The Democrats do not like the Texas primary and both campaigns have lodged complaints, apparently. But one campaign is threatening a lawsuit. That’s bad enough. But check out one of the last paragraphs in the article:
So the Clinton camp is willing to try and disenfranchise a whole state because-- lemme see if I’m getting this right-- the other guy gets more votes?
Are you serious? Am I misreading this? Misinterpreting? The caucuses are unfair because she keeps losing them? Because Obama’s campaign is better? What the fucking fuck, lady?
First, let me say I am neither a Clinton nor an Obama supporter. Second, let me say that the Texas system is weird.
From 7 am to 7 pm on March 4, people will go to the polls to vote in the Democratic primary. Most of the candidates’ delegates will be chosen from the results of that primary. Then at about 7:15 pm, “precinct primaries” are held, where more delegates are chosen by whoever decides to show up. From what I understand, most voters will eschew that strange second step. You know, people have lives, jobs, families, responsibilities. Voting in a primary is one thing, hanging around for however long in the evening is something else. Certainly, people who are enthusiastic about their candidate will arrange time off from work, baby sitters, and so forth, but is this system really fair to most of us?
Mind you, it seems to me that by filing such a lawsuit, the Clinton camp is basically admitting that their supporters aren’t nearly as enthusiastic as Obama’s supporters, which could backfire PR-wise.
Had no idea that Texas delegates were assigned this way
Knew, gave their best effort and were outmatched in terms of supporter enthusiasm or organization
Knew but didn’t give much of a crap about what happened after Super Tuesday
Take your choice.
Edit- the system is obvously dumb. I would bet that it has been retained because until recently, it favored the establishment. When most voters don’t give a crap, then Texas has their own superdelagates, ultra-concerned voters who have extra power by virtue of their extra knowledge or commitment. Until Obama got into the race, this system favored old guard, it favored Hillary. Now it doesn’t any more.
Yes, the system is cumbersome, which is why the party and both campaigns don’t like it but, Great Oogly Moogly, don’t come out and say caucuses are unfair because you can’t seem to win them. That’s just plain STUPID.
Didja ever think that you can’t win caucuses because your campaign does and says dumb crap like that?
Here’s the latest. The Texas Democratic Party is, not surprisingly, saying “please don’t rock the boat”, while both Clinton and Obama’s camp seem to be being a bit cagey about what they plan to do. I think Kyrie has hit the nail on the head:
I’m trying to find out where the Obama camp is cagey about what they plan to do in that article. Is it in another one? They seem confident that they are going to have a favorable result out of the caucuses.
The Texas Dem Party wrote a letter addressed to “one or both of them” but that strikes me as politeness rather than genuine balanced concern about actions by both parties.
Yesterday on the local NPR station, a Clinton supporter “with the Clinton campaign” (they did not give their name, however, so who knows if they were?) they interviewed actually said, in reference to the caucus/primary disparity, “It makes sense. The people that vote for Hillary are professional people with jobs - the middle class breadwinners of America. The people voting for Obama are people with a lot of time on their hands, like students and unemployed and illegal immigrants.” :rolleyes:
What merit would her lawsuit have, couldn’t the Texas Democrats use a sunflower seed spitting contest to pick their delgates if they wanted and the DNC signed off on it?
In California, workers are allowed up to two hours paid time off to vote. I would go to my polling place and vote before work, usually arriving to the office on time or maybe 15 minutes late. While this may not be the case it other states, voting was not a hardship for me. But we didn’t have caucuses.
Here in Washington the caucuses were held on a Saturday. Delegates from here were chosen solely by caucus; the primary didn’t count. I could see that this system is unfair to people who work on Saturdays, have other responsibilities, or whatever. But that’s the way it works, and people should know about it. (Being new in the state, I didn’t know until three days before the caucus. I did attend.) Is this a fair system? Well, it’s the way it’s set up. Most people have the opportunity to vote. If they don’t care enough to attend a caucus, then it’s all what’s most important to them. On the other hand, there are people who can’t attend.
AIUI (and it’s an imperfect understanding), all one had to do was show up at the caucus, sign in, and declare their choice of nominees. Takes a few minutes. They didn’t have to stay for the whole process. Basically: Sign in and declare your nominee. Count the votes. Give an opportunity for discussion to allow people to change their minds. Hold another vote. Assign delegates based on the second vote. If someone didn’t vote the second time, his vote when he signed in was counted.
So under Texas’s system it seems to me that a person could take a few minutes before or after work (they have a 12-hour window) to cast a primary vote. Then they could sign into a caucus, cast a caucus vote, and then leave. ‘Professional people with jobs’ would not have to stay up past their bed times. The ‘people voting for Obama’, as opined by the Clinton supporter, would be those people who worked the swing shift because they don’t have ‘normal’ hours. (And illegal immigrants are not likely to be registered voters.)
Texas seems to have a weird system, but it’s the system they have. Clinton (and Obama) knew the game before they started playing. Change the rules beforehand, or change them for next time. But don’t try to change them in the middle of the game.
It is a weird system. BUT, a lot of states have weird systems. We have early voting for ten days prior to the primary and then the caucuses meet after the primary is over.
I haven’t lived here long, but the main purpose of the caucus was to select delegates to the state convention who can the go on to the national convention.
There are extra delegates allocated during the caucus. I believe they were awarded during the caucus because the most dedicated followers of the party are the ones likely to show up to caucus.
oh boy, she’s spewing out her
propaganda, propaganda
Might makes right, though you are wrong,
you’re right to fight her
propaganda, propaganda, propaganda*
