Against Caucuses

I think Hillary Clinton's efforts to make excuses about losing all the caucuses are pretty lame. At the end of the day, if the establishment quasi-incumbent can't manage to pull of wins at these kind of undemocratic events, she has only herself to blame. But if Clinton and her supporters inside the party want to spearhead a nationwide drive to move to primaries, I'd certainly be all in favor of that.

I didn't like caucuses before Iowa, and I still don't like them now. In addition to the participation barriers, caucuses make outcomes overly dependent on "caucus math" rather than actual levels of support. For the purposes of the actual campaign, however, Hillary Clinton could have made her principled objections to the caucus method of delegate selection known back when she was first lady in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 or as an influential U.S. Senator in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. Instead, though, she seems to have developed some outcome-driven objections after losing a series of caucuses. They're definitely a bad way to select nominees, but her complaints aren't very credible.

Comments

She's doing a great job shedding the image of Democrats as sore losers.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 13, 2008 8:42 AM

Even less democratic than caucuses are superdelegates.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 13, 2008 8:45 AM

Can someone please cure me of my blind admiration for Barack Obama? Problem is, he's the first national politician I can remember who appears to consistently eschew this kind of disingenuous gaming of the system. Honestly, I'm looking for counter-examples, that the scales may fall from my eyes and I can go back to my old, all politicians are lying hacks self.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 8:46 AM

After all the hand-wringing about brokered conventions and so on, we are to the place where Clinton has to win big in Texas and Ohio to remain viable, and she won't, and this thing will be over in a month. Obama will win Texas, and the allegiance of super delegates will switch, and this thing will be over on March 5.

Posted by Curtis | February 13, 2008 8:49 AM

Her timing really couldn't be worse - both in terms of holding on to whatever credibility the Clintons still have and stopping the Obama tidal wave. It's really no surprise that a successful community organizer and state legislator knows exactly how to win at caucuses. The Clintons' brain trust simply didn't see him as a viable challenger back when there would have been time to change the rules.

Posted by Angry Sam | February 13, 2008 8:50 AM

And she solves the creditability problem by saying "We were out organized by Senator Obama. He deserves the credit for that and earned his delegates within the rules. Whether as President, or Senator from NY, I and my husband will make every effort to remove caucuses from the Democratic nominee selection system."

Can you see that happening?

Posted by Peter Driscoll | February 13, 2008 8:50 AM

When work starts getting a bit stressful all I have to do is read a few of Hillary's or her surrogates latest lame pronouncements about why they're losing and I feel much better.

Posted by Josiah | February 13, 2008 8:52 AM

One question. What if her name weren't Clinton?

Posted by Cynthia | February 13, 2008 8:54 AM

I guess I should be thankful that although MN has caucuses, this year we had a primary for the presidential nomination and cast ballots.

Now MN is entertaining a move to primaries rather than caucuses. The DFL has expressed interest while the GOP's response was a flat "no".

As I've said before, the caucus "system" (and for that matter the superdelegate "system") seem like relics of a time when party bosses manipulated outcomes. Is that the sort of thing that merits support?

Posted by Kurzbein | February 13, 2008 8:56 AM

Speaking of the possibility of raising objections in the past, can someone tell me whether there is an historical precedent for this kind of mid-election caucus critique. Given the widespread harumphing about caucuses this year, one would suspect this would be a regular meme for those candidates who don't show well after Iowa in any Presidential cycle. But I can't remember anyone making a serious issue of this before - especially mid race. Am I wrong?

Posted by Peter Lawless | February 13, 2008 8:57 AM

Can someone please cure me of my blind admiration for Barack Obama? Problem is, he's the first national politician I can remember who appears to consistently eschew this kind of disingenuous gaming of the system. Honestly, I'm looking for counter-examples, that the scales may fall from my eyes and I can go back to my old, all politicians are lying hacks self.

It is odd to have a Presidential front-runner who appears to be an intelligent human being and not a calculating sociopath. This seems to be at least part of his appeal. But then, I wasn't around for Carter, so I don't know how apt those comparisons are. All this talk of caucus states, Michigan, Florida, superdelegates, etc. is going to get tiresome. Obama has this thing wrapped up with the voters. The only people who can take it away from him is the Democratic Party. I get the feeling that even die-hard Hillary supporters are starting to come to this realization. Now is the time for Obama (and his supporters) to reach out to them, to coalesce as a party, and to start going after McCain. Democrats need to win in '08.

Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 8:59 AM

If Hillary's last name weren't Clinton, she would probably be the Executive Director of the Children's Defense Fund. Maybe if she'd passed the D.C. bar she'd be in the DOJ or something.

Posted by Angry Sam | February 13, 2008 9:02 AM

Cynthia, then she never would have been First Lady of Arkansas, or of the U.S., or the senator from New York. And she certainly wouldn't have been the frontrunner for the Dem nomination for the better part of 18 months.

Posted by Trevor J | February 13, 2008 9:03 AM

For all the flaws of caucuses -- and they are legion -- I think the one major advantage they have over primaries is that they allow people to allocate second-choice preferences. If you could build that feature into a primary somehow, that'd be my vote.

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 13, 2008 9:05 AM

Obama has had plenty of time to complain about superdelegates but he still has his surrogates trying to claim that they are undemocratic, &ct. &ct.

Both sides are trying to change the rules midstream. I am far more sympathetic to Clintons call to count the votes in Florida and Mitchigan than any of Obama's lame complaints however. If we are going to engage in pledged delegate math then all the delegates have to count.

At the end of the day none of it is going to have a very big effect. If Obama is ahead by 100-200 pledged delegates (excluding Florida) he is going to carry the superdelegates as well. If Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates including Florida and Mitchigan she is going to carry the superdelegates as well.

In either case the first order of business at the convention would then be a motion to seat the Florida and Mitchigan delegations which would pass. There is no point in excluding them if Obama wins with them in and the presumptive nominee can do what they choose.

If Obama's lead is narower it is all going to be down to Edwards. He has just enough votes to throw the decision either way. He can replace his delegate slate with anyone he chooses prior to the convention.

So regardless of the outcome its not going to be a brokered convention, the brokering is going to happen much earlier.

The only real difference is in the choice of veep. The two candidates are so close that each one is going to be obligated to offer the veep position to the other. If Obama refuses he can never be President. If he accepts he is the certain frontrunner in 2016 if the ticket wins, otherwise he looses.

The cacuses are only an issue because this is the first competative race in decades. In most years the only cacus people hear about is Iowa. The race is over by the time the other cacuses roll round.

In previous years it was NH that really mattered, the Iowa cacuses were an irrelevance.

Posted by PHB | February 13, 2008 9:07 AM

The Clinton campaign probably assumed that party regulars and labor unions would dominate the causes like they usually have in the past. They were also blind-sided by the organizational abilities and enthusiasm of the Obama campaign. I'd like to see the party get rid of the caucuses, but that will have to wait. I'd also like to see different states get a chance at early primaries, perhaps on a rotational basis.

Posted by Marv Toler | February 13, 2008 9:07 AM

Matt, this is actually exactly why you don't want Clinton leading an effort to eliminate caucuses. If she had done that during Bill's second term, maybe she would have been a useful proponent. Even early in her Senate career, that might have worked (although I think people would already being wondering if this was part of a Presidential campaign). But now there is absolutely no way people would see her as a credible proponent of eliminating caucuses, and you should look for a more suitable person to lead this effort (Al Gore, perhaps).

Posted by DTM | February 13, 2008 9:09 AM

The solution is to have winner take all in the primary states. Problem solved. Please send more cash.

Posted by Terry McCauliffe | February 13, 2008 9:09 AM

Matthew writes "I didn't like caucuses before Iowa, and I still don't like them now."

Shorter Matthew Yglesias: Hillary's losses in caucuses don't count because they were in caucuses. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 13, 2008 9:18 AM

One think I believe many are missing is the fact that the caucus system allows a clearer vision of the general electorate, rather than party loyalists. Fact remains, is she is unable to garner the support of independents to carry those states in a primary, how can she possibly be expected to getting independents to vote for her in the general.

Further, the three contests last evening were all primaries - but they are dismissed because they have too many black people, or they are red states, or...

Enough. Show us you're a leader read for day one and quit acting like you've been lost since February 2nd.

Posted by taodon | February 13, 2008 9:18 AM

Problem is, he's the first national politician I can remember who appears to consistently eschew this kind of disingenuous gaming of the system.

Obama last week: "[superdelegates] would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'"

David Axelrod on Monday morning: "I think [Kennedy and Kerry] and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country."

Not Obama himself, but surely his campaign manager rises at least to the level of a Kerrey/Shaheen-type surrogate.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 13, 2008 9:22 AM

For all the flaws of caucuses -- and they are legion -- I think the one major advantage they have over primaries is that they allow people to allocate second-choice preferences. If you could build that feature into a primary somehow, that'd be my vote.

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 13, 2008 9:05 AM

Instant runoff voting anyone?

Posted by Kurzbein | February 13, 2008 9:23 AM

Obama has had plenty of time to complain about superdelegates but he still has his surrogates trying to claim that they are undemocratic, &ct. &ct.

Both sides are trying to change the rules midstream. I am far more sympathetic to Clintons call to count the votes in Florida and Mitchigan than any of Obama's lame complaints however. If we are going to engage in pledged delegate math then all the delegates have to count.

Really? This is cock-eyed reasoning to me. I've yet to hear a reason why the Michigan delegates should count. Edwards and Obama played by the rules, they took their names off the ballots, didn't campaign there. They shouldn't be punished for that. As for Obama and his position on the superdelegates, he is not trying to change the rules midstream. He is warning the superdelegates - if I am ahead in votes, states, and pledged delegates, then choose Clinton at your own peril. And he's right. If he's down in those categories, then the superdelegates should swing to Clinton. If the superdelegates give the nomination to Clinton over Obama in the eventuality that Obama has more pledged delegates (or vice-versa), then the party is going rip apart at the seams. There needs to be consensus. I'd like to see all superdelegates support the candidate with the most votes, states, and delegates. This will show unity and confidence in the person getting the nomination.

Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 9:23 AM

"If Hillary's last name weren't Clinton, she would probably be the Executive Director of the Children's Defense Fund. Maybe if she'd passed the D.C. bar she'd be in the DOJ or something."

Funny thing is, that's a much better resume of "experience" than being the Governor of Arkansas' wife and First Lady.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 13, 2008 9:24 AM

I am far more sympathetic to Clintons call to count the votes in Florida and Mitchigan than any of Obama's lame complaints however. If we are going to engage in pledged delegate math then all the delegates have to count.

How any member of the Democratic party can make statement like this I'll never know. You really think that an election where one candidate's name appeared on the ballot and the others did not is a fair election?

Posted by bjd | February 13, 2008 9:29 AM

Obama last week: "[superdelegates] would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'"

How is this at all an unfair thing to say? How is it as unfair as implying caucuses shouldn't really count? Do we want superdelegates NOT to think long and hard about potentially overturning a majority decision? How is this spin? Sounds like plain common sense to me. Whereas Hillary is complaining that she didn't win the caucuses "because they're undemocratic." That's completely disingenuous. She lost the caucuses because she got out-caucused.

David Axelrod on Monday morning: "I think [Kennedy and Kerry] and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country."

Again, is anyone suggesting they should not? Superdelegates aren't robots. They're supposed to be persuadable. Obama's to be criticized for trying to persuade them?

Sorry, I don't see how this amounts to disingenuousness.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 9:32 AM

Bill & Craig -- Read the new piece in TNR about Obama's "fairy tale" Iraq votes. It's fairly well balanced. He certainly doesn't come out looking like a shukster, but he's more the calculating politician than the firebrand. His critics often see this side of him better than his supporters. (Of course, they read it wrong, and fail to see the good side, but that's another story...)

For many reasons, I still strongly support him for the nomination, but I stopped thinking of him as some kind of progressive savior long ago.

Posted by plum | February 13, 2008 9:32 AM

what is this shtick about Obama doing suspicious deals with nuclear power and our still lacking a clear account of his connection to Rezko?

Posted by M | February 13, 2008 9:32 AM

Her clearly disingenuous arguments, and her ongoing attempt to cheat via Florida and Michigan, justify my instinctive negative assessment of her character. (I'm a life-long Democrat, have voted for a number of women, but just didn't like her from the moment I saw her.) Her choice of Mark Penn as campaign guru, and the incompetent way she has run her campaign, justify a negative assessment of her approch to government, and give the lie to the "experience" meme. But maybe we won't have HRC to kick around anymore.

Posted by Matt | February 13, 2008 9:36 AM

How is Obama trying to change the rules re: superdelegates? He isn't trying to strip them of votes or force them in some legalistic way to vote for him. He's campaigning for them to vote for him.

Posted by Led | February 13, 2008 9:38 AM

Well, Cynthia, I can give you a different answer.

If her last name weren't Clinton, honestly, I'd have voted for her. With deep reservations about the Iraq vote . . . but still. She's a good candidate. But the last name tends to reaffirm existing political divisions, at a moment when we have a chance to do better. Sorry.

Posted by Ted | February 13, 2008 9:39 AM

plum:

Thanks for that info. Didn't realize that Obama was a capable politician who knew how to work the system. I was under the assumption he was going to pave the roads in peanut brittle and replace streetlights with candy canes. Advise?

Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 9:39 AM

Bill & Craig -- Read the new piece in TNR about Obama's "fairy tale" Iraq votes. It's fairly well balanced. He certainly doesn't come out looking like a shukster, but he's more the calculating politician than the firebrand. His critics often see this side of him better than his supporters. (Of course, they read it wrong, and fail to see the good side, but that's another story...)

Thanks, I'll look into it. But look, there's NO SUCH THING as a member of Congress who isn't a "calculating politician." That's in the job description, under First Things First. I'm fine with political calculation; I'm just sick of the naked disingenuousness that characterizes most politicians, which they don't even attempt to disguise from intelligent, ordinary people in their ceaseless efforts to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

If you want Obama's straightforwardness thrown into sharper relief, just recall what Bush said about him the other day: "I don't know what he stands for. I know he said he'd attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad." That's called complacently lying through one's teeth, but you hear this sort of bullshit from both parties all the time.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 9:39 AM

Seems the trolls have arrived.

PHB -- If you think that "counting the votes" from MI -- a state where Obama (and Edwards) weren't even on the ballot -- is a satisfactory answer, you're sadly deluded.

M -- Good luck with that. I think if this cycle has shown one thing, it's that going negative carries a high risk of backlash. That Clinton is seriously considering this is a sign of desperation.

Posted by plum | February 13, 2008 9:40 AM

What lack of clear accounting? He had a supporter early in his career who became a good friend. 12 years later, said person got into a position of influence and traded on it, illegally.

Obama may have used this personal connection to get him to buy an empty lot (that as it turns out, would have sold anyway) so he could buy his dream house, but no financial favors were done and the prices were fair for the market.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this doesn't even rise to the level of whitewater, which was a complete non-scandal (at least as far as the Clintons were concerned, obviously the guys who brought down Madison Guaranty were crooks).

There's no record or hint of favors, no hint of illegal acts or knowledge of same by Obama, and most of the bad acts were well after Obama's career and Rezko's influence were going in separate directions.

Posted by dbt | February 13, 2008 9:41 AM

You don't go back far enough, Matt. Does anyone recall either of the Clintons complaining about caucuses in 1991-2 when he was running for President?

All this whinging about how caucuses disadvantage certain kinds of voters, and how this in turn disadvantages Senator Clinton, really amounts to Clinton conceding that her base of support within the party is limited, not broad. Which we knew was true, of course, but it doesn't seem like the sort of thing she would want to tacitly admit. She comes across as a factional spokesperson, not a party leader.

Posted by Ryan | February 13, 2008 9:44 AM

Craig -- Heh. I'd prefer streets made of candy floss. As for my advice? Phone bank or otherwise volunteer if you're in OH, TX. Donate. Support the guy. What I like best about his "people-power" movement is that he's going to be leaving all sorts of grassroots organizations all over the country, and these will be largely autonomous after he's elected. The potential that holds is intriguing to say the least.

Bill -- Wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by plum | February 13, 2008 9:49 AM

As for my advice? Phone bank or otherwise volunteer if you're in OH, TX. Donate. Support the guy.

Don't worry, plum. I'm a Buckeye and am doing all those things and more. And dammit, we WILL get our roads paved in peanut brittle, come hell or high water.

Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 9:52 AM

Has anyone picked up on this Freudian slip from her pre-Potomac interview yet?

"So my perspective is that as we now move into this two person race with the big states up ahead, Ohio, Michigan obviously, I mean, Ohio and Texas. We’re going to see a real focus on the differences between us."

And thinking of Michigan, whose current strategy for seizing power does this debacle involving a young Karl Rove remind you of?

"The College Republicans summer 1973 convention at the Lake of the Ozarks resort in Missouri was quite contentious. Rove's opponent was Robert Edgeworth of Michigan (the other major candidate, Terry Dolan of California, dropped out, supporting Edgeworth). A number of states had sent two competing delegates, because Rove and his supporters had made credentials challenges at state and regional conventions. For example, after the Midwest regional convention, Rove forces had produced a version of the Midwestern College Republicans constitution which differed significantly from the constitution that the Edgeworth forces were using, in order to justify the unseating of the Edgeworth delegates on procedural grounds.[6] including delegations, such as Ohio and Missouri, which had been certified earlier by Rove himself."

Posted by Podger | February 13, 2008 10:02 AM

Craig -- Glad to hear it. I've already voted and phone banked, but I'm donating more as I can afford it. What's your read of things on the ground? Has the ground staff arrived? How big is the scale of operations? What about TV ads? Are the locals being swayed? Hell, do they even know who Obama is?

