Obama is teh awesome

Is it possible that HRC, not thinking that the caucas states were that important (she was THE nominee after all), just did not originally devote resources into those states? But now she is involved in a knife fight in a dark alley and its too late.

But seriously, I'll never understand the vehemence these stupid Republican fanatics feel against John McCain. He is their best candidate, but they hate the fact that he doesn't hate Mexicans enough or something. Yes, a cheap shot, but here I was naively thinking that, oh, a war hero with a long list of experience, a hawkish stance, and broad appeal would be a good thing.

Whatever, it's their grave. We can be bipartisan in digging that.

I think the best explanation is a combination of a) Obama's team put a lot of resources into organizing the caucuses and b) Clinton's people decided not to contest them. You can't organize in a week.

Why did the two different candidates make those decisions? Well, I bet that Obama's focus on organizing and his belief in participatory democracy had something to do with a).

As for b), I think it will go down as the blunder of the campaign. But, Clinton had to stem the bleeding on the west and east coasts for Super Tuesday with 20 million less dollars.

Further.....like it or not, inspiration is key to getting "fannies in the seats" at caucuses, and good as she is, Hillary just is not as inpiring as BHO.

A couple of things: (1) Obama tends to be more popular in the great plains and interior west which account for most caucuses (he won pretty big in the Utah primary, for example), (2) Obama voters are more enthusiastic in most states, (3) Obama voters are more likely to be high information voters, (4) in most caucus states, Obama voters are less likely to work odd shifts or have childcare obligations that they can't get out of, (5) honestly it does seem like Obama's campaign puts more effort into caucus states (with the exception of Iowa and Nevada) whereas the Clinton team just doesn't seem to be trying too hard sometimes, - how many Super Tuesday caucus states did Clinton even visit? (6) Obama seems to have more grassroots support and organization in caucus states and fact probably connected to points 2 and 3 above.

I have no idea, but Obama was the overwhelming favorite at my caucus site here in Seattle. Attendance was more than double that of the 2004 primary caucus, and Obama drew the support of virtually every demographic in my fairly diverse neighborhood.

I get the sense that PTS may be right. On the other hand, perhaps the Clinton team did some polling and figured out that a lot of the caucus states were a lost cause anyway and decided to put resources elsewhere.

This will be an interesting test of the national media. By and large, they adore McCain and yet this is a pretty clear repudiation of him by his own party's voters. Can they ignore it? Spin it away? Any bets?

I think another reason Obama does well in caucuses, which is the same reason Huckabee (and Ron Paul) do well in causuces: a larger subset of Obama voters are very committed to him, and thus more likely to go to the trouble of caucusing. I think a larger subset of Clinton's supporters are more passive. There are some passionate Clinton supporters, but they are rarer.

I causused today in Washington, and it takes a lot of planning, research into finding your site, and commitment to go. If I wasn't very strongly supporting Obama, I just wouldn't have committed three hours on a Saturday to go sit in an elementary school gym.

Another note: I didn't see a single man in my precinct who caucused for Clinton. The Clinton supporters, who were about 20% of my precinct, we all women, many of them also hispanic.

This is about like if, say, Obama had dropped out a few weeks ago, and all these states went to Kucinich.

Clinton-hate ain't got nothin' on McCain hate.

Why are people surprised about Republicans hating McCain. In many ways, McCain is the Republican version of Joe Lieberman of say 2004, a man who's made his reputation by thumbing his nose at his own party. How would Democrats, especially hardcore Democrats, have felt is Lieberman had been cruising to the nomination in 2004? Would we really have been thrilled if he'd been our best chance at defeating Bush? Also, much of McCain's appeal resides in rejecting many of the GOP's basic planks such as tax cuts and immigration. Finally, conservatives often live in their own little bubble, witness the 2006 election when many Republicans claim they lost for not being conservative enough. If you really feel that way, how happy can you be with McCain as your standard bearer? Of course, the problem is if you're a Republican how could you be happy with any of the people who decided to run for the Republican nomination.

The press surely isn't talking about it, but caucuses seriously disenfranchise working class and older voters. I know personally that in Iowa, near half of Hillary's supporters were older women who could not make it to the caucus for fear of the drive, the weather, etc. Working class people often can't or won't show up to a caucus if it requires getting a babysitter or missing a night shift. Hillary wins primaries, and people should really think about this before we look to cult-like Obamamania to tell us who's strong and who isn't.

He's screwed either way.

Au contraire!

Factor in Democrat self-destruction, Rovian hi-jinks, rampant political amnesia, a courtier press and ready yourself for eight years of CoC McCain followed by President Mitt Romney taking us through to Jan. '25.

Thers, over at Firedoglake has the ultimate "Your candidate sucks" post. It's an absolute hoot and well worth a read. A sample:

...

You need to admit that your favorite candidate sucks.

I fully realize that this may be a very hard thing for you to do. I understand. After all, it is quite clear that the chief reason you support your favorite candidate is because of your own personal failings and inadequacies.

I am not unsympathetic. There are clearly no rational reasons to support your favorite candidate, so it is only logical to rummage in the danker, smellier corners of your soul for the origins of your bizarre and inexplicable preference of a presidential candidate who sucks. Please be assured however that I do not judge you harshly for the fact that you surely like to molest squirrels while high on crack cocaine. This is likely only the melancholy if inevitable consequence of your upbringing in a family of dysfunctional, alcoholic leprechauns. With therapy, you may heal. Perhaps.

Or maybe you support your favorite candidate, who sucks, merely because you are very young. I admire your enthusiasm. I do. Come here while I give you an affectionate pat on the head and congratulate you on your puppy-like if unreflective capering and frolicking. It is to your credit that you are too wide-eyed, naïve, and childish to comprehend how badly you have been deceived by the empty promises of your favorite candidate. Who, I must soberly inform you, sucks. Now scamper off and do as you are told by your betters.

...

Latte sippers love social events. Caucuses are social events.

But seriously, the real issue is that there is, plain as day, some very important selection factor involved in who shows up to these events. Maybe unsophisticated working class voters simply don't feel comfortable with caucuses. Obama has done relatively poorly in actual elections with such voters, and caucuses might be like a voter suppression technique to keep them out. Yes, they can go if they really wanted to, but the bar for participation is such that they don't feel comfortable with the process. That's how voter suppression techniques often work -- just make the venue one the undesirable sort of people tend to avoid.

