It is NOT the Official Trump logo.
It appears at the end of a video a Trump supporter made extolling the Trump presidency, which Trump retweeted.
1 Like
Does anyone know how these virtual caucuses would have worked? Were they âapp basedâ, or could landlines be used as well? The fact that they were concerned about âhackingâ suggest some kind of app-based approach.
That being said, I think that caucuses serve an important purpose. One of the most important considerations in choosing a candidate is the candidateâs ability to motivate voters. And caucuses are a great way to measure that factor.
I do think that Iowa and NH need to compromise on the âfirst in the nationâ thing, because both states are far less diverse than the party itself. I would suggest that Nevada and Iowa rotate as the first caucus state, and New Hampshire and Delaware rotate as the first election state.
1 Like
The Iowa Caucusâ opened the door for Barack Obama. By the nature of the comments of many posting here you have never been to a caucus and do not understand how a caucus works. The caucus is an opportunity for the party to determine who their candidate will be not some random voters who at the last minute randomly pick a candidate without putting ant effort into the process.
Additionally what is your excuse for the low voter turnout in primary states?
1 Like
Ah, the elitist argument, that only the special few should select the nominee.
In that case, why bother with Primary Season at all?
The DNC folks can just sit in a smoke-filled room, argue about whether itâs 100% Biden or 98% Biden/ 2% Warren, then tell everyone else what our âchoiceâ is.
Why is someone who canât afford the time to stand around for hours given no voice in the nominee? Itâs bullshit.
By definition (doubly so in Iowa), youâre saying the nominee is being selected by old white folk with no other plans or work to do that day.
1 Like
And, had he retweeted a video that ended with a proper Swastika, would that be any different?
Po-Tay-to, po-tah-to
Like your in-person vote canât be intimidated. Gimme a break.
The DNC has got something right.
-
Virtual caucusing is obviously vulnerable to hacking. Hacking isnât just a fly in the ointment. It is an existential threat to democracy.
-
You canât argue for paper ballots one day and the next day argue for electronic caucusing.
-
Caucusing is in any case an affront to democracy and rigs the game in favor of people of means and of leisure. If Iowa really wants to increase citizen participation, it should scrap the caucus and introduce paper ballots.
4 Likes
Yes. In my motherâs last years, the nursing home she was in would get an absentee ballot for her. She had not been judged incompetent, but she was not in mental condition to cast a vote (especially sad, because she was always deeply interested in politics and social justice). I could have filled out her ballotâand it would have been what she wantedâbut I didnât.
2 Likes
yes. Because everyone knows what the swastika represents, but most people donât know the association between that lion logo and White Nationalism.
What is telling is that Trump is seeing so much stuff that is associated with White Nationalism. Where is he getting this information? How come no one seems to be reviewing what he sees before he retweets it?
This kind of stuff is extremely dangerous, IMHO. Trump is essentially directing his fan base to white supremacist web sitesâŚ
1 Like
My apologies if I got the description of the Iowa caucus wrong, but I did qualify it with an âif I recall correctlyâ. If Iâm mistaken, I for one would appreciate being put straight. However, I did attend a caucus as the representative of my area party, and the chair of the caucus suspended the rules long enough to submit an entire up-or-down slate of candidates, thereby blocking popular individual from getting a shot at their nominations. My first ârubber meets the roadâ glimpse at the sausage factory.
Yes, Iowa opened the door to Obama. Whoâs to say that a regional group consisting of 3 or 4 states wouldnât have done the same thing? And if they hadnât, doesnât that mean that the participants in those states were saying, âThis is the direction we believe the country should goâ?
As far as participation goes, thatâs hard enough in the general election, but I doubt those people are showing up ignorant of the candidates and issues. Not the party elite saying whoâs going to run, but the rank-and-file saying, once again, âThis is the candidate that I believe represents my values, but Iâm willing to work to get the eventual nominee elected because s/he also represents a closer view of my values that the other party.â
Unless youâre a Bernie Bro.
1 Like
Yes, vote-by-mail works fine here in WA but weâre still stuck with a caucus in the primaries. It would be far more representative of the electorate if we had a vote-by-mail primary.
Our stupid caucus system in WA allowed rabid Bernie fans to win in the last primary over HRC, and then HRC won the non-binding statewide vote-by-mail primary afterwards. Which proved how flawed the caucus system is, because not enough people can participate. Or theyâre too easily shouted down by the most rabid group. Even the Râs in this state moved from caucus to VBM primary years ago.
4 Likes
Again you obviously have never been to a caucus⌠attendees are activists, not elitists. However the intent of caucus is for the party to choose its candidate. There is nothing elitist about that process. I personally have attended caucuses since I was a young man, first in Minnesota and later in Iowa. People attending those caucuses have been of every gender, every culture, every religion, every race. The one thing they have in common is they are serious Democrats (and of course on the opposite side they are serious Republicans). If one does not chose to be a serious party member you get to make your more limited chose in the general election. The Democrats are so inclusive in the caucus process that they even let non Democrat Bernie into the process.
Again, if you havenât participated donât talk like you know what it is all about and if you donât want to b e part of the local Democratic Party donât complain that you donât get to help pick the candidate that will represent the Democratic Party in the general election.
2 Likes
Well it seems to me that something unnecessary just got eliminated.
Fine by me. We can caucus in Texas if we want to and mostly we donât. The only time Iâve ever seen us caucus was '08. We did line up for Hillary and Barrack - for all the difference it made.
1 Like
I appreciate your comments and on many points agree but once again, weâre do you get the idea it is the party elite that is picking the candidate not the rank and file? Th e people I see working on their favorite candidate are truck drivers, Farmer, teachers, retired, small business owners, medical personnel, factory workers etc etc. at the caucus there is a process that allows neighbors (at the precinct level) to come together and narrow the field, the the same at the county, district and state level. This seems like a very democratic process.
1 Like
Maybe it is. Itâs just less democratic than a Primary.
3 Likes
In 2016, WA had a binding caucus that Bernie won, and a non-binding vote by mail primary that HRC won. These are the numbers who voted and the percentages:
Caucus:
Bernie Sanders 19,159 â 72.72%
Hillary Clinton 7,140 â 27.10%
Primary (vote by mail)
Hillary Clinton 420,461 â 52.38%
Bernie Sanders 382,293 â 47.62%
Tell me why the caucus dominated by far fewer Democratic voters was more important than the total number of registered Democrats who voted in the non-binding primary. This is supposed to be a representative democracy, remember?
Am I less worthy as a Democrat because I donât want to spend an evening being shouted at by Bernie bots in my extremely liberal small town, and would rather make a decision calmly in my home? Maybe taking a few days to think about it? The simple fact is that the caucus system is not representative of the electorate as a whole. The WA 2016 caucus and primary proves that.
3 Likes
Funny, I thought the primary was an opportunity âfor the party to determine who their candidate will beâ. Two ârandomsâ, oh my. Do you really think people who bother to vote in a primary are going to throw a dart at the ballot? Put that caucus energy into turning out the vote in the primary, because anyone who votes in the primary is almost certainly going to vote in the general, and it is much easier to get people to vote in a primary than it is to get them to commit to a standing up all night contest.
4 Likes
As a side note, it looks like WA state Democratic Party ditched the caucus for 2020, and delegates will be selected only by the vote-by-mail primary. Lesson learned, I guess.
Exactly so. Why impose another layer over it? It makes no sense to me at all.
1 Like
Combination of âweâve always done it this wayâ (legacy of party power brokers selecting candidates), and some current party operativesâ income and access to power wrapped up in the caucus process.
2 Likes