Yeah, but they had you watching, didn’t they? That’s what matters. 
Well, actually I was just listening on my Sirius (simulcast). Byt point taken.
Robert Novak, in today’s Washington Post:
I do think there’s a point to be discussed about primaries vs. caucuses.
Personally, I think the caucuses are suspect, if only for the confusing and haphazard way in which many were conducted. But putting that personal view aside, it seems obvious that they’re not equal – so why continue to have a mix of caucuses and primaries? One tool is better than the other – why not decide which one produces more desirable results and use it across the board?
I posted about his yesterday - I suppose the most academic way I can put this, in terms people can truly understand is that CNN really licked their own ass yesterday by spouting that bullshit!
I had to listen though to make sure I wasn’t in some sort of disassociative fugue state or something…and ya know what? They really were saying the most idiotic things.
I would imagine that the caucus stays around in some states because typically it favors the entrenched politician, the party favorite. It’s just another tool to give the party more control, like delegate apportioning and superdelegates.
It was pretty well unexpected by most, as far as I can tell, that the upstart Obama would overtake the caucuses the way that he has. I suspect that Clinton thought, understandably, that the caucus states would reliably roll for her and that’s why she spent relatively little time focusing on them. Obama gamed the system using community organizing tactics and won- thanks in no small part to the fact that he inspires unusual fervor in his supporters, who seem to have time on their hands to caucus until the cows come home.
The caucus is certainly not designed to encourage shakeups in the system- now that it is apparent that it can be co-opted, some of these caucuses might begin to disappear.
For one thing, the party doesn’t decide to hold a primary - the state does (or doesn’t).
If I had to choose between primaries in 50 states, and caucuses in 50 states, I’d choose primaries in a heartbeat. For the most part, what you want to learn from the nominating system is, who has the support of the larger number of voters in your party? Primaries tell you that much better than caucuses do.
But I’d hate to see caucuses completely squeezed out of the picture, despite the logistical problems in running caucuses in a high-turnout year, in cities especially. IMHO, there’s a place for a part of the nominating system that measures supporters’ passion and enthusiasm, as well as their sheer numbers.
For one thing, as long as you need volunteers in the general election to help out with organizing and GOTV, you want a candidate who’s capable of energizing some of those volunteers. And for another, it says something important if a candidate has a lot of support, but nobody’s seriously enthusiastic about him. It means you’ve nominated Mike Dukakis.
I thought you were into this whole “states rights” thing? I don’t see why any particular state should be forced to conduct their elections in any way other than what they think works best for their constituents. I also don’t believe that caucuses produce “undesirable” results.
Can’t you just? If Clinton can’t get a double-digit win in at least one of those, she should have her politician’s license revoked. 
They’ve got one, but I find it hard as hell to read. Looks to me more like a Jackson Pollock than a political map.
Another factor in the Obama can’t close the deal is that the right actually would prefer to see Hillary as the Dem candidate. Of course the Clintonistas, such as Clinton Campaign Manager Terry McAuliffe are more than happy to play along.
According to HRC, that is map of people who matter and people who don’t matter.
I wonder if the people that matter know that?
As a matter of federalism, I’m into states’ rights. As a matter of how a private political party chooses its nominees, I don’t see any problem with it forcing all states to use a particular method. It has already forced states to use particular dates, and penalized those that have not… hasn’t it?
As to the “undesirable” results… ok. It seems to me that given how different primaries and caucuses are, one of them must be producing suboptimal results. Perhaps it’s the primaries that are worse than caucuses? OK, then, trash the primary results. My point being… how can these two widely dissimilar methods produce results of equal weight?
Only by a very expansive definition of ‘force’ and ‘penalize.’ A party telling a state, “if you do X, it’ll all be for naught” is hardly coercion or penalizing.
Per my previous response, I’d compare it more with the spices I add to my chili. I use both chili powder and cumin (others too, but I’m simplifying), but the fact that I use some of each doesn’t mean one seasoning or the other is producing suboptimal results; I’m shooting for the ideal balance of the two.
They don’t. There are roughly 3200 pledged delegates, and about 500 of them are chosen by caucuses. (Compare to ~800 unpledged superdelegates.) The 2700 chosen by primaries can determine the nominee by themselves; the 500 chosen by caucuses can’t come anywhere close.
I know why Clinton has embraced this argument (because she lost all but American Samoa), but if you actually look at the states, it is clear that they would have gone the same way in a primary. Clinton hasn’t won a single state in the Mountain West, Midwest, or Northern Plains, and that is where the caucuses are. Utah had a primary and it broke the same way all it’s neighbors with caucuses did. Minnesota had a caucus, but Wisconsin didn’t. Same result. There is no validity to the argument that caucus results don’t reflect the general view of the Democrats in those states.
You know, this is an inauspicious argument to lead off with. The whole point of having a primary is to determine your state’s voice in selecting the Democratic nominee. If a state is not permitted representation, that’s constructive “forcing” and “penalizing.”
Unfortunately for me, this argument was pretty damn insightful. OK, that’s a good analogy and it makes sense.
So does this one.
OK, point well taken. (Well, two of your three points were well taken.)