In Wash State, polls showed Obama up by perhaps 5%. He wins by well over 30%. How can this be a good sign for the notion that the voice of the people is being expressed?

The reality is that if Obama doesn't start to win actual elections in major states with diverse populations (which here means that the states are disproportionately dominated by his core African-American demographic), it's likely going to be hard for the average American voter to feel that he has really established himself as the rightful winner of the nomination.

I just don't think that the average voter has any real respect for caucuses as a democratic process -- surely they are mostly anachronisms in this day, and should be made officially obsolete, just as we have done already with brokered conventions. At bare minimum, they should be reduced in number so that they have no potential to be decisive in the final result.

In the end, legitimacy in our democracy hangs on the sense that the true voice of the people has been allowed to express itself. I really do hope that if Obama wins the nomination, it won't be on the back of disproportionately large caucus wins, but on major elections in diverse states that he will have won. Maybe that will yet happen, but it certainly hasn't so far.

Because those primaries with those African-Americans, they just don't count.

+1 to Thers.

Today was my first caucus ever, and it was an amazing experience. It is truly participatory democracy. I agree that they do tend to scare away working class and older voters, but they aren't without their virtues.

Mostly, selecting a candidate is different from selecting the actual winner. Parties are in charge of picking their candidates. One good way to measure the strength of a candidate is to see who has a more passionate base of support. Almost any person who votes in a Democratic primary or caucus is going to vote in the general election for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. But to win the general you have to appeal beyond primary voters. It makes sense to think a candidate who draws more passionate support will be able to bring in more independents and swing voters who don't vote in primaries or caucuses. To the extent independents have been voting in the Democratic caucus, it's been independents voting for Obama (and they'll almost certainly vote for Obama in the general). Maybe a few Republican nuts have voted in the Dem primary (or caucus) just to spite Clinton, but those are few, and they sure as hell aren't going to vote Democratic in the general.

Well, BRM, frankly0 just called you a latte-sipping elitist African-American. Just like those latte-sipping elitist African Americans primary states like Idaho, Minnesota, etc...

frankly0 - do you mean states like MO? This is about the most representative state so far and Obama won a primary there!

Also, do we really want to nominate someone based on the views of low information core Democrats with fond memories of her husband's administration? Nothing wrong with being this sort of voter, but somehow I don't think that having a lot of them in your base is a good sign for November . . .

Remember, the views of high-information voters might be unrepresentative in certain ways, but they might also be a leading indicator. Most Democrats already know and like HRC so it is not surprising that low-information, low enthusiasm voters tend to vote for her. That doesn't mean that some of them won't end up liking Obama just as much if her is their parties candidate for six months or so.

And don't even get me started on the views of independent voters in swing states . . .

Because those primaries with those African-Americans, they just don't count.

If African-Americans are disproportionately represented in every actual election he might win a major state, how can that establish a sense of legitimacy for Obama? Do you really want to say that the votes of other people shouldn't count every bit as much as that of African-Americans? If he systematically won major states in which African-Americans are represented only according to their usual proportions, that would be different. And that's what I'm getting at.

And that is the ultimate question: why isn't Obama doing so? If he's as much supported by the people at large as his supporters want to claim, and as the caucuses, if they were legitimate indices of people's sentiments, would suggest, then he should be winning elections in major states with diverse populations. Yet he is not -- at least, to date.

Or Georgia - that was a big win in a diverse state. IL doesn't count, I guess, but Obama's popularity downstate is pretty interesting . . . it suggests that voters in some of the areas going to Clinton now will warm up to Obama as they know him better.

Hah! I don't drink coffee, I'm not elitist, although I am an upper middle class white male in graduate school, and that might make me "elitist" by default.

ikl,

Well, MO would be the best example of such a state for Obama. Yet his win there was infinitesimal. And it was surely skewed to a degree by the fact that it neighbors his own state IL (Certainly in NH, for example, Massachusetts politicians have always received a disproportionate number of votes in the primary, as another example).

Why no other wins? Why no larger wins?

Well, frankly0, maybe you can take your racist fuckwittery elsewhere for tonight, at least until the Kentucky whisky wears off.

Obama's numbers hold up very well among other demographics and you're holding his popularity among blacks as a *negative*.

White robes and pointy white hats much?

Kthxbye

I don't think I saw a single African-American at my caucus in Seattle. Of course, historically blacks weren't allowed to live north of the ship canal, and there still aren't many in this neighborhood to vote at all.

Anyway, the fact that lots of Democrats in California prefer Clinton doesn't mean Obama won't do well in California. Most Clinton supporters are Democratic supporters. Clinton has the most name recognition among people who don't pay close attention. Those people will vote for Obama if he has the (D) beside his name.

Obama dominates caucuses for the same reason he dominates the blogosphere - highly motivated and educated supporters with free time on their hands.

This will be an interesting test of the national media.

That test will come tomorrow on all the Sunday shows. No down time for the McCain team to spin the results, no primaries or caucuses outside of those and probably no news worth noting to offer a distraction. I think tomorrow will be a rather true showing of just how far the media is willing to go to support McCain.

BRM -- good points. You're right, caucuses make more sense for selecting nominees than elections. Caucuses are a good measure of which candidate has the biggest pool of voters who will actually volunteer, canvass, cold call, etc. Look at Hillary with her money woes: she has legions of voters but that's all they do, vote. Until very recently they haven't been making financial contributions.

frankly0 - guess what? African-Americans are a big part of the population in most "major states." So it looks like you are asking for something that is pretty hard to do - win in Mass . . or maybe CA. That is a sample of two. Hard to think of much else. Maybe Wisconsin if you think that is "major."

But I don't really think that you arguing in good faith. You applied a primary test to get rid of many of Obama's best states and then a "major state" test to get rid of a lot of the rest (CT, DL UT). I assume that IL doesn't count either since it would be an obvious counterexample otherwise.

The truth of the matter is that Obama doesn't do well with culturally southern whites, but he seems to do just fine with whites elsewhere - sometimes he wins them, sometimes Clinton does. This is pretty obvious if you are paying any attention whatsoever. The Democratic party isn't competitive in Presidential elections in the south anyway (Clinton wouldn't be anyway), so this isn't exactly a major issue.

