So, I just caucused in the Democratic Primary. It's the first time I've ever caucused, so I figured I'd share the experience. Forewarning: I support Bernie. If you're a Republican or support Hillary (not to repeat myself [ha!]), you might want to stop reading a sentence or two ago.
It was in some kind of small school. We lined up and got wristbands with our precinct on them, then sat in a small auditorium. Then we had to listen to people defend Hillary and Bernie. A State Senator defended Hillary, and a twenty-something who looked like he just got out of undergrad defended Bernie. The college kid was much more eloquent and detailed about policy.
Then we had to listen to the rules of the caucus. It was precisely as exciting as it sounds.
I saw about an even number of Hillary and Bernie signs and badges. So, it didn't surprise me to see Colorado was relatively close. Also, the Hillary badges had a blue arrow through the 'H.' I guess Hillary decided the giant red arrow pointing right was too telling?
Then, we divided up into our precincts. My precinct appeared to have about thirty people. After more explanations, we raised our hands to vote. The counts were Bernie 18 – 27 Hillary. I would have sworn there weren't 50 people there, but, eh.
There were only two people under thirty who voted for Hillary in my precinct. Also, probably 75-80% of my precinct were over 65. Which wouldn't concern me, if the elderly weren't so heavily biased for Hillary, statistically. It was also disconcerting to see a few dozen people making such a big decision with enormous consequences, for thousands (I don't know how big my precinct is; the time to Google that info exceeds my attention span).
In retrospect, there are at least three retirement-centric apartment towers in my precinct. Which makes the age disparity slightly less unsettling.
They then explained that our precinct had 4 delegates, so they'd each get 2. Even though it was split 2/3. Which seemed rather un-democratic. I guess it's expected to average out across the state?
More explanations about how we'd send those delegates to the Colorado state primary or some such, and they needed 4 people to step up as actual human delegates to go to the state thing. One guy gave a speech about how he really wanted to be a delegate. It was strange. But more power to you, Delegate Man!
That was it. We left.
Extra-Colorado comments:
I'm equally shocked Bernie won Oklahoma and lost Massachusetts. Other than those two, it looks like Bernie won every single state not in the South. Which is about as good as he could have hoped, I think. I mean, the South always votes Republican. I'll see myself out.
I'm not. Lots of old people here, lots of career democrats here, lots of old democrats with money here. Further, several people of color that I spoke to yesterday expressed to me that voting Sanders was simply too risky, or that Sanders was an unknown quantity. A friend even joked that I was only saying that I had voted for Sanders in order to cover up my vote for Trump, which made my blood boil. What truly shocked me was the margin by which Trump won.I'm equally shocked Bernie won Oklahoma and lost Massachusetts.
Good points regarding the democratic establishment in MA. I mean, this is Kennedy country. They bleed blue in Mass and they have likely been pouring money in to the Clintons for decades. No way they're handing the keys over to a socialist from VT. Also, nice to see you here pal.
Thanks for this. It's very interesting how much influence a few dozen motivated people can have. I know you kid that Hillary is a Republican, but wait until the general election and she is going to seem far less so. Hillary is pro-single payer, pro-union, pro-choice, anti-TPP, and she will nominate liberal Supreme Court justices. I'm not saying that I'd vote for Hillary over Bernie in the primary, but the Bern is working pretty hard to draw distinctions, and watch how he talks about Hillary once she clinches the nomination. He's a politician running for office. There is the primary election, and then there is the general Election. Bernie is trying to win the primary election right now.
Nope. She wants to "extend Obamacare". Better than nothing, but it's a lot closer to nothing than most people think. I don't believe it. It isn't possible to support unions while taking that much money from Big Business. Her campaign funders read like the Fortune 500. She says hedge fund traders hate her, a week after attending a fundraiser for them. Really now. Hillary supported neither abortion nor homosexuality until it became clear she wouldn't get votes without them. She declaims her abortion support with the statement it "needs to be safe and rare". Of course that's true, but declaiming it sounds disturbingly like Texas' "position". Regardless, abortion and gay marriage matter exponentially less since SCOTUS ruled on them both. The President has some power with them, but not remotely as much as with economic and foreign affairs. Don't believe that either. She practically brokered it when she was Secretary of State. The Obama administration, which she emulates, heavily supports it. She came out "against" it when it became clear it would hurt her campaign. Just like every other stance she has. She'll support it the minute she's in office. Along with unaccountable drone war crimes, Big Business, Wall Street, flushing NASA down the toilet, and everything else Obama promised not to do. One of the very few things she'll do better than a Republican is nominate moderate Supreme Court justices. Maybe I'm young and naïve, but I really don't see a difference in Hillary and the GOP clown car. I know it sounds crazy, but if it's Hillary vs GOP Stooge X, I'd rather see the Stooge take a swan-dive into feudalism, and hope it wakes the US up, than see Hillary continue the slow "boiling a frog" slide into feudalistic corporatocracy. I don't want to wake up twenty years from now in a feudal society, knowing I voted for it. I refuse to participate in a single-party system. I refuse to participate in an illusion of democracy.Hillary is pro-single payer
pro-union
pro-choice
anti-TPP
nominate liberal Supreme Court justices.
Now, let's just take a deep breath and step back from the ledge for a second. In regards to the above differences between Sanders v. Clinton: they really don't matter. There's a great quote by Harry Truman in regards to Eisenhower's transition from being a general to POTUS: "He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.” Or, in Obama's parlance: the president can't just wave a wand and make it so. Executive power has always been, and always will be, constitutionally limited to a few arenas. Pro-union? Anti-union? Who cares? That's a legislative issue (and often one at state-level), and at best a judicial one (we'll get there in a sec). Pro or anti single-payer? Who cares? Do you really think that the next president is going to have a snowball's chance of coming to office, dismantling the ACA and replacing it with... anything at all? Just thank your lucky stars and stripes that the ACA has been repeatedly upheld by the SCOTUS (still getting there, hold on). Pro TPP? Anti-TPP? Now, trade agreements may fall within the presidential purview, so long as they're considered "executive agreements" and not treaties- i.e. not legally binding. (As an aside- even executive agreements fail if not seen as broadly beneficial to all parties involved, so any radical viewpoints tend to be tossed out as chaff.) The TPP? That's subject to ratification by Congress. Which means bipartisan, bicameral support even in the best of times, and these ain't those. So again, and with enthusiasm: Who cares. Which brings us to judicial appointments. This is my big talking point every. Single. Time. the subject of executive power flies across my sight line. The president can make judicial appointments. That, besides war powers, is the singlemost important arena of executive influence. And not just SCOTUS appointments, but circuit court appointments, which conservatives have long since realized are just as important (if not more so) than SCOTUS appointments. But those appointments are subject to congressional approval- or, as the last month has illustrated so obscenely, congressional consideration. On this note, I'll ask you to consider who between the two Democratic front-runners has the better chance of successfully nominating a Supreme Court judge. There's another point or two I'd like to throw out into the universe re. judicial appointments, though. Let's say that appointments happen independently of congress, joy of joys. The SCOTUS is the last bastion of impartiality in the American political system. Yeah yeah, Scalia this Thomas that- historically, it has been nigh impossible to predict which way the SCOTUS will go on the grand majority of issues, big and small. Do you really want to be the cheerleader of seeding the bench with ideologues of any stripe over moderate practitioners of good jurisprudence? Is that what you want? A liberal court to totally undermine public trust in sound judicial conclusions? And even if your answer is "yes": I'll point out that not only are we really bad at anticipating SCOTUS decisions, but presidents have been historically bad at anticipating SCOTUS political leanings. GHW Bush, for instance, put Thomas onto the bench, but he also put Souter there, anticipating him to be a "home run" for conservativism. One of those appointments "panned out," the other really, really didn't. History is peppered with examples like that one. To whit: the President is powerful in precious few arenas. The greatest of which is SCOTUS appointments. Almost everything else is window dressing. You might not prefer Clinton's political leanings to Sanders, but do you really want a mook like Trump flailing around the White House appointing god-knows-who to the courts? Are you really saying that you're planning on voting against Clinton (or abstaining, which is as good as voting against) in the general should she face Trump just to dance naked in front of the flaming wreckage? Okay, step back towards the ledge. Look down. What do you see?
When marriage equality came to fruition and she changed her Twitter to be all about how much she had done for the cause I became upset. That's when she lost me for good. Fuck her. She's a staunch opportunist with little to no integrity. As goobster said in a recent #meethubski it's easier to have integrity when you don't change your positions. I believe he said "consistency." Well, Bernie has been consistent. The guy has lots of integrity. She came out "against" it when it became clear it would hurt her campaign. Just like every other stance she has.
this is unfortunately all too true.
Why thanky for the name drop! But I also want to make sure to say that I fully support politicians changing their stance......... when presented with superior data. Admittedly, it is hard to determine why a politician has changed their stance... changing morals of the electorate, influential lobbyists with seemingly convincing data, new scientific breakthroughs, institutional changes, or simply pandering to a new niche. All that said, I expect Hillary would be happy to take any position someone paid her for. Bernie would change his opinion once he saw a validated, peer-reviewed study in an independent academic journal, with other researchers having done their own analyses and come up with similar results, and three demonstrated successful test implementations of the plan. (Oops. Sorry. Is my bias sticking out again?)
Oops. Sorry. Is my bias sticking out again?)
from where I stand, not at all.
Fascinating. 50 people have control over 4 delegates. I know there is a lot of delegates, but still...
Wow. I never noticed that Hillary's logo has a a red arrow pointing to the right. That's hysterical.Also, the Hillary badges had a blue arrow through the 'H.' I guess Hillary decided the giant red arrow pointing right was too telling?
As a scientist it troubles me that a 2/3 split becomes 2/2. That's a loss of information, a smearing out of the data. We should aim to increase the resolution of the figures thus our confidence in them, not diminish both. Ditto several weeks ago where delegates were decided on coin flips. The more I learn about the American political process, the more I think it needs a drastic update to accommodate 21st century needs and make the best use of 21st century capabililties.