters are passionate and committed enough to get their butts to the caucus site

and spend a couple of hours to support their candidate.

[LostinVA]

12. Or more likely to be in a demographic that affords them the ability to caucus

Lots of working class people can't afford the time off to caucus. Lots of single moms can't afford the childcare needed to go caucus.

[rox63]

18. Most of rural Maine is working class

There's a lot of poverty up there, especially when you go inland.

[papau]

20. a 10% turnout means those rural poor Dem voters couldn't get to caucus

[Occam Bandage]

25. So, er, 90% of Democrats had work that evening?

That's a weak excuse. Hilary's ground game is incompetent compared to Obama's.

[CoffeeCat]

30. Why couldn't they get to a caucus???

Caucuses are held in the same place (your precinct) that you would cast
your vote.

You caucus at your precinct location, which is ultimately where you cast your
vote in the General Election.

Hillary and Obama both have very ambitious GOTV efforts. I know you can click
on her site and get a ride to the caucuses.

Getting there shouldn't be an issue.

Besides turnout in Maine increased 100 percent from 04. More people
than ever, managed to get there this year. Turnout like this, for caucus- and
non-caucuse states, is pretty typical this year.

In my state, Dem turnout increased 100 percent. All demographics (men, women, higher
income, lower income) were represented in very large numbers.

[LostinVA]

21. I'm aware of Maine's demographics

It's good they held it on a Sunday, but most states don't.

Personally, I also think voting should be a private affair. Caucuses are outdated, and I've felt that way for a long time.

[KittyWampus]

6. dupe

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. dupe

[Occam Bandage]

10. Before Hillary started losing them badly, the argument was that caucus wins are proof of

ability to mobilize a ground GOTV network, and are evidence of a strong and energetic support base.

Now, it seems to be because caucuses are sexist and biased against the poor.

[papau]

17. 2004 Maine was330,201/396,842 R/D - so "massive 40000 at caucus" is 10% - GOTV is

not tested by a 10% turnout

[Occam Bandage]

22. Yes, it is. Caucuses are very time-intensive, and the ability to get people out and attending

is proof of a strong ground GOTV network. A caucus win is evidence of a better infrastructure in that state.

[Bad Thoughts]

14. Only because Clinton concedes them. eom.

[RichGirl]

15. Some think it's the Wilder effect.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-return-of-t.html

[HeraldSquare212]

19. It's just misdirection - critics don't want people to notice Obama's superior ground game.

I saw a report on CNN that a greater percentage of people who made their decision who to vote for based on TV ads voted for Obama. So, he's got ground game, and a superior ad game. Add his fundraising prowess, and you have a very formidable candidate in the general election.

[thereismore]

29. So far I have seen many explanations: from O having a better operation, sexism,

intimidation be peers or husbands, reverse racism (the Wilder effect), to poor people not being able to spend the time to caucus (implicitly assuming the poor people are for H).

I think it is about who wants it more. People who turn out to caucus are O supporters who want it more that H supporters. Plus, O is a better campaigner and H may have done some omissions regarding the caucus states.

[Occam Bandage]

38. The biggest problem with the "intimidation" line is that Obama does

similarly well in caucus states with secret ballots as he does in caucus states with open preference declaration.

[thereismore]

39. Good point. nt

[donheld]

66. I can honestly say

In Denver, last Tuesday night, there was NO attempt to intimidate anyone at all. I know a lot of people in a lot of different precincts here in the city. I've talked to just about everyone I know, and nobody at all saw any intimidation at all.

[HeraldSquare212]

23. self-delete - dupe

[oasis]

26. The "Bradley Effect" becomes ineffective. (eom)

[elixir]

27. Besides the time factor (1-3 hours) there is an intimidation factor. In a primary you

go into a booth and vote w/ your own ideas. In a caucus you're influenced, and possibly intimidated, by others zeal thereby altering your vote. Name recognition cannot be claimed at this point, we're all educated voters in this nation and should be responsible for their own thinking, not that of another candidates.

[rox63]

28. Clinton doesn't support the 50-state strategy

So she skipped building a ground operation in many of the caucus states. And she probably thought she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now. Dems in the red states had been abandoned by the party for decades. When they saw that the Obama campaign was paying attention to them, and actively trying to get their votes, it got them "Fired up, ready to go". Really, before this year, how many Dem presidential candidates bothered to campign in places like Idaho, Nebraska and Kansas? They just wrote those Dems off as a lost cause. But this year, the rethugs are dispirited and in chaos. There may actually be a chance to turn a couple of red states blue. Or at least purple.

[thereismore]

32. Good point. Also please read my post #29. nt

[RL3AO]

33. Quick look at the stats

Primaries won (popular vote)

Obama (10): South Carolina, Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Louisiana, Virgin Islands
Clinton (10): New Hampshire, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee

[cloudythescribbler]

58. Democrats in "red states" are apt to be more aware of the damage HRC at the top of the ticket means

And it DOES matter who the Democratic Presidential nominee is EVEN in states that will go Repuke in any event.

[OHdem10]

34. Caucuses are run by Activisits---more eduacated and affluent

Primaries are simple voting---the Middle Class Working Classes
are comfortable here. one man one vote.

Working Classes can be intimidated in Caucuses.

The truth is 3/4 of Americans make below 70,000 dollars annually.

1/2 Americans make under 50,000 annually. Over half Americans
fall into the category of HRC base.

Activisits monopoixe the caucuses. Fewer of them when the GE
comes around.

The More Educatecd and affluent run the caucuses. while working
class middle class are more comfortable in Primaries.

[CoffeeCat]

43. Primaries are also run by "activists"...

It takes the "activists" to organize a caucus and to organize a primary.

No matter what the voting aparatus in your state--the activists are the ones
doing the hard work and ensuring that there are enough voting machines, ballots,
volunteers and that the process runs fairly and smooth.

The voters and the caucus goers--comprise the vast majority of
participants...99 percent! It's not like "activists" organize the caucus
and then ban anyone from voting. Right?

This is absurd.

All of the Dem elections AND caucuses have seen 100 percent increased in Dem
turnout. It's amazing!

In my state, turnout increased by 100 percent, and participation in all demographics
increased, across the board. More people from all income and education levels participated
More women. More men. More senior citizens. More college students. More middle-aged
people. More of everyone!!

The demonization of caucuses is something that only started happening, when Hillary began
tanking in the Iowa polls. She started waging a campaign against the process herself and is
now filtering through the blogs and Hillary surrogates.

The Iowa caucuses have been ongoing for more than 100 years. Not once in that time has a losing
candidate waged such a deceptive war, in an effort to minimize an opponents' wins.

It's really unprecedented, and this campaign of distortions about the caucuses, is an insult to
each state that has a caucus and all of the good people who worked so hard to organize fair
and democratic caucuses.

Amazing, how much Hillary Clinton is willing to tear down, just to build herself up.

[book_worm]

35. Hillary hasn't won that many more primaries than Obama!

[jody]

36. BO's strength is in the 18-29 age group mostly college students with time to attend caucuses. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

40. So Obama gets the kids to actually go out and vote? Great. If kids had voted in 2004

in proportion to their numbers, Kerry would have won in a landslide.

[thereismore]

42. Yes, some people speak like the young voter turnout is kind of a bad thing. Go figure.

:crazy:

[jody]

48. Makes sense to me. n/t

[jody]

49. Dupe deleted. n/t

[PATRICK]

50. Enough

If you add up ALL the multitude of complaints which go overwhelmingly to Obama having and adavantage the only unmistakable conclusion incuded in every point, no matter whatr you want to emphasize, is that Obama
both persoanlly and in his campaign organization does it better with more universal appeal. The argument from the perspective of the "non-voting" voter somehow favoring Hillary becomes weaker than it is moot, because one is supposed to believe that rival numbers(enthusiasm?) exists with some mystical Silent Majority out there in caucus states. If one wants to continue to argue that the Dem process does not match the true state of affairs in the General Eelection then why bother to have a primary at all and run
Lieberman the Independent? But even so, another complaint that Obama is winning enthused Independnets absolutely vital for Hillary to have ANY chance in the fall is cherry picked or ignored.