Petey - Obama got almost 60% of the primary vote in Utah. So I think that there are regional issues here as well.

Why does Obama do better at Primaries than Caucuses?

Ask yourself:

What's the key difference between Primaries and Caucuses?

Here's the main answer:

Primaries are private, caucuses are public.

People seem to have an easier time voting for Obama in public than voting for Hillary in public. Hillary is not really that well liked, not even by some of her supporters. Fairly or unfairly, a lot of people, including some of her supporters, are not totally enamored by her and in a caucus, people have to stand up and say, "Yup, I support this person who a lot of us don't really even like. Yay me!"

Here's an additional answer:

Primaries take about 15-30 minutes of your time. Caucuses take 90-120 minutes of your time (I know, I just came back from one). People are simply more committed to Obama, more willing to go through all the messiness of a caucus for him. Not so much for Hillary. A lot of people may want to vote for her, but not really do much to do it.

Ha, ha. Now MO doesn't count because it is too close to IL. This is Calvinball!

I'm wondering if the social dynamics of a caucus versus a straight primary are a factor in Obama's edge. It's one thing to walk into a voting booth and cast a vote; it's another to stand up in a group of people and do some give & take over which candidate to support. If you had no preference for either, but had to stand up and make a case, which would be the easier sale?

Sure, both of them are making history, but I'm wondering if it isn't easier to publicly voice support for Obama; he generates excitement and doesn't have the history to overcome that Clinton does. Further, there's also the fact that she has had to fall back on her connection to her husband to try and generate some excitement in her campaign; like it or not it raises the issue of just how far she can get on her own merits. It's not fair, but that's the way it seems to be working.

Then again it just may be voters being contrary. Clinton was supposed to have the inside track: money, name, connections. Somewhere the momentum shifted. It's going to be an interesting slog to the convention.

I wish Edwards was still in the race to keep both of them focused on the real enemy: the GOP.

I don't think "frankly0" has been to Washington if he thinks it is a state where African-Americans are represented out of their "usual proportions." Some very strange understanding of race and the country as a whole here with frankly0h.

I ALL counties but one Obama overwhelmingly defeated Clinton, including the wide-open White rural eastern WA.

Odd thing about Obama is he makes people feel inspired long before they make up their mind to vote for him. It is an odd phenomenon. My wife was a total fence sitter but finally went over to Obama. I'm getting close myself.

Caucuses suck. I went to one in 1992 in VA and we lost half our Brown delagation, because they had to work and couldn't hang out for 3 hours. They are not very democratic and weed out the working class. That is why I hate having Iowa being so seminal to the process. Iowans are low informational 'tards if you want my honest opinion working for Dean in 2004. F### 'em.

One more thing:

Don't be so sure McCain loses in November.

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination due to the super delegates instead of the state counts, there will be a LOT of Democrats doing some protest voting in the general, I guarantee it.

McCain may end up the last man laughing, the benefactee of two political parties imploding.

More seriously, your analogy is pretty ignorant - MA influences NH because Boston is the major media market. St. Louis is the major media market on the MO-IL border. So the effect is going to be a lot weaker.

But if you want to play that game, then Obama's win in CT was pretty damn impressive. He even won in the 4th CD - the one near NYC.

I assume Delaware and Connecticut have too many of those pesky African-Americans to matter either.

But seriously. It's not a picnic without ants and it's not an Obama-victory thread without frankly0 explaining why it doesn't count!

.

On the original question, it's pretty simple: (a) organization. I got two Obama campaign calls, the first in January. I also got e-mails. (b) This mattered enough to me to figure out my caucus location and head over. I took a book, but the atmosphere was electric enough that I got little reading done. And I thought I was moderately enthusiastic, but you coulda lit a match off the younger Obama supporters. These people are gonna work their butts off canvassing and calling.

"You can take your latte-sipping, Volvo-driving left-wing freakshow back to Vermont"

If only Kerry kept some of that fight in him AFTER he got the nomination.

Caucuses tend to be dominated by democratic party elites and activists, Obama's base.

And as a Californian, I'm outraged by the caucus system. I never paid any attention until this year. But the number of delegates is based on registered democrats. Caucuses have minimal participation, even in a good year. Primaries tend to get much broader participation. As a result, it takes a lot more voters to get a pledged delegate in a primary state than a caucus state.

Let's compare California to Washington. If caucus participation doubled this year over 2004, there would be 200,000 people participating. Yet, Washington gets 78 pledged delegates because of the size of its democratic registry. More than 4,000,000 people voted in the California primary and will get 370 delegates. So, to get a delegate in California, you had to get approximately 10,800 people to vote for you. To get a delegate in Washington, you needed to get only about 2,500 people to caucus for you. The entire system is ripe for having someone win pledged delegates and lose the popular vote (to the extent the popular vote can even be determined given how hard some caucus states work to hide it, ahem, Iowa).

And to make things worse for the particular state of Washington, it is also having a primary on the 19th that was added, as I understand it, as the result of a citizens' referendum and still the Democratic party chose to hold and use the caucuses for its delegate selection. Many folks up there were reportedly confused about the situation. For some reason they thought when they got a ballot in the mail and then voted, that vote was for some purpose. It's going to be a huge mess on the 19th if more folks show up for the primary and it has different results either in terms of popular votes or delegate allocation. I'm a Clinton supporter, but I honestly hope the primary results look exactly like tonight's. We do not need another mess on our hands, we already have MI and FL to figure out.

Regardless of who wins, this entire process is in desperate need of reform. If this ends up being a gigantic mess at the convention, the party has no one to blame but themselves. It's acting as designed.

Obama's win in MO was helped by the fact that St. Louis media spends as much time on Illinois politics as it does on MO politics. It helped him a bit, being from a neighbor state, and no Springield (which does spend some time on Arkansas politics) does not compare to St. Louis in terms of population and influence.

Yeah, I'm sure it helped a bit, but the MA-NH was way off base. Southern NH has all sorts of people who work in MA, previously lived in MA and watch MA TV.

On another note, primaries have some defects too. I canvassed a voter last weekend who was planning to vote Democratic in a closed primary but didn't know that Obama was a Democrat. You really don't want people choosing the nominee who don't even know who the two choices are. Presumably these folks tend not to caucus. Obviously most such voters will go for Clinton.

