Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
About that delegate count
OK, I might get a lot of grief for this,
because the prevailing view on this site is that there's
no difference between a caucus and a free, fair election. I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree.
I also want you all to know that I'm not trying to change any rules "in the middle of the game", just stimulate discussion and maybe add to the information load of an already very informed demographic :-) All data from RCP.
If you look only at delegates from Primaries, Obama's won 50.3%, with:
1195 delegates to Hillary's 1182,
so adding in the Supers, Hillary's ahead by 11 delegates.
For caucus delegates, he's won 66%, with :
287 to Hillary's 148.
This is a massive discrepancy, which at first glance seems to be down to accessibility of the election (a few hours rather than all day), and lack of privacy when voting.
By my count, the caucus states are:
Alaska
Colorado
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Minnesota
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Washington
Wyoming
American Samoa
Virgin Islands
Anyone feel like advancing some alternate theories as to why these 13 states voted in a manner so glaringly different to primary states?
Comments (20)
Two reasons, Obama had a better ground game and inspired more voters who made the time to caucus.
Funny that you take a swipe at caucuses but casually add in Hillary's lead superdelegates to pretend like this is a lead in primary states. I guess superdelegates will only become undemocratic in your view when they give the lead to Obama. When Hillary started with a +90 superdelegate lead with all their influence trying to sway voters it was ok.
April 23, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a third reason: demographics
Caucus states tend to lie outside the race chasm, for whatever reason.
April 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one: he had the resources and contested those elections. She, with the exception of Iowa, did not and did not.
Frankly, your post makes little sense. All of these states matter. All of the candidates knew the nature of the contests (it wasn't a surprise) and the fact that she had implemented a different strategy (big states) than Obama's strategy (50-state) is the difference in the race.
There's no discrepancy--just the results of their respective strategies.
April 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a start I'm not saying any states don't matter.
Secondly, your argument just doesn't add up. I just looked at the 10 smallest Primary states by delegate count (Delaware to Oklahoma), and Obama won... 50.7% of those delegates!
I think we can now exclude big state/small state strategies from the explanations.
April 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say it slow then: With exception of Iowa, Clinton did not devote any resources to these caucus states. Her strategy to was to win the big delegate rich states on February 5th and put this thing away. She shot her wad on Feb 5th and didn't have the money/resources to compete in most of these states.
So again, this is a function of STRATEGY.
And frankly this whole exercise is pointless. These were the ground rules when she declared her candidacy for the presidency. You can't unring a bell, no matter how clever you think you are.
April 23, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It amuses me when people who claim to be Democrats have a problem with the outcome of the rules that the DNC set up to govern this campaign cycle. Maybe they don't know what the "D" in DNC stands for... Or maybe they don't care.
April 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two brief points:
1) Not all caucuses are really as restrictive as IA. People in MN, for instance, had just as much time to vote as folks like me (in MO) had. In other words, your critique is less strong than you think.
2) I think that caucuses are really the only practical way to hold a democratic election in some of those states. Imagine that Wyoming, for instance, were to hold a primary. Democrats in WY are outnumbered by four to one, so if even a small number of republicans in that state decided to make mischief, they could easily scuttle the whole election for us (especially if, as happened this year, the democratic and republican contests in WY were on different days). Caucuses, by making it more of a challenge to participate, cut down on such mischief-making and thus help to ensure that the results of the democratic contests in these states really reflect the will of the democrats in these states.
In other words, I am no more a fan of caucuses than you are, but I think that fairness dictates that we admit that, while crummy, they are less crummy than the alternative in many cases.
April 23, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's interesting - I didn't know that about Minnesota. They voted 2-1 for Obama. If timing wasn't an issue there, could privacy be?
Wyoming, incidentally, voted 7-5 for Obama, so isn't as much of an outlier.
That's an interesting point re: mischief-making, do you really think it's had a big effect in the primaries? Not completely convinced that it would be any less of a problem in caucuses anyway. Also, as I understand it, you can generally only vote in a Republican or Democratic race, not both, which is a pretty big disincentive, at least until your nominee is decided...
