Nebraska Dems on the cusp of eliminating caucus for 2020

[ON Progressive]

http://www.hastingstribune.com/news/state/nebraska/democrats-appear-ready-to-scrap-presidential-caucus/article_ca4ca47c-93f2-5f0c-a15c-be9cc176f3ed.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As someone who cares a lot about making it easy to vote, this is a very good decision. Caucuses are terrible from a small-d democratic standpoint. By design, they disenfranchise many thousands of voters.

[IceSpear]

Good. Caucuses are completely antithetical to the Democrats' professed desire to make voting easier and increase turnout. They should be done away with.

[Xing]

I think that reducing the number of caucuses and superdelegates is a great compromise for the two wings of the Democratic Party, and makes the whole process more, well, Democratic.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Great. Next step would be eliminating Iowa and New Hampshire's privilege of being the first states in the nation.

[Politician]

Good. Caucuses are completely antithetical to the Democrats' professed desire to make voting easier and increase turnout. They should be done away with.

[Xing]

Good. Caucuses are completely antithetical to the Democrats' professed desire to make voting easier and increase turnout. They should be done away with.

Wow, what a reasonable, unbiased, "middle ground"/"moderate" username you have there

[Lognog]

Great. Next step would be eliminating Iowa and New Hampshire's privilege of being the first states in the nation.

The step after that, getting every state to go on Super Tuesday, but let's be honest that's never happening

[pbrower2a]

http://www.hastingstribune.com/news/state/nebraska/democrats-appear-ready-to-scrap-presidential-caucus/article_ca4ca47c-93f2-5f0c-a15c-be9cc176f3ed.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As someone who cares a lot about making it easy to vote, this is a very good decision. Caucuses are terrible from a small-d democratic standpoint. By design, they disenfranchise many thousands of voters.

If one is a Democrat in Nebraska one needs more exposure in voting, as in primaries.

[AudmanOut]

Good. Caucuses are completely antithetical to the Democrats' professed desire to make voting easier and increase turnout. They should be done away with.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Good. Caucuses are completely antithetical to the Democrats' professed desire to make voting easier and increase turnout. They should be done away with.

Absolutely agree. Every state needs to decaucusify.

[politicallefty]

This is very good. At the very least, every state that has both primary and caucus should use the former.

[Joe Republic]

After the 2016 NV Dem caucus clusterfuck, the state party chair announced during the state convention she would try to return us back to a primary.  The audience in the room cheered.  Sadly, that has gone nowhere.

[ON Progressive]

Update: it was abolished!

https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/nebraska-democrats-vote-to-abandon-presidential-caucus/article_e6471fc0-d4ab-53ae-81cd-101705d181e7.html

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. Superdelegates need to go too.

[IceSpear]

I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. Superdelegates need to go too.

Uh, superdelegates are already pretty much gone.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html

[Mr. Morden]

I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. Superdelegates need to go too.

"[Superdelegates] are not democratic."

"Oh, no I think I get this, OK.  So that means we also don't count caucus results, because those aren't very democratic, when you think about it.

"Oh, no no no.  We love caucuses.  If anything, caucuses count double."

[Farmlands]

I don't believe in unilateral disarmament. Superdelegates need to go too.

Uh, superdelegates are already pretty much gone.

I may have gotten it wrong, but is Donna Brazille really saying that limiting the powers of superdelegates so that a select group of people can't change the outcome of an election, against the popular will, is a form of voter disenfranchisement? If so, screw her elitist ass.

[SInNYC]

The world without any caucuses...

2016: Hillary wins IA (instead of tying), Bernie is just a gadfly getting 20% the rest of the way.

2008: Hillary wins IA and NH, Obama is just a blip on Super Tuesday (polling shows that southern blacks weren't for him originally since they didnt think he had a chance), Hillary rolls to victory (and probably blows the general election, but thats another discussion)

2004: Dean is just a blip, and Edwards doesn't amount to much other than the token southerner. Kerry wins, but picks Gephardt for veep.

2000: Not much different from reality.