""You can take your latte-sipping, Volvo-driving left-wing freakshow back to Vermont"

If only Kerry kept some of that fight in him AFTER he got the nomination." -Anon.

You do realize that was a Club for Growth (a Republican outfit)ad, don't you?

Democrats never realize that the Republicans like to manipulate our process, and then we wonder how we got stuck with Kerry, etc.

Obama wins caucuses for three reasons: Time, people power and money (in that order too).

Everyone knew Clinton was going to run a big state, traditional Democratic campaign. Win all the big states she won on Super Tuesday and blow the competition away. Obama might have been able to compete head to head with that, but from the start he never planned to compete head to head.

Instead he used a two prong strategy to build a stalemate through Super Tuesday: 1) remain close enough in the big state, 2) trounce Clinton in the small states.

Given that strategy, and give the clear fact that he intended that strategy from the start, it makes sense to invest very, very heavily in caucus states because those are the elections over which a campaign can exercise the most control. More, organizing takes time and people and those are things Obama had in abundance. Those are also the states in which Clinton was investing the least resources because they seemed almost irrelevant to her campaign strategy.

(Aside: I also suspect the Clinton campaign presumed a lot of those states would never vote for a black candidate. Their frame of reference - which indicates just how out of touch they are - remains Jesse Jackson.)

Finally, this strategy meant Obama didn't have to blow all his money in the big markets. And I can only tell you in retrospect here in California he really didn't spend as much as he might have. He made a solid effort and did well more than merely go through the motions, but clearly his organization was lacking. But that makes sense given his strategy because it allowed him to invest much more heavily in the small states to offset his losses in big states.

And you've gotta admit, as of today this strategy seems to be working. He got his stalemate. Indeed, he's ahead in pledged delegates. More, he's got very experienced organizers now, a steady stream of cash, and he's been planning for this long drawn out race all along. He is ready to keep going, and is, indeed, already organized to keep going.

But Clinton? I know she thought the campaign would end last week and she'd be on her way to the coronation. Her advisers though that too and I doubt they're really certain about how to proceed from this point on.

This week's Time warns that Democrats have become way to overconfident, leading them to travel too far to the left of the public at large by promising them universal healthcare and the fact that Hillary said Obama should have voted "no" on a bill giving legal protection to neonates that survive abortions (although, she eventually voted for such a bill).

xaxnar, I think not. At my caucus the initially-declared undecideds divided more or less evenly to join both camps, which doesn't suggest overwhelming social pressure. Two people for each candidate made pitches and were heard out respectfully; everyone applauded everyone else. Everyone who spoke for one candidate expressed respect for the other. There were no uncivil words and I didn't even see any unhappy expressions. The Clinton supporters, though outnumbered 3:1, were still sort of charmed by the massive turnout and energy in the room.

Now that I think of it there were actually three Clinton supporters who spoke at my caucus. The first (perhaps because he was married to an Obama supporter) made a rather mild pitch, at which point someone who knew health care said look I can do better and made a stronger case. And then another person unexpectedly made a really fervent environmentalist pitch for Clinton, and was allowed to exceed allotted time -- so yeah, I would say the dozen or so Clinton supporters in our group had no trouble being outspoken and public.

Nate, I'm really getting sick of this "cult" thing folks have recently started throwing around. I wish you could see how lame it looks. Like pure sour grapes. Please try to actually make an argument rather than accusing Obama of voodoo or something. You might even stretch and consider the idea that people actually like him. Last I heard, that was a good attribute in a candidate.

Caucuses are undemocratic and limit participation to only the most committed which is fine for a nominee but bad for the general election. I think Primaries are better because you can have early voting and absentee balloting which opens up the process to everyone and replicates a national election. I hate the open primary and caucus rules which allows Independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic elections. Its an invitation to mischief. But we must congratulate Obama, he played by the rules and won, Well done sir, Well done.

frankly0:

The reality is that if Obama doesn't start to win actual elections in major states with diverse populations (which here means that the states are disproportionately dominated by his core African-American demographic), it's likely going to be hard for the average American voter to feel that he has really established himself as the rightful winner of the nomination.

Jesus, what garbage. Way to narrow down what "establishes a candidate as the rightful winner". Apparently caucuses victories no longer count, and primary wins in South Carolina, Alabama, Delaware, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, and Louisiana are meaningless...

Nope, apparently a candidate can only become the "rightful" winner by winning the states that Hillary won.

These Hillary supporters sure are getting desperate. That's some pretty pathetic spin.

"Caucuses tend to be dominated by democratic party elites and activists, Obama's base."

Yep. It's so obvious that I'm surprised Kevin would feel the need to ask about it.

Obama has only won the white vote in two primaries, one of them his home state. He's losing almost all the primaries and when he has won it's been a narrow victory (again, except his home state).

I can't believe the Dem leadership would be stupid enough to give the nomination to the guy who loses California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, (and eventually) Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania while narrowly squeaking out a victory in Missouri and sweeping nothing more than the black vote in the South.

But hey, it's okay, because a few thousand white liberals in North Dakota, Idaho, and Nebraska voted for him.

The caucuses are insane.

Posted by: Callimaco on February 10, 2008 at 2:46 AM

Kevin should quote this on the front page. It's the best answer to Kevin's question.

(Personally I doubt anyone aimed at a stalemate, but whatever)

On the McCain issue, I think Drum is way too overconfident about Dem victory in the Fall. The media will not play fair and it will be ugly no matter the nominee. If you were a McCain supporter, why waste your time in a caucus? McCain will win in other states. There is not really a contest no matter how much Huckabee wants to make it one.

I think there is a myth starting to gain currency in which caucus states are, in effect, Clinton victories which have been stolen by Obama. While I agree that Obama is particularly strong in organizing for the caucuses I am uncertain which of these states he might have lost in a primary election. Washington state is a classic example of this perception. The five-point lead which was shown for Obama in the SurveyUSA poll immediately prior to the election was only of registered democratic voters. If Obama had in fact won (narrowly) among democratic voters the inclusion of large numbers of independents would likely also have meant a significant victory for Obama even in a primary.

I agree that given the current primary system is a rather bizarre scheme for choosing our national candidate and would love to hear suggestions for an improved system to replace it. That said all parties were well aware of the rules prior to the election (including how Florida and Michigan were to be managed) and appeared to accept them.

