Comments on: It's The Caucuses, Stupid

[tlparp]

The biggest problem with the caucuses is that most people don''t understand their purpose. All we are doing in a caucus (or a primary) is answering a survey from the DNC or RNC as to who we think the best candidate for president should be. We are not voting. We are narrowing down the field so we can decide which candidate we want to have onthe ballot later. So in that respect, a caucus is actually a better idea. In a caucus, a bunch of folks get together, choose sides, then debate who would be the better candidate, then choose sides again.

This is how it works when your extended family gets together to go out to dinner. Ten people want to go to 10 different places. You don''t vote on the 10 different places, because each place would get one vote. Instead, you list merits of each, then discuss it to narrow down your choices to 2 or 3, then you vote from those 2 or 3 choices. Your family just held a caucus.

[lordmi]

One more time approved: those, who for Clinton, do not bother themselves even to think, just ; Go Hillary or caucus is too complecated.
Give me a break.
It is just too much for Her and for you to understand? Then go to kitchen and cook, in stead of messing in politics.
Probably, she can not do it well either

[b-easy63]

A failure of the Clinton campaign IS a failure of a candidate. it points to failed policy, failed administration, failed execution, failed strategy. It is the stuff "Heckuva job Brownie" Katrina moments and Iraq wars are made of.

[perrycbs1]

I am disturbed by the number of people who are concerned that caucuses are not a legitimate form of governance in the U.S.A. The same people often seem to believe that the USA is a democracy.

The USA, and all US States; are officially a Republic form of government. Representatives decide on issues. Now the USA is more democratic in that key positions defined in the Constitution (US Representatives and Senators) are generally elected directly by the people. States and local government have also generally adopted direct elections of the various titled representatives. The US president is not, and again falls to a Republic form of selection via the use of electors.

Caucuses fit very well into the nature of a republic; and seem especially apt for presidential candidates considering the Electoral College.

The founding fathers did not chose pure democracy for several very good reasons, and I know of no pure democracy that has worked anywhere as a form of government.

I am not saying that our republic form of government is perfect.... but it has functioned very well for a long time.

So, while I also like primaries; I do not begrudge caucuses as they do fit right into the specific form of governance that the USA has.

[hhkeller]

Wyoming had 8 thousand people show up at ccaucuses to decide the deocratic nominee.
In primary state millions of people show up to vote.
Caucusus are cute but not representative of the public at large.

[paris1969]

we do not elect a president with caucuses .. let''s see what happens in Pennsylvania ... that will be the next real contest

[serrano338]

I''m very disturbed by caucuses. They are false representations of the actual democratic demographic in a state. It fits right into the Obama cult of people who feel they are more educated and have more income. That''s not a fair assessment of voters, I feel. Primaries only would give a clearer picture of the will of the voters. The country does not just belong to people with degrees and good jobs. This election seems to be about disenfranchising voters with caucuses. It''s very UnAmerican to hold contests in this manner and caucuses should abolished. A straight forward voter driven contest not for the elite would be most honest.

[sjbj2322]

Don''t be so naive about the caucus process. It disenfranchises so many within the electorate that results can not be construed to represent the will of the people. For one thing older people are simply not geared to have to hunt for parking spaces and walk long distances to stand for hours in long lines. Also, many of the states were smart enough to have their caucus during the day but in Texas in many areas the caucuses didn''t even start until 8:30 or 9:00. I personally witnessed many who left who were elderly or were people with small children that simply were not going to stay out that late when they''d already voted in the primary. You want a true representation of the will of the people - have primaries only and provide options for early voting. Texas, were both systems were held, should prove as a representative sample of the difference between the two.

[mrtutto]

Obama doesn''t differenciate between the big states and the small states, He sees it as the United States. This is why I respect Obama. Unlike Hillary whose only focus is to win an election at any cost and is always touting I will... I will. I will like its only about her. Obama is always referring to We will , We will change the direction that the United States is heading.

[alee25]

It ain''t over ''til it''s over. Still Michigan and Florida, and by golly, no caucuses in those states.