SADLY, Losing Caucus States is a PORTENT OF G.E. DOOM for Hillary

[Sensitivity]

Hillary dismisses her caucus losses by saying “Bill lost those as well.”

BUT, in 1992, Bill Clinton was the INSURGENT NEWCOMMER, not the establishment candidate!!
The Establishment Candidate SHOULD be winning the caucus states.

Hillary’s arguments point to a DISASTER in a Hillary v McCain General Election contest:

1. A Caucus should favor the Establishment candidate because they are run by and typically attended by older party regulars. Apart from Iowa (which allow a newcomer a whole year of retail politics) the Clinton party brand gives her a huge competitive advantage with the caucus regulars.

2. A Caucus attracts more activists. If you don’t have the activist in your corner your GE campaign is effectively hobbled. The winner of the “activist” will have the feet on the street to bring out the vote in November.

3. Caucus attendants are supposedly “more educated.” Polling certainly suggests that they are more informed. Saying that caucus goers don’t vote for you because they are more “educated” is a self-damning statement. It is a WARNING that over time Hillary will progressively loose support as voters learn more they will vote for her less.

It is hard to understand the logic of a Hillary candidacy at this point. All her arguments seem deeply flawed. It cannot be good to disliked by the activist, the educated, the independent voter in a GE contest where the typical, unthinking, party-line vote is going to you anyway.

[rug]

1. Portent of doom.

Ok.

[JVS]

21. Perfectly cromulent. It's like the Pompitous of Love.

[polpilot]

26. Maybe she can win without voters voting for her...

it's happened before

[papau]

2. LOL - I love it when a tiny vote by those of wealth and sparetime like college students can "doom" a

candidate!

:-)

[Sensitivity]

19. any facts to back up this

[papau]

27. Massive Maine caucus - multiples of prior number of votes - was 10% of Dem vote

[Medusa]

3. It takes both Dem loyaltists and Indepdnents to win a GE

And Obama can do that. Hillary can win only in "closed" primary states. Last time I checked, GE's were open to everyone and that means Hillary cannot and willnot win if she's the nominee. That's the reality.

[calico1]

7. How do you know that in open primaries the people that

vote for a candidate in the primary will do so in the GE? I'm sure some of them will but I think a lot of voters play games in the primaries, bumping up the candidate they do NOT want to face in the GE. I think all primaries should be closed so that only the party members can vote for the party candidates. We have no way of knowing how unafiliated voters will end up voting in the GE.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

13. I'm not sure that makes sense

Why would someone vote for the candidate they do NOT want to face in the GE? Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for the weaker candidate on the other side?

[calico1]

15. I guess I didn't word it right.

Yes, I meant a lot of people will vote for example for McCain because they feel he is easier to beat when they really support Obama or Hillary. But McCain's numbers are big because of those votes. I'm saying that "winning" because of independent voters who do this kind of stuff doesn't necessarily mean you have support in that state. With closed primaries you can only vote for a Democrat if you are a registered Democrat. So you aren't going to vote for Hillary if you want Obama to win, or vice versa. So a win in a closed primary is more indicative of the support that candidate has.

[TheDoorbellRang]

34. So you don't think independent voters should be allowed to vote in primaries?

That's about 30% of the electorate. I've considered myself an independent for 35 years -- sometimes voting republican, sometimes democratic. 2004 was the first time in my life I voted a straight democratic ticket and I don't see that personal trend changing any time in the foreseeable future -- but I still consider myself an independent. I've been fortunate in having always lived in states that allow me to vote on either the democratic or republican ballot in the primary election. Do you really think it would be better to deny independents that option?

[Fovea]

4. I am really worried that she

relies on blue collar male voters heavily- and that her base among women voters is a one party thing.

A couple years back, I had a chance to meet with a group of Missouri's Concerned Women or Murika and I asked a few of them if they would vote for HRC in 08. I didn't know they were allowed to use language like that.

So if I am freaked by Hillary's negs, it is not without some direct experience with them.

[Sensitivity]

9. Hillary is asking us to BELIEVE against all logic and reason.

[PATRICK]

5. Portents aside

I don't think there was any controversy about the fact that Hillary would be pursuing the same high risk,
gift to the GOP, big state strategy that has been soooo wonderful for the party. This pretty much shows how it works, by whittling away and destroying those bastions and the protected money and organization until nothing is certain- and then defeat. There are perhaps just a handful of critical lessons- some not very ideological- that would make the DLC wise ones tolerable and even lauded by progressives and the majority of voters. Most Democrats are tired of the claustrophobic imposed limitations of center highway parity politics.


Still waiting for the high and the might to learn something useful about self-preservation(other than maintaining a useless stranglehold on party organization).

[PATRICK]

6. Portents aside

I don't think there was any controversy about the fact that Hillary would be pursuing the same high risk,
gift to the GOP, big state strategy that has been soooo wonderful for the party. This pretty much shows how it works, by whittling away and destroying those bastions and the protected money and organization until nothing is certain- and then defeat. There are perhaps just a handful of critical lessons- some not very ideological- that would make the DLC wise ones tolerable and even lauded by progressives and the majority of voters. Most Democrats are tired of the claustrophobic imposed limitations of center highway parity politics.


Still waiting for the high and the mighty to learn something useful about self-preservation(other than maintaining a useless stranglehold on party organization).