Why do Obama supporters not seem concerned about the anti-democratic features of caucuses? Probably the same reason Clinton supporters never express principled outrage regarding the role of super-delegates...

Hey ALINE - Do you not understand that these two statements of yours are completely contradictory to one another? And in more than one way, I might add.

Statement 1: Caucuses are undemocratic and limit participation to only the most committed which is fine for a nominee but bad for the general election. I think Primaries are better because you can have early voting and absentee balloting which opens up the process to everyone and replicates a national election.

Statement 2: I hate the open primary and caucus rules which allows Independents and Republicans to vote in Democratic elections. Its an invitation to mischief.

I believe the anecdotal evidence points to Obama's combination of charisma and organization. Friday in Seattle, Obama drew a huge crowd at Key Arena (shaming the not-so-super Sonics). News coverge created a tremendous buzz.

Saturday morning my daughter decided to go to her precinct caucus. Obama's Washington site had a web tool that helped supporters find their caucus location. When she still had questions, Obama's HQ had a hotline to answer them. Hillary's support network? Not so good.

I saw some speculation about a Bradley-ish effect wherein at a caucus ambivalent / status-quo / hypocritical white liberals / independents might be self-conscious about publicly voting against a black candidate, but would willingly do so in the privacy of a voting booth.

If there's anything to this, is it nevertheless trumped by the fact that they could excuse themselves by publicly voting *for* a white *woman*?

Obama's caucus performance does seem oddly skewed...

Cal - wait, Michigan and Florida weren't stripped of their delegates after all? Those were the rules, after all... You're going to punish Obama for 'losing' a state he hasn't supposed to run in, and whose votes aren't counted?

(That's a whole other fucked situation, but calling Obama on it us Unfair, Party of One)

At my caucus, not a single person had a hillary sticker. There just weren't any to be had, despite about 25% of the crowd being Clinton supporters. Everyone is supposed to have a sticker to wear to show their support, that's how you work in a caucus. The fact that Clinton's campaign didn't even bother to make any stickers or make them available, shows that she doesn't care.

Ha, ha. Now MO doesn't count because it is too close to IL. This is Calvinball!

That is pretty damned funny given Missouri's electoral history.

Why do Obama supporters not seem concerned about the anti-democratic features of caucuses? Probably the same reason Clinton supporters never express principled outrage regarding the role of super-delegates...

No, I'm an Obama supporter, and I'll be the first to admit that caucuses suck. I'd rather have a primary in every state. Maybe we can change it for next time, but it's kind of useless to complain about them at this stage (especially when those complaining the loudest wouldn't be complaining if their candidate was winning them). It's not like Obama or his supporters invented caucuses or set the rules.

I also hate the electoral college, why should the vote from some guy in Wyoming or Idaho be more valuable that a voter in California or Texas? Seems completely undemocratic to me.

Um, Hillary supporters: Democratic caucuses *or* primaries are a pretty poor indicator of performance in a general election (witness the last few general elections). I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Democrats alone cannot win a general election.

What is a hopeful indicator is the ability to inspire enthusiasm in Independents. Hmm, which Democrat is best at that? Let me think . . .

That's why McCain is the scariest Republican, unless (pray to God!) Limbaugh and his ilk can succeed in discouraging core turnout among Republicans.

Hey, there's always the possibility that the core Conservatives are discouraging Republican voting because they know there's an awful mess to clean up, and they'd rather have it blamed on us then them. That's why I wasn't crushed with seeing Bush senior elected in '88. Just throwing that out there.

Given the demographics of the voters for each candidate, it makes perfect sense that Obama is doing better in the caucuses than Clinton. Obama's voters tend to be young and middle-class; Hillary's voters tend to be older and working-class. Which of those two groups has a lot of time and energy to spend at a caucus?

Don't forget that Democrats are pretty much overwhelmingly in favor of both candidates: at least 70% of the primary voters for each candidate says they'd vote for the other in the general election if s/he got the nomination. It's really only in the blogosphere that you get a lot of Democrats claiming they'd vote for McCain before they'd vote for Hillary, and I think we've got a bit of a self-selected group here.

Let's not forget that Washington republicans voted for Pat Robertson back in the day. The far right of the Republican party is very strong in this state.

Well, I can give you my own personal experience from the Washington State caucuses.

We live in SW Washington, not too far from Vancouver (WA) and Portland (Ore). The site for the caucus this afternoon was a local grade school. Inside the cafeteria where everyone first assembled there were Obama buttons available, piles of Obama flyers and some Obama posters on the precinct tables. There was no evidence that the Clinton campaign had sent anything at all over. Talking to some friends who gathered at other sites, it was much the same story. Obama literature and signs scattered around, nothing much, if anything at all from the Clinton side.

My husband picked up the two-page color flyer and said to me while we were all sitting there waiting for people to sign in, "This is why Obama is winning the caucus states. Stuff like this is exactly what they mean when they talk about being organized on the ground." And in truth, a lot of people were looking at it and talking it up to one another while we waited. I asked the precinct captain about it and he said that either candidate's organization was free to send materials to the sites...one did, one didn't.

It's a single anecdote but was telling for me. By the way, our precinct went 60-40 for Obama.

Slate ran a great article on this tonight:
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/09/mowing-down-the-plains.aspx

Naysayers and the Clinton campaign will probably suggest that Obama naturally does better in caucus systems, where his "fervent" supporters can try to convince their neighbors to switch allegiances. That thinking may have applied in Iowa and Nevada, but it doesn't anymore. [...] Sure, caucuses take longer than primaries (an hour or two compared with 15 or 20 minutes). But these caucuses were on a Saturday, when most people — fervent fans and lukewarm supporters — have an hour to kill. Clinton competed hard in Washington — she made more campaign stops than Obama — and she got beat. No complaining allowed.

Obama isn't beating Clinton in caucuses — he's beating her in the Pacific Northwest, Great Plains, and the Rockies. Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Colorado, and Washington have all chosen Obama over Clinton. Attempting to cheapen his wins by crying caucus is so early January. It's time to ask why Obama caucus states favor Obama, not caucus procedures. Add Utah to the mix and it's clear the region, not caucuses, want optimistic change, not experience, to take up residence in the White House. And they're making their voices heard in impressive margins.

