Excessive Praise
By: Mr. Wilson on
February 13, 2008
... 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.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have to say the turnout at my polling place was very good and although I wouldn
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.
... I always enjoy a good Neal/Dave K. dust-up. Pass the salt!
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.