1992:No candidate had strength outside his region though Bill Clinton successfully spun his NH loss into being a comeback kid. Brown was the caucus candidate, and would have been more insignificant. Clinton still wins just because the primary calendar is stacked for the south and its also a bigger region.

1988: This one is tough, but I think Gephardt just for name recognition, but maybe still Dukakis.

1984: still Mondale

1976: No Carter. Tight contest between Wallace, Udall, Bayh, Scoop Jackson, with each appealing to different groups?

I suspect Democrats (at least the activists) will regret this anti-caucus movement as future nominations become a name recognition contest.

[LabourJersey]

The world without any caucuses...

2016: Hillary wins IA (instead of tying), Bernie is just a gadfly getting 20% the rest of the way.

2008: Hillary wins IA and NH, Obama is just a blip on Super Tuesday (polling shows that southern blacks weren't for him originally since they didnt think he had a chance), Hillary rolls to victory (and probably blows the general election, but thats another discussion)

2004: Dean is just a blip, and Edwards doesn't amount to much other than the token southerner. Kerry wins, but picks Gephardt for veep.

2000: Not much different from reality.

1992:No candidate had strength outside his region though Bill Clinton successfully spun his NH loss into being a comeback kid. Brown was the caucus candidate, and would have been more insignificant. Clinton still wins just because the primary calendar is stacked for the south and its also a bigger region.

1988: This one is tough, but I think Gephardt just for name recognition, but maybe still Dukakis.

1984: still Mondale

1976: No Carter. Tight contest between Wallace, Udall, Bayh, Scoop Jackson, with each appealing to different groups?

I suspect Democrats (at least the activists) will regret this anti-caucus movement as future nominations become a name recognition contest.

What makes you think that Clinton would lose 2008? I'm not a fan of hers but literally any competent Democrat would win on the back of the economy that year

[Landslide Lyndon]

The world without any caucuses...

2016: Hillary wins IA (instead of tying), Bernie is just a gadfly getting 20% the rest of the way.

2008: Hillary wins IA and NH, Obama is just a blip on Super Tuesday (polling shows that southern blacks weren't for him originally since they didnt think he had a chance), Hillary rolls to victory (and probably blows the general election, but thats another discussion)

2004: Dean is just a blip, and Edwards doesn't amount to much other than the token southerner. Kerry wins, but picks Gephardt for veep.

2000: Not much different from reality.

1992:No candidate had strength outside his region though Bill Clinton successfully spun his NH loss into being a comeback kid. Brown was the caucus candidate, and would have been more insignificant. Clinton still wins just because the primary calendar is stacked for the south and its also a bigger region.

1988: This one is tough, but I think Gephardt just for name recognition, but maybe still Dukakis.

1984: still Mondale

1976: No Carter. Tight contest between Wallace, Udall, Bayh, Scoop Jackson, with each appealing to different groups?

I suspect Democrats (at least the activists) will regret this anti-caucus movement as future nominations become a name recognition contest.

What makes you think that Clinton would lose 2008? I'm not a fan of hers but literally any competent Democrat would win on the back of the economy that year

Yeah, even Denis Kucinich would win that year after Lehman brothers. The voters were just rejecting Republicans wholesale.

Also, I'm not sure at all that Obama would lose an Iowa primary. 

[Grassroots]

The world without any caucuses...

2016: Hillary wins IA (instead of tying), Bernie is just a gadfly getting 20% the rest of the way.

2008: Hillary wins IA and NH, Obama is just a blip on Super Tuesday (polling shows that southern blacks weren't for him originally since they didnt think he had a chance), Hillary rolls to victory (and probably blows the general election, but thats another discussion)

2004: Dean is just a blip, and Edwards doesn't amount to much other than the token southerner. Kerry wins, but picks Gephardt for veep.

2000: Not much different from reality.

1992:No candidate had strength outside his region though Bill Clinton successfully spun his NH loss into being a comeback kid. Brown was the caucus candidate, and would have been more insignificant. Clinton still wins just because the primary calendar is stacked for the south and its also a bigger region.

1988: This one is tough, but I think Gephardt just for name recognition, but maybe still Dukakis.