If he wins Wisconsin (a primary), I think the general thrust of this article will be even clearer. We'll see how that goes soon enough.

Cal's claims that Obama can't win white votes are ridiculous: he's won primaries in Connecticut, Utah, and Missouri, he won the white vote in New Mexico, he won the white vote in California, he won it in his home state of Illinois, and he's mostly winning white men across the board. Aside from that, the suggestion that keeps getting made that his primary wins in states with large black populations just don't count is a bit offensive.

Simple: Clinton's core constituency is with blue collar workers, many of whom work during the day. Caucuses happen during the day. People who work while caucuses are happening are far less likely to participate.

Heck, in Nevada, the state party was so worried that the caucuses would exclude large segments of working class that they created several at-large caucus locations specifically for them.

I would say Obama supporters are simply more passionate, and are willing to endure the difficulty of registering and attending a caucus than the chromosome-driven cultists that support Hillary's Ellen Jamesian crusade.

It's hard not to only support Obama's vision, but to be angered by the superficial, cynical, and often maniacal approach of her campaign.

Her campaign is headed by Mark Penn, whom Rolling Stone referred to as the new Karl Rove.

Then, not content with having attempted to co-opt Obama message of "change" after having witnessed the effectiveness of it, this week she has the unmitigated gall of speaking in Virginia and declaring while Obama will not offer healthcare to all Americans, when she is asked she says, "Yes We Can!".

In a week when the Obama/Will I. Am "Yes We Can" video receives a million views a day, she is actually shameless enough to try and steal that as well, perhaps thinking no one will notice?

She has never had an original idea in her life, unless you count her having had secret healthcare meetings before Cheney ever got around to his secret energy meetings.

And today, there was Bill once again, lying through his teeth by saying Obama said no good ideas came from the 90s, not compared to today.

This was SUCH a baldface lie that the ABC News reporter actually had to step out of character on the Evening News and state that Obama had never said anything of the kind.

Every day Billary proves herself to be a soul-less, dynastic, arrogant political hack whose entire genesis derives not from any concrete accomplishment, but in having portrayed the forlorn put-upon abused spouse, in a now record run.

"Aside from that, the suggestion that keeps getting made that his primary wins in states with large black populations just don't count is a bit offensive."
Of course it counts. Every delegate counts. Did anybody suggest otherwise?

Bay Buchanan (not introduced as Pat's sister) was on NPR Friday afternoon. She said Conservatives will, of course, of course support McCain if he's the nominee. If he kisses up.

She sounded more honest when she added that Cons are hoping for a Dem victory so they can recoup while (paraphrasing) the country realizes just how awful are the liberals.

"Every day Billary proves herself to be a soul-less, dynastic, arrogant political hack whose entire genesis derives not from any concrete accomplishment, but in having portrayed the forlorn put-upon abused spouse, in a now record run."
Every day Obama supporters prove that they are haters. You can judge a candidate by supporters he has.

Of course it counts. Every delegate counts. Did anybody suggest otherwise?

TN,

Well, yes, actually. I even included the name of the poster who was implying that it doesn't count. Cal's claim that:
Obama has only won the white vote in two primaries, one of them his home state. He's losing almost all the primaries and when he has won it's been a narrow victory (again, except his home state). I can't believe the Dem leadership would be stupid enough to give the nomination to the guy who loses California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, (and eventually) Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania while narrowly squeaking out a victory in Missouri and sweeping nothing more than the black vote in the South.

... certainly reads to me like the black votes that he's getting in the contest (and, accordingly, the states that he's winning with their help) just doesn't really count. But I don't know. Maybe you could give a more charitable translation?

A couple of observations as a Washington stater. On the democratic side, I don't know how much dollars were put in on each side, but Obama ads were all over the radio and television for weeks ahead of time. I saw exactly one Hillary ad in that same span of time, and that was on Friday. There's also been way, way more excitement and media coverage over Obama. Hillary had a rally which attracted around 3-5k. Obama had a rally in KeyArena, attracting around 20k, and they were reportedly turning away thousands at the door. Even the alternative rock station I listen to was broadcasting from the rally. It was literally the biggest political event in Washington state in years.

On the republican side, Washington's always trended more to the libertarian side of the tent than the current Bush/Cheney philosophy. Also, since we always ends up voting blue anyway, the republicans tend to feel pretty free about voting for whoever the hell they happen to like, regardless of issues like electability. I never saw any campaigning done for any republicans here, though perhaps I just watch the wrong media for it. If I had to take a guess at the republican mindset though, McCain's just carried too much water for the president over the years, and there's plenty of republicans (at least in Washington state) who would prefer almost anyone else.

Gheby,

Were those the at-large locations that Clinton tried to block through legal action, thus disenfranchising all those alledged Clinton blue-collar voters?

I attended a caucus in Washington today and here's my take on why Obama won:

1. Caucuses have a bias in favor of a candidate with more active supporters, people who have more time, etc.
2. Obama's ground game was better than Clinton's

So, voting was kind of an awkward social event where I was trapped for several hours. After a preliminary vote, people were allowed to give a one minute speech in favor of their candidate. I don't mean to be rude but....can I just vote and leave? No! Not if you want to make sure someone will serve as a delegate for your candidate so your vote will actually count for something. Also, I think the Clinton supporters in my precinct were a little intimidated by being outnumbered by Obama supporters. Fun! The whole time I kept wishing I could just have an absentee ballot and vote at my kitchen table or go to a polling place where I could have some privacy.

I hope to never participate in a caucus again and am furious at the parties responsible for this system. Were they purposely trying to manipulate the voting process by making it harder for some people to vote? Who decided nobody gets to vote privately?

Today I felt democracy had really lost.

Let me see if I've got frankly0's argument straight:

Obama's caucus wins don't count because caucuses are undemocratic.

Obama's primaries wins don't count because of race,

EXCEPT for Obama's MO win, which doesn't count because it's too close to IL.

Hey, I like this game. I'll play too:

Clinton's CA and AZ wins don't count because of race.

Clinton's NJ, NH and MA wins don't count because they're too close to NY (hey, New England's a small place).

Clinton's TN and OK wins don't count because they're too close to AR

Clinton's NV win doesn't count because caucuses are undemocrat (AND because of race--double discount!)

