I Caucused
This afternoon I attended my precinct Democratic caucus, one of eleven being held in the local high school cafeteria. Attendance was about three times what it was four years ago. We had 37 voting in our precinct. After an initial tally, we opened the floor to discussion, with one minute speeches of support, alternating between the candidates. Then we continued with some back and forth until everybody was finished. Our chosen chair facilitated an intelligent, civil and focused group dialog.
Our group had only one non-white, a slight majority of women, more older voters, some middle aged and a few younger, including about a half dozen that looked to be voting for the first time. The older women favored Clinton, the younger people Obama and the men generally split about even. While we were waiting for the caucus to start, I spoke with a woman who was undecided and told her why I changed from Clinton to Obama. When we signed in, she decided to go for Obama. We had only one undecided voter, a Kucinich supporter. After the discussion, he switched to Obama and there may have been one other who changed to Obama. Our second and final tally was 23 to 14 for Obama. We chose five delegates (three Obama and two Clinton) to send to district. A few people turned in written platform proposals to be presented at district. The entire process lasted about two hours.
The arguments in favor of Clinton all boiled down to believing she has more experience than Obama. The arguments for Obama were: he energizes and gives hope to the young; represents hopeful change for the future; has more experience than people may realize; was correct about not authorizing Bush to invade Iraq; will draw more young and independent voters than Clinton and will not energize Republican Right voters as much as Clinton, so will be a better match up to McCain; and will be more effective in trying to break Republican obstructionism in Congress. We all agreed both are excellent candidates and would each make a good President and that we would vote for either one if nominated. Two young people warned that some young voters are turned off by Clinton and will either vote against her or not vote if she is the nominee.
Last night CNN reported about 20,000 Democrats caucused in Washington and we chose Obama 68% to 32%. The Republicans had about 8,000 caucus and split fairly even among their three candidates. The Nebraska Democratic caucus was also 68-32 Obama. The Louisiana primary went 57% for Obama. CNN said 2,025 delegates are needed for the Democratic nomination and Clinton has 1100 and Obama 1039.
[Check out the comments to "Fast Campaign Developments" for some ongoing dialog comments about the caucus process, stimulated by John from Phoenix.]
posted by Tom Blake | 7:31 AM
5 Comments:
Tom,
The two young people that said other young people would vote against Clinton or not vote: were they men or women?
John from Phoenix
They were women. I don't know though whether the young people of whom they spoke were male or female.
My niece who lives just south of Seattle told me yesterday that her caucus had over fifty people, mostly younger and of great ethnic diversity, and they overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
So can we conclude that the gender support Clinton has is from the older women, say 45 years and up? And males voting against her because of gender are of all ages? If this is true it is another reason I fear her running against a right wing Republican. Her chances of winning are low. So who the Republican candidate is is of paramount importance. Not who the Democratic candidate is. Despite a setback, the Republicans control the future, at least at this point in history.
John from Phoenix
Older women are more likely to have been victims of gender discrimination, and therefore see a Hillary Presidency as the ultimate vindication for those past wrongs. Older men know the history of discrimination against women and are mostly sympathetic. Younger men have grown up with concepts of gender equality. I don't think gender discrimination by males against Hillary is significant. Males who would vote against Hillary because she is a woman would most likely be Republican voters anyway.
Hillary's problem in running against McCain would not be that she is a woman, but that she is Hillary and a Clinton. There are many Republicans who dislike her and her husband because they stopped the Republican domination of the White House. There are some independents and a few tepid Democrats who do not like Hillary personally and are also turned off by the idea of Bush and Clinton White House monoplolizing the Presidency.*
It is going to be McCain against Clinton or Obama. Obama has the edge and the momentum and is the better match up against McCain.
I don't know where you get the idea Republicans control the future. Democrats control the Congress and will likely control the White House in January, perhaps while still controlling both chambers of Congress. The vast majority of Americans now realize the last seven years of Republican Presidency, six of which were further enabled by a Republican Congress, have been terrible, especially when compared to the previous 8 years under Bill Clinton. America is ready to give the White House back to a Democrat and if the Democrat can work with Republican moderates to start solving America's true problems, then Americans will remember that for the future. George W. Bush fraudulently claimed to be a uniter. Barack Obama's hope that Republicans and Democrats can work together is sincere.
*Young people complain that if Hillary were to get 8 years in the White House, that would mean a Bush or Clinton as President for 28 years in a row (plus another 8 with a Bush as VP). As a 66 year old, I have my own complaint about Presidential domination. Since the time Nixon took the White House away from the Democrats in 1968, forty years ago, we have only had 12 years of Democratic Presidents. I am hopeful that will be vastly different over the next forty years, with Barack Obama leading the way.
Tom,
I agree with all your comments. It seems that electability of the Democratic nominee is upermost in your mind now. It was in my mind in 2000 and 2008, but not in yours. Democrats chose weak nominees, but you did not seem bothered by that while I was livid.
Now electability is your main concern. Why else whould you support Obama over the more qualified Clinton?
Why the difference in our ways of thinking? I wanted anybody who could defeat George W in the two previous elections. And we got Gore and Keary! Now that McCain looks like the Republican candidate, I can root for the best person to be President, Clinton. If she loses McCain will do fine. But why do you want Obama over the much more qualified Clinton? Electability of the Democratic candidate seems to have come late in your life.
Republicans probably control the future because of their great success in taking over local offices. I live in a state in which Democrats are objects of curiosity. Our Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, is the exception that proves the rule. People like her INDEPENDENT positions and her attempts to neutralize the extreme Republican right wing. But she has done nothing to awaken the moribund Democratic Party in Arizona.
So naturally I think that my experience is true across the nation. Maybe I'm wrong, but prove me wrong.
Local offices are the most important in most people's lives. Of course, George W invading Iraq is a huge exception to that position.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home