April 23, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear that I must not have been clear enough, because you missed both of my points:
1) There was no "privacy" issue in MN. Minnesotans cast secret ballots, marked in the privacy of their own boothes. There was no wrangling of caucus-goers or suchlike in MN. In other words, their "caucus" was really no different than a primary. Just because a state has a "caucus" does not mean that it does everything like IA. That is why your point is weaker than your list would suggest.
2)
No, I do not think so, but that is not my point. States like MO or VA or OH are fairly evenly balanced in terms of Republicans vs Democrats, so mischief making is less of an issue in these states. If 10% of democrats sneak into the republican primary to make mischief, it will be balanced out by the 10% of republicans who sneak into the democratic primary to make mischief. Because neither side wants that, there is a built-in counter-incentive against mischief making.
Not so in states like WY or KS or ND (etc). In these states, the republicans so vastly outnumber the democrats that there is no counter-incentive against republican mischief making. As such, caucuses help to ensure the integrity of the contest in these more heavily red states.
April 23, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any difference between a MN caucus and a regular primary, then? Sounds strange they'd call it a caucus just for the hell of it. Perhaps in how delegates are awarded? Taking it off the list doesn't change things much, anyway.
I think you missed my point on the mischief making, which is that if you dabble in the Democratic election, you lose your say in the republican. Furthermore, I really don't see how caucuses would stop someone who wanted to switch sides for mischievous reasons.
April 23, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking MN off the list does not change things much, but you clearly did not know about the nature of the MN caucus. As such, how confident are you that MN is the only caucus in that list like this? I mention MN only because I happen to know something about it from Angry Vet. In other words, your argument is premised on the assumption that all caucuses are restrictive. My point is that this is not true. With that in mind, it seems to me that the strength of your argument is a bit up in the air until you track down more info about the precise details of each of those caucus states in your list.
Meanwhile, caucuses cut down on mischief voting precisely by virtue of being restrictive. If I want to make an ass of myself and play havoc with the republican primary, I need only to take ~15 min out of my morning to do so; no big deal. If an Iowa democrat wants to make an ass of himself and play havoc with the Iowa republican caucus, however, he has to give up several hours of a work night to do so. This additional burden of participation serves to cut down on the number of people inclined to work such mischief.
Meanwhile, your point about voting in one precluding voting in the other is simply not true. When I lived in Michigan we had a caucus but the republicans had a primary. One had to sign an affadavit stating that one would not/had not (depending on the year - some years our caucus came before their primary, some years ours came after theirs) participate in the Republican primary, but it was not legally binding. You were simply on your honor.
April 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, you were annoying me so I looked up the Minnesota caucuses, and you're completely wrong.
They hold bog standard caucuses, which commenced at 7pm on February 5th,
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=886
That was a waste of time.
April 23, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, once again, I thank you for catching my mistake. Suffice it to say, your point stands and my cavil should be ignored (although I contend that my other point, about the value of caucuses in certain states, still stands).
April 23, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but did you notice that Hillary won ALL the states that start with the word "New"?
She's way ahead. I don't see why we should count any state that doesn't have the word "New" in it!
April 23, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least in Idaho, Obama's ground-level organization was absolutely superior. Obama had offices set up and volunteers were organizing Democrats nearly a year before February 5. He also visited the state which really galvanized Democrats and Independents (as well as disenchanted Republicans). Clinton's ground game was too little too late and they failed to successfully organize.
Obama planned and successfully organized these states and this is one of the critical reasons for Obama's advantage. Had Clinton done the same, she may have been more competitive in these caucus states, but she did not. So rather than seeing caucuses as some sort of a sinister institution, I turn your attention to some of the more practical (and thus boring) reasons for the discrepancy.
I would also encourage those who believe caucuses to be undemocratic to provide a real, viable alternative. Primaries costs a lot of money and for states like Idaho (we have just over a million people spread out over a huge territory), the money needed for a state-wide primary is not feasible. Our State Democratic party cannot afford this and certainly, the DNC cannot do so either. So then, who shall pay to conduct primaries throughout this vast state and more importantly, pay every year?
