Does the Democratic Party machine believe that some of our votes are worth more than others?

[rhett o rick]

I am extremely disappointed the Democratic Party machine in some states believes that it is necessary to have caucuses to make sure the "more involved" get heard and to hell with the others. Plus, on a national level the machine believes it is necessary to have the super-duper-delegate system to give those that are really "in the know" more power. The flaw in their thinking is that once the "in the know" and the "more involved" get done choosing our candidate for us, the "Party" wants us, the base, to give their chosen candidate our support. And they get pissed when we say bull schite and vote for third party or stay home. If the "Party" wants the base to support the Democratic candidate then let the base determine the candidate.

[scheming daemons]

1. And yet... since 1896, the Democratic party has had caucuses.....

....and not a single thread popped up on DU in 2004 about the "evils of caucuses".


Only when Queen Hillary gets caught off guard did they all of a sudden become a great evil.


Give me a break.

[rhett o rick]

2. Do you have to try to make this a divisive issue? Good grief. This system is screwed no matter who

you mite be for. I support BO, but think the system should be fixed. Of course no one objected in 2004, Kerry had it wrapped up. It is only a problem when the race is close. The post is about the inequality of the system not about one side or the other. Can't you people quit acting so childish by being so petty and calling each other names? You are playing into the hands of the republicans. If you have an issue difference then let's discuss it, but this petty bs is unbecoming of a Democrat.

[K Gardner]

6. Complaining about a system that has been in place for a century is what is

unbecoming. If it needs to be fixed, why weren't people whining about it when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or during the 2000 and 2004 primary season? Doesn't pass the smell test that people only NOW have noticed it.

By all means, the Party needs to make some adjustments in MANY things after this season is over; but all the sour grapes in the middle of the season (when ALL knew the rules going in) do nothing but further divide the party because it appears to be coming from Hillary's camp. Not saying that's what YOU are doing, but don't blame this on Obama. He isn't complaining.

[rhett o rick]

8. Interesting argument. Because the system has been in place for a long time

means I can't challenge it? Wow. Shame on Martin Luther King.

What makes you think I didn't object to the system in past years? Unless there is a threatened impact, no one will listen to suggestions for change. After the nomination is made everyone will become complacent again.

Your suggestion of sour grapes is disingenuous. First of all the caucus system didn't hurt my favorite candidate at all. I still think it is unfair. The super-duper-delegate system may hurt my candidate because the insiders seem to favor Sen Clinton. All the more reason to object. If the insiders know best, why bother to let us peons vote at all?

But most significant is that I believe that the 150% turnout (in our county at least) is because many want to end the politics as usual and hope that Obama will do that. If the super-duper-delegates and Democratic machine insiders go against the popular voters and anoint Sen Clinton, it will totally disenfranchise the newly enthusiastic Obama supporters. These people will feel cheated and may not support the Democrats in November.

I am only asking that the candidate be chosen by the people, not by the machine. If this goes against the century old system then so be it.

[Johnny__Motown]

3. Hillary could have won caucuses if she did the ground work. She didn't so she lost

Deal with it

[rhett o rick]

4. You've been in DU for less than a month? Were you kicked out before?

"Deal with it"? Come the general we will deal with the repukes.

[rhett o rick]

5. Skinner, we need a rule that no one posts in GD-P with less than 1,000 posts.

Disrupter's are everywhere. Of course with all DUE respect to the current poster.

[demokatgurrl]

7. Yes, if you live in FL or MI your vote ain't worth shit. n/t

[no name no slogan]

9. There's a need for both caucuses and primaries

Caucuses ensure that people who are willing to commit to the party for more than just five minutes have a stake in deciding its candidate(s). They encourage people to get involved, ask questions and support their party at a grassroots level-- something you never get with the "drive-by" nature of a primary.

OTOH, primaries are good because they are easier for everyone to participate in. They are convenient for those who just want to pick a candidate and not do anything else. They allow anybody to make their voice heard, without having to invest the time in a caucus.

I find that most of the people complaining about caucuses on this board have either 1) been to one and had a bad experience, or 2) have never been to one and are basing their opinions on what they see on TV.