AHA! It all comes down to Michigan and Florida. CLINTON WINS!!!!

Calvinball is fun.

Primaries may be more "democratic" because more people vote and the ballots are secret, but they are based on the assumption that voters already know all there is to know about the candidates. One could therefore argue that a primary will favor the candidate with most money (for ads) or better press (which can be suspect for a number of reasons).

Caucuses have their origin in the belief that a town hall type of meeting can create a discussion among voters with arguments going back and forth and questions being answered. In theory, at least, this approach can cut through both slick advertising and bias in the press. In practice, money plays a role here as well because of local advertising (as described above), facilitated access, etc.

It is not axiomatic that, in a multi-party system, party nominees have to be elected by popular vote alone. In many countries there are no primaries, and in the US primaries appeared only in the 20th century.

And it's curious that those, like frankyl0, who criticize caucuses for being undemocratic, have little to say (or did I miss it?) about how democratic super-delegates are by their standards. I don't suppose that has anything to do with the fact that Hillary has a majority of those.

Oh, right, the actual question in the post:

I'm a little puzzled about Obama's consistent success in caucuses, which usually seems to get chalked up to his background in community organizing. Somehow, though, that doesn't really seem like a persuasive explanation.

Not on the surface, but I think it's a shorthand for one that is. Clinton has approached this campaign in the classic way: essentially, top-down. Of course she still has precinct captains, etc., but her campaign has assumed that most of her organizational strength can come from state party members, unions, etc.

Obama's campaign, by contrast, has essentially assumed that they'd have to build most of their network from the ground up, and they've basically treated that challenge as community organizing on a massive scale. They've put an unprecedented amount of emphasis on person-to-person contact. For one example, see here.

To be fair, that's a risky strategy. It's untested, for starters. It also makes the task of keeping tabs on one's own campaign very difficult, and in that sense it's a bit uncontrolled. But so far it seems to be working in general, and especially in caucus states, where the translation of social networks into campaign networks is particularly potent.

The are a couple of other factors at play too, though. First, because Obama did very well in early caucus states (don't forget he signficantly outperformed his polls in NV), and because the Clinton's had significant institutional strength in a few big Supercalifragilistic Tuesday states, the two campaigns allocated their resources differently. Obama's campaign spread theirs a bit more broadly and evenly, putting equal emphasis on every possible delegate, while Clinton's targeted the thirteen or fourteen states that, put together, could have been enough to set Obama up for a knockout. Both calculations made sense at the time, but Obama's paid off a little bit better.

Meanwhile, Clinton really did have some financial trouble for a little while. She's certainly gotten out of those woods now, but she didn't have the money in mid-to-late January to be setting up networks in February caucus states. Since caucuses require earlier investment, that basically meant she had to write them off.

So, there's my caucus answer. Not terribly sexy, but I think it explains the difference.

Incidentally, I do think primaries are better than caucuses, for some of the reasons others have given here. But Obama's just playing on the turf that was set for the candidates. Meanwhile, Clinton is certainly doing the same.

Please, let November come, and let there be a rain of fire and blood and offal upon the Republicans.

What person with any brains even chooses to be a Republican? Some rigid fantasist who believes he belongs to some other, platonic ideal of a political party, in some magical realm where it practices fiscal conservatism and keeps its nose out of people's bedrooms and strengthens the military rather than diminishes it? And the more false their ideal is shown to be the more rigidly they embrace it? Isn't that a form of insanity, or mental illness, or psychosis?

"I'm a little puzzled about Obama's consistent success in caucuses, which usually seems to get chalked up to his background in community organizing."

Caucusses take much time, they are inconvenient, and many people don't like the idea of discussing their candidate preferences in a group of strangers at all. This process favors people with time on their hands, like students, and disadvantages hard working people and parents having to care for their kids. All of this works for Obama, with his younger base of activists. Why is this a surprise for you, Kevin???

Hey Cal -- take your racist diatribe somewhere else. It's getting really old for Clinton supporters to find every lame excuse to discount Obama's victories. First you say that caucuses are undemocratic and shouldn't count. Then, you say that any primary with "too many black folks" also shouldn't count. Then you take out Illinois, because it's Obama's home state. And finally you dismiss CT, MO, DE, and other states Obama has won because??? What, he didn't win them decisively enough?

Perhaps you should start wondering why Obama is racking up 60% of the vote in so many of these states, a feat that Clinton only pulled off in Arkansas. Obama has a better message, better organization, and more committed supporters.

What person with any brains even chooses to be a Republican?

Okay, this irritates me a little cause the answer is... quite a few actually. Including a number of good friends... One (he's about 20 years up on me) is an Eisenhower Republican and has voted GOP for 40 years. Others - younger - buy into the (false) image of the GOP as the party of the rugged individualist and of personal responsibility... all might change this time round though McCain makes it more unlikely... but hey we can talk (particularly over beer). Demonize the leaders but there's no point just demonizing the folks who vote for the GOP. They're your fellow citizens and many are likeable and decent people. That should be your starting point. Sit back, listen. Show some respect. Why do they think to vote as they do? Find the common ground and argue why you would vote differently. You might even win someone round to your point of view.

I think once this is over - not now because Obama people would think it was directed against them - the Dem party needs to seriously re-think how we choose a candidate. Because no campaign has lasted so long or resulted in close to a tie, most of us didn't have a clue. We know a lot more about the process now and it sucks!

The other question I have about caucuses is why they seem to produce such lop-sided results and this happens in both parties. Whoever wins always seems to win in disproportionate numbers.

Last, I am the typical Hillary voter - 60 years old, female, pretty low on the socioeconomic scale but I rather resent being told that I am an "uneducated, low-information" voter and that must be why I am a Hillary supporter. Come on, you Obama elites. You like your guy and more power to you but it doesn't make your vote inherently more intelligent than mine.

What ikl said. It's very, very hard to attend a caucus, especially in a state where caucusing has almost never mattered before. Most adults figure out the voting process after a few cycles; with caucuses, it's as if the entire electorate is 18 again, procedure-wise.

In my own Washington county, the huge record-blowing Democratic caucus turnout was about 5 percent of the voting-eligible population.

Caucuses bring a strong benefit to people motivated enough, rich enough, young enough and nerdy enough to get detailed instructions over the Internet. Good for Ron Paul; good for Obama.