1984: still Mondale

1976: No Carter. Tight contest between Wallace, Udall, Bayh, Scoop Jackson, with each appealing to different groups?

I suspect Democrats (at least the activists) will regret this anti-caucus movement as future nominations become a name recognition contest.

What makes you think that Clinton would lose 2008? I'm not a fan of hers but literally any competent Democrat would win on the back of the economy that year

2008 hypothetical Clinton vs. McCain polling.

McCain leading MI and IL being tossup is all you have to know. Hillary was as much of a turnoff in 2008 as she was in 2016.

[SInNYC]

The world without any caucuses...

2016: Hillary wins IA (instead of tying), Bernie is just a gadfly getting 20% the rest of the way.

2008: Hillary wins IA and NH, Obama is just a blip on Super Tuesday (polling shows that southern blacks weren't for him originally since they didnt think he had a chance), Hillary rolls to victory (and probably blows the general election, but thats another discussion)

2004: Dean is just a blip, and Edwards doesn't amount to much other than the token southerner. Kerry wins, but picks Gephardt for veep.

2000: Not much different from reality.

1992:No candidate had strength outside his region though Bill Clinton successfully spun his NH loss into being a comeback kid. Brown was the caucus candidate, and would have been more insignificant. Clinton still wins just because the primary calendar is stacked for the south and its also a bigger region.

1988: This one is tough, but I think Gephardt just for name recognition, but maybe still Dukakis.

1984: still Mondale

1976: No Carter. Tight contest between Wallace, Udall, Bayh, Scoop Jackson, with each appealing to different groups?

I suspect Democrats (at least the activists) will regret this anti-caucus movement as future nominations become a name recognition contest.

What makes you think that Clinton would lose 2008? I'm not a fan of hers but literally any competent Democrat would win on the back of the economy that year

Hillary Clinton is a very weak candidate and always fights the previous battle, and the likeability factor really does hurt in elections. On the other side, many considered McCain as a Republican who disagreed with other Republicans so he could have spun it to avoid responsibility for the 08 crises (and Hillary is incapable of pointing out that he wasnt the anti-R R). McCain also had the 'american hero' vibe that he could have sold. And he might not have picked Palin (though a decent argument can be made for either side there).

Also, dont forget that major D leaders such as Reid thought Hillary would lose, if you believe the post election books. I actually had McCain pegged to beat Obama until about a week after he nominated Palin.

[Adam Griffin]

McCain leading MI and IL being tossup is all you have to know. Hillary was as much of a turnoff in 2008 as she was in 2016.

Uh...no?

[ON Progressive]

The world without any caucuses...

2016: Hillary wins IA (instead of tying), Bernie is just a gadfly getting 20% the rest of the way.

2008: Hillary wins IA and NH, Obama is just a blip on Super Tuesday (polling shows that southern blacks weren't for him originally since they didnt think he had a chance), Hillary rolls to victory (and probably blows the general election, but thats another discussion)

2004: Dean is just a blip, and Edwards doesn't amount to much other than the token southerner. Kerry wins, but picks Gephardt for veep.

2000: Not much different from reality.

1992:No candidate had strength outside his region though Bill Clinton successfully spun his NH loss into being a comeback kid. Brown was the caucus candidate, and would have been more insignificant. Clinton still wins just because the primary calendar is stacked for the south and its also a bigger region.

1988: This one is tough, but I think Gephardt just for name recognition, but maybe still Dukakis.

1984: still Mondale

1976: No Carter. Tight contest between Wallace, Udall, Bayh, Scoop Jackson, with each appealing to different groups?

I suspect Democrats (at least the activists) will regret this anti-caucus movement as future nominations become a name recognition contest.

What makes you think that Clinton would lose 2008? I'm not a fan of hers but literally any competent Democrat would win on the back of the economy that year

2008 hypothetical Clinton vs. McCain polling.

McCain leading MI and IL being tossup is all you have to know. Hillary was as much of a turnoff in 2008 as she was in 2016.

LOL.

[Grassroots]

McCain leading MI and IL being tossup is all you have to know. Hillary was as much of a turnoff in 2008 as she was in 2016.

Uh...no?

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008/polls.php

Uh... yes?