April 23, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted in one of those caucuses. It was held the morning after a huge Obama rally in our state's capitol (Hillary also spoke that day, but her crowd was not as impressive).
While standing in line for about an hour to get into my town hall for the caucus, there was a lot of buzz and excitement from the rally, and excitement over the newspaper coverage of the rally, and excitement that we actually had so many democrats in our tiny town (who knew?). People chatted about why they were supporting their candidate, asked questions, discussed issues. It was amazing. There was more general democratic camaraderie than any division by candidate.
Oddly, our 10 undecided voters went more to the Hillary side, so there wasn't a lot of pressure from the Obama voters, but the overwhelming majority was there to support Obama.
An aside: the woman who gave the speech for HRC was BORING and droned on for way too long essentially reading Hillary's resume. The young man who stood up for Obama was literally shaking with excitement, describing the enthusiasm and hope he and his peers were feeling this year. I thought this was symbolic of the bigger picture.
My relatives in NE also voted in a caucus and described a similar feeling. Uncharacteristic democratic turn-out and a lot of community "bonding" over the possibilities Obama represents. A friend of theirs (sixtysomething woman) said after the caucus, after hearing the speeches, "It's time for us to step down and cast a vote for our kids and grandkids. We had our chance. Obama is clearly their president."
We waited for 4 hours with two young kids in a stuffy room to cast our votes. The town hall had never seen turnout even close. Ever. Almost everyone present signed up to be a delegate at the state convention. The process was fair, meticulous and inspiring. We saw our community re-engaging in politics and in the future. We saw democrats being proud to be democrats. There's no way this was anything but positive for the political process...hugely so in small communities like mine.
I voted in NY in primaries for most of my life and found it dull. The caucus was an amazing community event and I don't understand the criticism...unless you want to complain about the long lines, and, amazingly, NO ONE DID (well, except the kids).
Don't tell me the caucus doesn't count or is inferior. The caucus system is very symbolic of Obama's mission--instigate change from the bottom up. Inspire communities to re-introduce political enthusiam, activism and accountability.
It's working here. I'm watching it happen.
April 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really glad you had such a positive experience. Perhaps not everyone can afford to take 4 hours off work to participate?
April 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You left Texas out of the list of caucus states.
I'd like to point out that elections are not the be-all and end-all of democracy. Participation is.
One thing that caucuses do is get people in room together where they end up talking to one another - about politics. Not just about the presidential candidates, but about issues they care about. In Texas all party platform resolutions are initiated in the precinct caucuses.
How many voters out there in primary states have been asked to become a delegate to a county convention? It never happened to me until I moved to Texas - and attended my precinct convention (aka caucus). Everyone in the room was asked if they would be willing to be a delegate or alternate; even those of us who supported the less popular candidates still got to have a voice in the direction we wanted the Democratic Party to go. Those who walked in supporting marginal candidates (less than 15%) didn't waste their vote; they were given, in essence, a second chance to align with another candidate or to try to form a viable uncommitted block - something like a run-off election.
Caucuses reward campaigns who have the organizational skills to motivate and educate their supporters, to get them not only to show up to vote but to talk to other real people about the candidates and issues. Which is not a bad way to do democracy, really.
April 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. But when you say "elections are not the be-all and end-all of democracy. Participation is."
And you consider that caucuses massively decrease voter turnout, it doesn't make caucuses sound very democratic.
The other arguments are against a first past the post system, better ways to solve that issue than a caucus.
April 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner...yoy might want to add TX to your list with an asterisk since they held both a primary and a caucus. In the primary, Clinton won by 4 with just under 3 million voting but Obama wound up getting a few more delegates because of the caucus...ie some people got to vote twice. I think about a million showed up for the caucus.
It appears that the more people are shut out of the process, Obama does better in that scenario. That's a prescription for failure in November because there aren't any caucuses then.
After the ass-kicking in November, the DNC had best get busy and fix the nomination machinery so we'll have a chance against President McCain in 2012.
April 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment