Since hearing the report from close friends who were in Iowa, the caucus system doesn't seem to be the best for selecting a nominee. They limit participation and create an atmosphere where voters may be intimidated. Try opposing your boss, or maybe your spouse, in full view of everyone.Jeralyn, at TalkLeft, has an excellent post you might want to take a look at: Caucuses vs. Primaries : A Report
What has 2008 shown us in terms of the fairness of the Democratic nomination process? That the caucus system is neither fair nor representative.
5 comments:
bac, Taylor Marsh has quite a few links in a post abut this today. Turns out that Obama does best when the turnout is lower, one big reason why he does so well in the caucus states.
Somehow I doubt you'd be doing a post like this if Hillary had won some or all of the caucus states.
dr.monkey von monkerstein, that was a pretty rude thing to say to BAC. You are sounding like a bitter little monkey.
Hillary did win the Nevada caucus, btw. I'm not sure of the others.
Dr. Monkey - I would hope you'd be concerned about voters having an opportunity to participate, instead of making this lame comment. More than 35 million people have voted in primaries, while only around a million people took part in caucuses. Doesn't that bother you even a little?
BAC
BAC-
I never thought I'd see the day when a group of Democrats would want to disenfranchise voters. I always thought that this was the mainstay of the Democratic party. Anyone who says that the caucuses are democratic need a lesson in history.
When I hear Obama supporters say that Hillary is ruining the party, I have to shake my head. How is it that the one candidate who is fighting to allow all Democrats to exercise their right to vote, and Obama is doing everything he can to keep them from voting...and she is the one who is being said to be ruining the party. Unbelievable. It's like watching George W. Bush run for president all over again. A nightmare for our party and a nightmare for this country.
Post a Comment