some additional caucus thoughts

[ilanarama]

The Electoral Vote site (which is syndicated at electoralvote) has some interesting analysis of the Super Tuesday results. In particular, the Votemaster (Andy Tanenbaum) sorted the Democratic popular vote percentages and came up with the interesting tidbit that the most overwhelming majorities for Obama were in caucus states:

Obama did extremely well in caucus states and Clinton did very badly in them. How come? Turnout in caucus states is always low, usually about 10-20% of the electorate. Only highly motivated people bother to show up, especially the Democratic caucuses, which go on for hours and people haveto publicly defend their choice. Obama has a smaller, but extremely active and loyal following, especially among younger voters. These are precisely the people who can swing a caucus state by showing up in droves and working hard to convince the other voters that Obama would make a great President. In primary states, the media, especially TV ads have a much bigger influence.

This was certainly the case at our caucus, where we had a lot of people who had never before come to a caucus, and all but one were Obama supporters. (They were not all young, by any stretch of the imagination.)

One anomaly in the table of percentages is New Mexico, which is listed as a caucus state but split nearly 50-50 between the candidates. Since Durango's only half an hour from the NM state line, we get New Mexico news in our daily newspaper.  When I read the coverage of the caucus, I immediately thought: hmm, that sounds more like a primary than a caucus.  I did a little Googling and found out that yep, the New Mexico "caucus" is basically a primary. There is no discussion, no open voting.  Voters cast ballots at the caucus site and then leave, and they can even cast absentee ballots in advance. 

I think Obama's success in caucus states says a lot about his appeal. He inspires people. And I think that's important.

Comments

[aubrem.livejournal.com]

It's interesting but I'm not sure that I like the system. Why should people who feel most passionately about a candidate get a greater voice in the choosing? Why should you have to be able to defend your choice? For certain things in life, yes. And possibly choosing a political party's candidate is one of those things but I'm not so sure. Sometimes the quiet people who keep their own counsel know what they're doing. One person, one vote. I realize the primary isn't the election but still ... I'm more comfortable with a system in which people don't have to defend or even reveal their choices.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

A more cynical interpretation of why Obama does better in caucuses: nobody wants to reveal their racism in front of their neighbors. But in the voting booth, with nobody watching, even those voters who told pollsters that they would vote for Obama ... just couldn't pull the lever for the guy who's not white. I hope so much that this is not true. But I predicted exactly this Super Tuesday result after the New Hampshire primary, and here it is.

Fishwhistle, who's reading this over my shoulder, point out that both effects could be happening at once - these explanations don't rule each other out at all.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

I think it's because if all you're doing is pulling a lever or punching a chad, you don't need to be an informed voter. If you show up at a caucus - and you have it backwards, I think: it's not that in order to show up you need to feel passionately, but that those who feel passionately are more likely to show up - you're welcome to sit there quietly and not defend your choice. But you are also by necessity exposed to the arguments of people like you, your neighbors, not just the arguments of the media.

And see what lolaraincoat says below, which I agree with somewhat.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

I sort of agree with you; yes, it's easier to be racist in private than in public. But in this case, I don't see that standing for Clinton rather than Obama can be interpreted as a racist act - are those standing for Obama revealing their sexism?

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

I think the people who are making positive arguments in favor of Clinton (at caucuses or elsewhere) are not motivated by racism at all. But voters who change their minds at the last minute in the voting booth - yeah, that's likely motivated at least in part by unconscious racism or sexism.

[alembicresearch.livejournal.com]

So do you get to go to the convention in Denver?

Sounds much better than CA!
The stratagy in CA is the grow to more than a billion people
(or more?), so all little states won't have a say.
Which is why Clinton is so popular here. :-)

[wisn.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, Michigan (and Florida) have no elected delegates to the Democratic convention because they violated party rules in scheduling their primaries. And now the Dem party is offering to restore their delegates if they agree to run caucuses late in the primary cycle.

Part of what makes this interesting is that if party simply restored the delegates chosen by the invalidated elections, Hilary Clinton would have swept both states. Sorry, that's a bad way to phrase it because I don't think there's any significant conspiracy going on behind this. Obama obeyed party rules by withdrawing from both states' early primaries, and Clinton did not, so there are plenty of legit reasons for a re-do.

Probably only Kucinich and Gravel have reasons to be pissed. Maybe.

[geoviki.livejournal.com]

I really was surprised how Obama-heavy our caucus was (2:1), and a friend in the mtns. went to hers and said she and one other person out of 55 were for Hillary.

I haven't worked it out myself.

Do you have any insight into how many Dems are in a precinct, roughly? I was curious about how many of the registered voters actually showed up. Or does it vary widely?

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the whole thing is sort of eye-rolling. The E-V site points out that all the states which participated in Super Tuesday have turned out to be less important than the later states. I dunno - it's looking like it may come down to the superdelegates, which is a little aggravating.

One of the resolutions proposed and passed by our precinct, by the way, expressed support for a nationwide primary on a single day.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

I get to go to our county convention, and then I hope to go to state (which is in Colorado Springs) and then, if I'm very lucky, I will be able to go to Denver, but that is extremely unlikely.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

Yeah, 2:1 is on the low side compared to ours, which was more like 5:1 in most precincts. But looking at the numbers I can see at least one precinct that went 2:1 and two that went for Clinton: one 14 to 6 and the other 6 to 4.

La Plata County has 10,219 registered Democrats, and a total of 1506 people showed up to caucus, so ~ 14.7%.

[frosch.livejournal.com]

I saw my first Obama yard sign Wednesday morning, after the Alabama primary.

On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any Clinton signs either. The only yard signs I've seen around here are for Republicans, mostly Ron Paul, although I think that's as much because the yellow dog Democrats, who are clearly in the majority around here, may be slightly embarrassed by the candidates they have to choose between.

I could have picked up a sign at the monthly party meeting, but had I picked up an Obama sign, Marsha would certainly have picked up a Clinton sign, and I decided that would look silly and be completely ineffectual. I think I finally convinced her to vote for Obama on the way to the polls, but of course I can't be sure.

The whole Michigan-Florida thing makes me angry, but I won't subject you to any more of my Hillary-bashing.

[ilanarama.livejournal.com]

Pretty much all I've seen around here were Paul signs - one Obama sign.

And there's one guy I know through the party - he's an active Democrat, and his wife is an active Republican (although they are both fairly centrist) - two years ago, they had two yard signs, one each for the Dem and GOP state legislator candidates, one on each side of the yard. Then the signs for the candidates they agreed on (the Dem governor, I forget who else) were clustered in the middle. :-)

[frosch.livejournal.com]

Relatively few people see my yard anyway. We're on a corner at the crossing of two dead-end side streets, next to a cotton field. It's not as extreme as where we lived in Tennessee, on a cul-de-sac at the end of a mile and a half of side road, but the only traffic to speak of is the people who live here.