Jeez. I'd like to see you explain the orbit of the moon without using the concept of gravity.

Obama is teh awesome.

I actually do think it has something to do with peer pressure and the willingness of supporters to subject themselves to a public process. Hillary supporters know she isn't considered "cool" or "awesome" and they either don't show up or are more likely to change their preference in a caucus setting. Not only is she not awesome but I think there might be a few media type folks that like to frame her and her campaign in a negative light.

In Washington state they are polling pretty much dead even.

I don't know what this means for Obama in November. It's not a caucus and the media keeps pictures of both Obama and McCain underneath their pillows.

Laura: Also, I think the Clinton supporters in my precinct were a little intimidated by being outnumbered by Obama supporters. Fun! ... I hope to never participate in a caucus again and am furious at the parties responsible for this system. Were they purposely trying to manipulate the voting process by making it harder for some people to vote? Who decided nobody gets to vote privately? Today I felt democracy had really lost.

Well, caucuses aren't for introverts, that's for sure. (As a Canadian introvert, you are guaranteed to NEVER find me at one of these.)

But these arguments are pretty weak. As you said earlier in your comment, Obama was better organized and put more resources into caucuses. Clinton chose not to allocate her resources and time the same way, which means that even though these caucuses were on a Saturday, which most people of every class have free, she delivered fewer people there. You may presume that the smaller pool of Clinton supporters were too intimidated to fully participate, but if Clinton can't pull out either a small pool of determined voters, or a larger pool of voters ready to support her -- on a SATURDAY -- that's her responsibility.

She could have made these caucuses more competitive, and according to polling weeks and months go, she could have won them handily. She screwed up.

I am feeling very uneasy about the November elections. I spoke with my very liberal brother-in-law and he noted that Citizens United, the professional smear group headed by the despicable David Bossie is preparing a multi-million smear campaign against Obama . Also, he said many states are going to be using Diebold electronic voting machines which are highly subject to hacking and manipulation.

Watch out Dems! The smear machine is just gearing up!!!

Why Obama wins caucuses:

Caucuses (as others have said) weed out poor/working-class people. This would be bad for Obama if the caucuses were in southern or heavily urban states, but they're not.

Caucuses make it harder for racists to vote their conscience (not a bad deal).

But also: caucuses encourage married women to vote the same way as their husbands (i.e. erodes Clinton support).

I find it kind of funny that some of the same people who derided caucuses as undemocratic now love them, or are strangely quiet on the subject.

Kevin, the answer is clear if you've been to a caucus. I went to mine Tuesday at a middle school in Denver. The place was packed as was the case at every other caucus in Denver that night.

Obama supporters didn't have the card signs and buttons as did the Hillary supporters. But they were more pumped up and excited. Obama took the caucuses by a 2 to 1 margin.

Caucuses take time and effort. Mine lasted 2.5 hours. Obama supporters are more likely to go to the trouble to attend and vote.

It's very simple. Obama doesn't need a great caucus organization. People simply show up.

As tempting as it is to make predictions in February about the November election, please resist! I've been watching politics too long to make that mistake. In 1976, Jimmy Carter had a HUGE lead over Gerald Ford coming out of the Democratic convention in July - it was something like 25 points! They were writing Ford's political obituary, but he came on like gangbusters and just missed winning the election. Same thing in 1968, Humphrey was way behind and came back to narrowly lose. Dukakis had a double-digit lead over Bush Sr. coming out of the Democratic convention in 1988 and wound up getting blown out in November. And we don't have to remember the Truman-Dewey race! So say that McCain "looks like a goner" at this point is ridiculous. I hope you're right, but it's premature to say the least!

One, Ron Paul is not a protest candidate, and two, the reason for the discrepancies between primaries and caucuses is that the former uses Diebold. But I'm sure you knew that anyway.

shorter Kim, eric, donna: Obama is teh awesome.

There is a gender gap in the primaries but less so in the caucuses. What seems to happen is that in the cacuses the husband says 'lets go for Obama' and the wife has to either agree or be alone all evening.

This did not happen so much in Nevada where the cacuses were arranged on the strip, allowing people to vote at work.

It is kinda interesting to see the Obama supporters have suddenly decided that they don't like superdelegates 'the people must decide!' but haven't changed their minds on counting Florida or Mitchigan 'the rules must be followed!'.

The fact is that Obama is the 'cooler' candidate to be seen supporting. Win or lose a politician is going to gain from having supported Obama.

Caucusing is undemocratic only if you believe the old New England town meeting is undemocratic. Caucusing does reward the committed and informed over the lukewarm and uninformed. So what? Who is more likely to actively support a candidate in the fall? A very committed highly informed activist or a couch potato who doesn't have the time to learn anything about a candidate or his positions. Missouri used to have caucuses. They gave me a chance to meet others in my town who think like me. I really loved them. They were great party building activities.

B shorter Kim, eric, donna: Obama is teh awesome.

One of these posts is not like the others... I think it's pretty unfair to Kim to lump her in with the consecutively-posted all small letter first names 'eric' and 'donna' who are clearly trolling.

But seriously, I'll never understand the vehemence these stupid Republican fanatics feel against John McCain.

Our new knowledge technology is not backward compatible. Who would want to open their "files" anyway. Ugh! Supersitition sitting on a cesspool of sexual frustration.

'carol' let me introduce you to 'eric' and 'donna'. Or do you already know each other? Perhaps from the local GOP/troll party?

The caucuses were on Saturday and mine was well attended by working people. Twolocal unionns turned up--firemen and pipefitters. They were for Obama quite vocally. In fact, and listen up all you Edwards folks who think that Hillary is his natural heir, they were so anti-Hillary that they said they won't vote for her in the general. Nafta.

The other two thirds of the crowd were older folks. Three werre in wheelchairs. Yes, the local assisted living facilities were assisting their resisdents to get aoutt and vote. Also my island is populated by a mix of wealthy retirees and old hippies so there was lots of gray hair at my caucus.

The Hillary supporters were a subset of the female baby boomers in the room.

BTW CNN has an analysis up that concludes that Obama has a much better shot at beatingMcCAin than Hillary does. Turnsout that the problem isn't that non-blackswon't vote for an African American. The problem is that non-women won't vote for a woman. Female lib