As with the "fraudulent voting machines" in NH I say, yes, let's look at the entire crazy quilt process and improve it, but not, after a first course of sour grapes, simply descend to eating our own.

The process IS demonstrating campaign strengths and weaknessses, voter choice and committment levels, voting group choices, state identities, attraction of Independents. Most of the equations look good for Obama so far because at the end of the line he does best, looks best and is best. This is embarassing to the other viable competitor because the process is painfully in play. This is either going down swinging
or hanging on for a comeback. We have all been there many times with many candidates. We are apparently still quite capable of temporarily embarassing ourselves in the verbal assaults against reality and experience.

Today. Advantage Obama. And Clinton supporters can dismiss that readily because I was wrong before about the likely impact of Super Tuesday. The voters will continue to have their say as the old time leadership has "wisely" set up, up to Pennsylvania. Then they will weigh the different situation in November much more in the light of campaign achievement earned today.

[CoffeeCat]

46. That's not true...

I was a precinct captain in the Iowa caucuses, and our participation increased
100 percent from 2004, and 2004 was a record year.

You need more than college students to carry a remarkable 100 percent increase in turnout.

You need more of EVERY age, income, gender and education level. And that's exactly what
happened in Iowa and what is happening in every state--whether the state has a caucus or
a primary vote.

Every Iowa county saw increases of 100 percent. Every single one! Most counties in
Iowa don't have colleges or a large bastion of college students or young people. In fact,
many of these counties are filled with senior citizens. Iowa has one of the oldest populations
in the country.

What you are saying is simply not true. The statistics do not bear out what you are saying.

I really wish that people would stop echo-ing these erroneous opinions, because they distort
the caucus process and these distortions are hurtful and damaging to the volunteers and hardworking
people in these caucus states--who work dilligently to ensure that our caucuses are fair and
professional.

[jody]

47. One fact supporting my assertion is Dem exit poll, Obama less than 50% white vote except in states:

Illinois 50%+ all age groups except 60+
Utah 50%+ all age groups except 60+

California 50%+ only age groups 18-29, 30-44

Connecticut 50%+ only 18-29 age group
Georgia 50%+ only 18-29 age group
Missouri 50%+ only 18-29 age group
New Jersey 50%+ only 18-29 age group
New York 50%+ only 18-29 age group
South Carolina 50%+ only 18-29 age group


Alabama none
Arkansas none
Florida none
Massachusetts none
Oklahoma none
Tennessee none

See DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4450090

[CoffeeCat]

56. ...but you left out Idaho and Iowa...

...and other states which have predominantly white populations--that voted overwhelmingly
for Obama. Did you think that no one would notice your obvious omissions???

Iowa has a 96 percent white population and Obama won Iowa handily.

The same is true for Idaho.

Your assertions only hold water when you leave out important chunks of information.

Where is Maine? That is predominantly white as well. Obama won Maine by large margins.

Also, New Hampshire. That was a close race, and that state is predominantly white. Lots
of white people voted for Obama.

You are engaging in selective statistics.

Nice try...

[jody]

60. I listed the results from the Dem polls. Suggest you read them before criticizing. n/t

[CoffeeCat]

61. I'm looking at your post...

...which leaves out Iowa, Idaho, Maine and others.

Are they there, or are they not?

Let's try to be not so obtuse.

If you want to make a point, just make it. Don't make some false point, then
leave out half of the statistics...and require people to click on links and
go here and there--to get it all down.

If you have a clear point--supported by facts--you should be able to state
it clearly.

You're not. Iowa, Idaho and Maine results are contrary to your entire argument. Those states
are not in your initial post.

Try again.

[jody]

62. Please go to the source data and read the Dem polls.

Source data is Road to the White House

Scroll down the page to “The Race So Far”, select a state.

On the state screen, scroll down to “Full {state name} Democratic Exit Poll” and click it to browse exit poll results

[jody]

37. Dupe deleted. n/t

[Little Star]

45. Blue collar workers, older women, shy people, private types,

people who speak broken english, Handicapped people, etc. will most often stay home in order to not be out-spoken by the elites(just look at the spelling police here on this board) or will they be willing to wear their vote on their sleeve for neighbors, spouses, parents to see, etc., etc. Not a good thing!

