She told reporters who had gathered to watch her tour a General Motors plant here that "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were."
"These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."
Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama’s advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton’s. CNN Politicalticker
Irritated by Andrea Mitchell’s explanations tonight on Hardball for Obama’s success in caucuses. She’s just mouthing fatuous Clinton talking points. She depicts caucuses as favoring Obama because they attract a greater proportion of educated and upscale voters. Is there any data on that? And even if so, is that necessarily a disadvantage for the candidate who prides herself on her wonkery? Is it really about education or about who’s paying attention?
Anyway, according to Mitchell, a caucus is like having to argue your case in front of a jury, a process which favors the more articulate and better educated. This is a real distortion, as least in describing the caucus process in Washington State. If it’s different elsewhere, I’d like to know. In the Washington caucus process, before any discussion, you sign in and vote for one of the candidates or declare yourself uncommitted. If you wanted to go home at that point, you could. The vote would still count. The point is that you cast your vote before any kind of discussion happens, so in that respect, it’s just like a primary. After the votes are tallied, there’s an opportunity for one person from each side to make a one-minute pitch to try to convince uncommitteds or supporters of the other candidate to change their vote. In our group after the original vote, there were 63 for Obama and 14 for Clinton with four uncommitteds. After the speeches, no Clinton or Obama people changed sides, but two of the uncommitteds became Obama supporters.
This is a particularly valuable experience for people who haven’t
made up their minds yet. Even if they are uncommitteds, they are awake
enough and engaged enough
to come to a caucus and talk things through and listen to what people
have to say. You don’t get that with the primaries. Engaging the
uncommitteds for me is where the caucuses are most interesting:
listening to the concerns and doubts of the uncommitteds and in this
cycle trying to make my case why Obama has more positives than
negatives. But the Clinton people got to make their case, too. Anybody
who already knows his preference is unlikely to have his or her mind
changed. Nevertheless, because of the uncommitteds, It’s an engaging,
interesting process. But as I said, such discussion don’t alter the
final result. In our group of 80+, only two uncommitteds changed their
minds.
I also challenge this idea that the educated have an advantage
because they are more articulate or better informed. Most Americans are
neither informed nor thoughtfully articulate about anything below the
most superficial thinking about what’s going on in the political
sphere, and I know too many people who are not formally well-educated
who have a shrewder understanding and who are more articulate about how
American power works than many of the educated I know. It’s not a
question of education; it’s a question of experience and savvy, whether
you’re paying attention or whether you’re asleep, and the educated have
fewer advantages in that respect than most people tend to think. Most
educated people I know are pretty sleepy. The caucuses favor the
candidate that has the most awake supporters.
The argument that caucuses are not convenient for those who have to
work has some merit. But I wonder what percentage of people who really
wanted to participate were affected in that way on a Saturday afternoon
or Tuesday evening? I question whether it would have been enough to
throw the caucuses to Clinton or to affect the end results much at all.
And it’s questionable that it affects more Clinton supporters than
Obama supporters. If there’s data out there to prove me wrong, I’m
open to changing my mind on that.
The reason Clinton has done better in the primaries is precisely
because they’re easier for the sleepy people who haven’t been that
engaged to vote for the name they’re more familiar with. In the early
stages, this favored Clinton. All that’s changed now, regardless what
the Clinton camp and the media tell you. Obama would have blown out
Clinton in those four states over the weekend if they were primaries
because the Obama buzz has reached a point where it is drowning out the
Clinton name recognition. This idea that Clinton still has the
advantage in primary states is rear-view mirror thinking. Because it
was true earlier on does not mean it’s true now. This is a dynamic
process, and IMO most of the analysis I’m hearing or reading is several
steps behind what’s really happening.
Leave a Reply