Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumTwo states where Sanders won lopsided caucus victories have now held higher-turnout non-binding pri
This will give Hillary some mojo in CA I do believe.
PS--anyone recall the other one.
Tweet:
Steve Kornacki ?@SteveKornacki 8h8 hours ago
Two states where Sanders won lopsided caucus victories have now held higher-turnout non-binding primaries. Clinton has won both of them.
613 retweets 653 likes
Her Sister
(6,444 posts)riversedge
(70,441 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Sanders would be losing in the GE.
riversedge
(70,441 posts)Good for them.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Percentage of voters.
LisaM
(27,850 posts)I think the caucuses were dominated by a vocal minority and not all Dems either.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)probably doesn't bode well for Sanders in California. Caucuses need to go,they aren't democratic and don't reflect the wishes of the voters. Another hollow "victory" for Sanders.
Cha
(298,014 posts)Thank you, rivers~
riversedge
(70,441 posts)better when voting for Hill in these states. spot on.
LisaM
(27,850 posts)I was hoping for this. I voted!
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
LAS14
(13,791 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Be respected???..,oops my bad...only the will of the people when it's for certain candidates
drray23
(7,638 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2048859
That I believe it is because caucuses inherently favor Bernie and his young supporters. I find it hard to imagine for a millennial to be able to stand up to their peers and say they want to vote Hillary. Given the behavior of Sander's supporters as evidenced in Nevada and other rallies, It is not hard to see that a process where one has no privacy for votes would be very much influenced by peer pressure and bullying.
I believe in one person, one vote. Not in mobs.
JSup
(740 posts)While most states hold primary elections, a handful of states hold caucuses. Instead of going to a polling place, voters attend local private events run by the political parties, and cast their selections there. The advantage of caucuses is that the state party runs the process directly instead of having the state and local governments run them. The disadvantage is that most election laws do not normally apply to caucuses.
A handful of states practice non-binding "beauty contests", which are public opinion surveys for use by caucus delegates to select candidates to a state convention, which then in turn selects delegates to the national convention.
http://thelibrary.org/blogs/article.cfm?aid=1750
In a binding primary, elected delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they pledged their support for, whereas in a non-binding primary, voters' wishes are considered advisory. Missouri's Presidential Preference Primary is a non-binding primary.
So all of these delegates in Washington are (legally) ignoring the will of the voters.
Democracy: It's what we say it is.