I would never attend a caucus and I never gave them much thought until this primary, I live in MA. This democratic primary season has opened my eyes. I will still be against them, in all the next four years to come. They disenfranchise voters. I can't for the life of me understand how our party cannot see that.

The young people Obama has brought into the party WERE NOT brought in by caucusing. They were brought in by his rallies, young looks, message of hope,etc.

He wins caucuses because the elites and the youth show up and most of the rest stay home. It took the Latinos to help Hillary in Nevada and they are not a large enough minority in other caucus states.


Hands down, the Republicans have run a much better voting system this primary season. The way they handled their states, that wanted to jump to the front of the line, as opposed to how we have handled that issue, were far superior to us.

[jody]

51. Agree. n/t

[susankh4]

53. Good points...

I would tend to agree. Based on what I saw of the Iowa caucuses. (Watched 'em live ion CNN.com)

[susankh4]

54. Good points...

I would tend to agree. Based on what I saw of the Iowa caucuses. (Watched 'em live ion CNN.com)

[susankh4]

55. Good points...

I would tend to agree. Based on what I saw of the Iowa caucuses. (Watched 'em live ion CNN.com)

[JVS]

70. There's no rule that says you have to speak, you just stand in a corner!

If what you say is true, it's no wonder that unionization levels have gone down so far. If blue collar workers are afraid of hearing college kids talk, then there's no way they have the guts for a certification struggle or a strike.

[Little Star]

73. Can you become invisible from your spouse, neighbors, etc?

It is nobody's damned business who I prefer as a candidate. Don't try to tell me that shy people would not just try to blend in.
The handicapped, well there is another group who might feel uncomfortable. People who do not speak english very well, will mostly shut up.

I say all these people and others are more likely to just stay home and that is disenfranchisement and wrong!

[TexasObserver]

52. Not true. Hillary is doing poorly at both, just really poorly at caucuses.

Obama is winning because a lot more people like him and want him to be our nominee. It's really that simple. He is liked. She isn't, except by her posse.

[Little Star]

59. ok day dreamer, lets see just how well he is liked in the GE.

[TexasObserver]

63. We will. I'm sure you'll be supporting him, as a good Democrat.

It will be great to have someone as our candidate that Texas Democrats don't have to hide from, as they would if Hillary were the nominee.

[Little Star]

65. You can take it to the bank. If it's HRC, You????????

[Retrograde]

64. can you bring the kids?

I'd like to go to a presidential caucus to see what they're really like, but my state - California - doesn't do them, and I don't think they'd scale well.

My answer to the original question: Obama seems to attract the gung-ho fanatic activist type of supporters while Clinton's seem to be more status quo. Because caucuses are perceived as a bigger time investment, people who attend them tend to be more passionate about who they support. The time commitment also translates into a younger and more well-heeled group than the general populace (or at least one with time on its hands).

A caucus means everyone has to be at the same place at the same time. So the first problem is finding a time when a large number of people are available. Weekdays? Too many people work. Weekends? Lot of people work then, too. Evenings? How far away is the caucus place from the work place? How easy is it to get there? What do you do about the kids when you're caucusing in the evening - leave them at day care? at school? When do you feed them? And what if you work evenings? Nevada tried to address some of the work issues, but IMHO they moved the problems from one group to another.

People like to point to Iowa to show how caucuses can work, but I think Iowa's a rather unique case: smaller towns, more homogeneous electorate, and lots of personal candidate attention. When candidates start giving voters in, say Redding, Ca. to pick a medium-sized city, the same attention they do those in any Iowa county I may become a caucus advocate.

[JVS]

71. It's up to campaigns to make sure they get their people there.

GOTV. If that means driving vans from the retirement home, helping college kids adjust registration each year when they move, organizing people to watch over kids. All of stuff is to be handled.

[jakem]

69. older working-class women are intimidated by young rich black latte drinking voters?!

thats what i am hearing...

[LostInAnomie]

72. Caucuses don't allow Hillary to get absentee votes cast three months ago.

In caucus states you actually have to show up on the day of caucus. There isn't a built in advantage to the candidate that had the highest name recognition a few months ago.