[bigtree]

8. I didn't think so

but your use of capital letters won me over :eyes:

[LWolf]

10. How did she set them loose? n/t

[Saturday]

11. It's my opinion that caucus

voters are not better informed. I personally know 4 Iowans who caucused for Obama because of the hype. They watched the media and ran with what the media said. They are all young voters caucusing for the first time. They wanted to stand on the side of the room where "all the people" were and be part of the movement. It was exciting for them to be part of the "group". To be a winner. Just as the media took us to war they are now choosing our candidate.

[BenDavid]

12. Remember, we had this election WON until Obama decided he

needed to save us.....Now IF he gets the nomination here we are again going to lose an election because this one trick pony decided to jump in.....

I would say the best thing Obama could do is to step back,and if we go the obama way, we're in for a third Bush term with McCain.

Somebody has to step back. If they don't, this could be the last presidential run for BOTH of them
Is this Obama's only shot? Or does he have a future in politics? I say we bench our first round draft pick (obama) and let our all star(hrc) have her final shot.

[calico1]

16. I'll say this. If Obama does end up winning the nomination

I hope he has mroe tricks in his bag. The oratory stuff does well with his followers. Preaching to the choir stuff. But if even other Democrats are turned off by it how is he going to win over other voters? Once the presidential campaign gets underway and more people actually start to really pay attention, he will need more than speeches about unity and hope. He will need a LOT more substance. And right now I'm not sure he has it.

[grantcart]

22. "we had this election won" how do you have an election

won when people haven't voted yet? This is the arrogance that lost Clinton the election.

[anigbrowl]

32. Hillary had the nomination won...

until Obama decided to run a real campaign against her. Was it only a few months ago i was hearing that the primary season was no more than a beauty contest to be Hillary's VP?

[TheDoorbellRang]

35. You keep repeating this mantra when the polls say just the opposite

And even they have been shown not to be infallible. So what infallible proof other than a gut feeling do you have that Obama would lose to McCain?

[pdxmom]

14. I'm still trying to figure out what caucus states Bill lost. Check out a

primary map for the 1992 primaries. Looks to me like Bill won those caucus states.

[Sensitivity]

17. Was quoting Hillary. I think she was there, but memory is a tricky thing.

She was quoted here:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

WHITE MARSH, Maryland (CNN) — Hillary Clinton on Monday explained away Barack Obama's clean sweep of the weekend's caucuses and primaries as a product of a caucus system that favors "activists" and, in the case of the Louisiana primary, an energized African-American community.

.........

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

[HeraldSquare212]

18. She said he didn't do well in caucus states; he won at least two in 1992.

But he did win at least two, that I can figure out so far, Viriginia and Missouri. There must have been more, but websites that summarize the 1992 campaign don't seem to differentiate between caucuses and primaries, so it's hard to find the info. Which just goes to show you: the differences between caucuses and primaries have never been seen to be a big deal before.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DD1230F935A25757C0A964958260&scp=84&sq=1992+%22bill+clinton%22+caucus&st=nyt

[JVS]

20. DOOOOOOOM!

[AtomicKitten]

23. Her caucus argument goes poof.

The inconsistency in her argument says it all: She's verklempt with caucuses but the Nevada caucus was okeedokee.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sensitivity]

28. Doom for Dem -- Hillary will keep her millions.

[Alexander]

31. "Raised in Muslim ways?" Go back to Freeperville, troll.

[Az_lefty]

25. Hillary fails to include the Perot factor also...

Clinton won with 43% due to Perot pulling 18% primarily from Republicans. Without this, Bush would have won reelection.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Silly. The internet and cell phones make caucuses exploitable

Caucuses are a system to be gamed.

They exist to maintain main-line party control, but are there to be exploited by any movement that can get "regular" people to caucus.

It was only a matter of time until someone brought new tools to bear on exploiting the creaky old caucus system.

Duh! If a system is there to be gamed, it will be gamed. That's how markets work.

In the 1980s companies held too much cash. That permitted hostile takeovers from corporate raiders. Today, companies protect themselves from such takeovers better.

Adapt and evolve.

So now caucuses don't behave like they did in 1954. And, as a result, there will be fewer caucuses in the future.

Your observations about the historical role of caucuses are irrelevant to today's realities. They are as useful as observations about political fund-raising before the internet.

[anigbrowl]

33. I agree...

and that's why i think caucuses are a good thing. Having a variety of electoral systems in the primary forces the candidates to fight their battles on multiple fronts and with multiple different strategies, rather than just throw the most money at The Textbook Strategy.

Hillary knew as well as anyone that the caucus states favor challengers over incumbents (or front runners). After Dean in 2004, it was obvious that candidates needed to leverage the internet to build their support and raise funds, and that it would put them under a far finer microscope than the media ever used to do. She had a top-level insight into 4 general election cycles, and tried and tested election machine at her disposal. And unlike most people here, she has both the access and inclination to study how and why Republicans win elections too - it's not all lies and BS, they have often won by having a better ground operation and a smarter strategy.

Her problems stem not from the fact that the system is broken, but from the fact that her campaign failed to deal with the system as it is, and run just as hard as if it were their first and last chance to compete in a general election.

[Orsino]

30. No doom for either one.

No matter which Dem you prefer, the Republican nominee is going to be a buffoonish old man who will lose horribly. Not even Condi as a running mate can save the GOP form smelling like last month's fish sticks.