Excessive Praise
I can’t help but feel that all of this praise for Nebraska’s Democratic caucus—such as the LJS’ enthusiastic editorial—is overdone. It apparently was a huge success, and from the sounds of it, most participants had a great time. (But not Cindy Wieger.) Perhaps more importantly, Nebraska even managed to be talked about in the national media. It has been a while since anybody gave a hoot about Nebraskans’ choice for presidential candidate.
Still, I’m not ready to declare the caucus a long-term winner. A big part of its success was due, not to the process, but to the candidates. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are having an energizing effect on voters, whereas the Republican candidates are, well, boring, and the fact that John McCain is the front-runner is causing the right wing of the party to sink into depression. It’s easy to make the news when you’re making news. The difficult part is sustaining the momentum. If Nebraska’s Democrats can one day be competitive in November ... well, that’d be something to really talk about.
The LJS makes the claim that:
… there’s little doubt that the [Democratic] party found new energy and connected with people who only days ago were outside the system.
That’s likely true. But what about the 34,000 people who voted in the 2004 primary but who didn’t participate this year? Who are those people, why didn’t they participate, and what effect did their absence have on the outcome? Few people seem to be publicly asking those important questions. It’s entirely plausible that certain demographic voting patterns were skewed by the caucus. If I were a party person, I would want to know more about those missing participants, and what effect they might have in the general election.
(Then again, maybe I’m blowing things out of proportion. Surely long-time caucus states have looked at such patterns of participation and non-participation before. I wonder what they found?)
In the end, I do think the Nebraska Democrats deserve a pat on the back for bringing a little enthusiasm to the state in this looooong election season. Beyond that, in my opinion the jury is still out.
The Comments
Dave K says You're right on with almost February 13, 2008 at 10:43am
You’re right on with almost everything. The news reports on Saturday were laughable—talk of traffic jams in Omaha, rowdy caucus places everywhere, etc. Give us a break—far fewer people showed up for this ‘meaningful’ caucus than voted in the ‘meaningless’ primary in 2004. The total number of people who voted in the entire state would barely fill half of Memorial Stadium.
Poor LJS editors for not having any competitive Democrats. I really feel for them.
Swid says Other thoughts February 13, 2008 at 11:29am
The Nebraska Democratic Party, once it decided to move up its presidential selection event, basically *had* to go to a caucus - holding a primary on the new date would have required a change in state law (and almost certainly would also need the approval of the state’s Republican Party, too).
If you want to continue looking at underrepresented numbers, I’d also take a look at how few independents vote in primary elections, where they participate at about only half the rate of people in registered parties. While yes, they can’t vote in all races, they can request a ballot for one party’s federal races.
Neal says Dave, you never cease to amaze me February 13, 2008 at 11:41am
So like, since you think the caucuses were dumb, there weren’t traffic jams? Or what? There were traffic jams, Dave, even if that makes you angry that a lot of people went.
More people came to caucus in Nebraska than caucused in Washington state on the same day, and I’m not talking proportionally - I do consider that a measure of success.
Dave K says RE: Dave, you never cease to amaze me February 13, 2008 at 12:13pm
When did I say the caucuses were dumb?
The definition of a traffic jam is vague, but you’ll encounter reasonable amounts of traffic on Saturday afternoons in Lincoln and Omaha on most weekends (obviously, depending on where you are). Just for you, Neal, when I drive down O Street on Saturday afternoon amidst thick traffic, I’ll immediately think that Democrats must be caucusing again.
And for the record, the ‘huge turnout’ at the caucuses doesn’t anger me.
Neal says Well Dave, February 13, 2008 at 12:24pm
So are you suggesting that all the traffic the media is attributing to the caucuses was actually just normal Saturday morning traffic?
I want to make sure I properly understand your dismissal, Dave, because it looks to me like that’s what you’re saying.
Wisco says Good Times February 13, 2008 at 1:41pm
I have to say the turnout at my polling place was very good and although I wouldn’t call the discussion rowdy it was spirited. I live six blocks from my caucus location and cars where parked up and down my street and traffic was backed up on Van Dorn because of the people walking and driving to the caucus.
My experience at the caucus was very positive and thought it was good for Nebraska Dems. The only thing that bothered me after the caucus was the misinformation that you couldn’t vote absentee and that you had to stay for the caucus. You could actually just go in and “cast your vote” for the candidate you liked and walked out just like before.
Moses says They did close HiWay 370 February 13, 2008 at 2:16pm
Sarpy only had one caucus site. The traffic trying to get there was so heavy the police shut down 370 and had to have officers directing traffic.
My caucus site was jammed. That was in Southeast Lincoln.
Fletch says Sits down with a bowl of popcorn... February 13, 2008 at 4:39pm
... I always enjoy a good Neal/Dave K. dust-up. Pass the salt!