Posted by plum | February 13, 2008 10:07 AM

Well, my view is obviously narrow. I live in a medium sized (30,000) post-industrial town, very white and working class with maybe 10% African-American population. On Sunday I went to a meeting for Obama in the local library, and there were about 40 people there. I was the youngest, at 28. Most were women. All were white. Working class. Quite a few over 50. An ex-military guy. There was a lot of enthusiasm and curiosity about what to do to get out the message. So, no different than anywhere else, really. Hillary has the name recognition, Obama has the enthusiasm. Obama sent the big guns in last week and they set up shop in Columbus. One big thing is that our Governor has been very pro-Hillary for the last year - many people think he's angling for a spot in her Cabinet or even VP. Personally, I don't think it will matter. Local politicians are breaking for Barack. Don't know if he'll win, but if he can't narrow it to less than 5% I'll be really surprised.

Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 10:16 AM

The point about Ohio and Texas is the math. Hillary not only needs to win, she needs to carry >60% to get enough delegates. Or so I'm told.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 10:20 AM

Craig -- Good to hear. Thanks! Keeping it close is what it's about now.

Posted by plum | February 13, 2008 10:23 AM

Wrong on Republican Democracy

Actually, the caucus/convention system gives real Democrats voice + vote, something the do not have in media-centric, money-driven primary elections run by wonks and mercenary consultants.

And, popular Presidential candidates give grass-roots Democrats an opportunity to remove entrenched party establishments -- not just replace them with a candidates' clique -- every now and again.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | February 13, 2008 10:36 AM

Her complaints aren't credible because she hasn't made them before? That's like saying Social Security wasn't credible because FDR didn't think of it in 1928.

Can't you just agree with Hillary on something without feeling obligated to diss her somehow?

Posted by John Petty | February 13, 2008 11:14 AM

It's worth noting that superdelegates and the single-candidate Michigan primary are strictly less democratic than the caucuses. You can complain about both of them, you can complain about neither of them, you can complain about the former and not the latter, and all of those combinations are reasonable.

What the reasonable cannot do is complain about the latter while accepting the former. Maybe it's not a big deal that Clinton is playing the ref here, but it's pathetic if anyone actually takes her seriously.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 13, 2008 11:23 AM

Her complaints aren't credible because she hasn't made them before? That's like saying Social Security wasn't credible because FDR didn't think of it in 1928.

Her complaints are not credible because she did not raise the complaints until she started losing. Your analogy is absurd. A better one would be "Sen. Clinton proclaimed it unfair that she could not pass go and collect 200$ after Sen. Obama swept up purchases of Redding Railroad and five critical streets."

Posted by jbryan | February 13, 2008 11:30 AM

Jbryan, still as charming as ever, I see.

Posted by John Petty | February 13, 2008 11:48 AM

Yeah, the superdelegates aren't democratic... deal with it (or them). Blame them on us McGovernites from '72, when loads of potentates (e.g., Mayor Daley) were on the outside looking in, and the final night of the convention was such a shambles that George McG ended up giving his acceptance speech sometime around 1 or 2 in the morning. After that (and the Carter insurgency in '76), the powers that be in the party decided ordinary Democrats were in dire need of adult supervision. Feel like changing it? Then work on changing it.

As far as Michigan goes (and I'm from Michigan), leave this state out of things unless the state party organizes a caucus with both Clinton and Obama on the ballot.

Let's review the bidding. First, the DNC said any state other than the favored four voting before 3/5 would be excluded from the convention. Second, both parties agreed to move our primary forward (control of the legislature is split). Third, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all agreed to drop out and not campaign in the state. Fourth, Obama and Edwards did drop out, but Clinton "forgot" to (how silly of me, where did I put that paperwork?). Fifth, with no campaigning or advertising, Clinton beat Uncommitted about 55/40%.

Now, given that there are supposed to be 111 elected delegates from Michigan, that should give Clinton a lead of around 10-20 delegates (depending on delegate allocation among the CDs). But, there's no person named "Uncommitted" to nominate delegates, so these would have to be chosen by the party brass (Granholm, Levin, et al), the vast majority of whom favor Clinton. So, figure all 111 would in fact be Clinton delegates.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that, if it comes down to the convention, seating the Michigan delegates would be a matter of Clinton stealing a lead of 111 delegates, and the Michigan delegates should not be admitted. If things are settled before then, all concerned will work out a deal to seat Michigan because it won't matter.

Posted by Don K | February 13, 2008 12:05 PM

Wait. Are her complaints (e.g. these are undemocratic, biased against working class voters) not credible OR is the fact that she's complaining not credible? If anything, I'd go with the latter.

Posted by john | February 13, 2008 12:42 PM

The Obama team's critique of the superdelegates has also been pretty outcome-oriented too.

Posted by Elliot Reed | February 13, 2008 3:31 PM

Jbryan, still as charming as ever, I see.

I don't need to charm you, because I'm right.

Posted by jbryan | February 13, 2008 9:06 PM