If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   In light of how the Republican primaries have gone this year, GOP now "rethinking" the caucus format. Won't somebody think of the RON PAUL?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 24
    More: Obvious, Ron Paul, GOP, Republican, Mark Penn, primaries, Mitt Romney, caucus format, Rick Santorum  
•       •       •

1305 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Feb 2012 at 11:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-02-15 11:34:22 AM  
Based on the plethora of comments, apparently the answer to Subby's question is no.
 
2012-02-15 11:35:45 AM  
Damn, I might agree with the Republicans on something? The caucus format is stupid.
 
2012-02-15 11:37:25 AM  
A Republican isn't happy unless they can spout off at a public forum on shiat they know nothing about as if they were an authority, they also prefer the ability to threaten you if with physical harm if you should happen to disagree
 
2012-02-15 11:38:45 AM  
i'm guessing a lot of republicans think of "caucus" all the time. thick, veiny, sturdy, meaty "caucus."

/caucus
 
2012-02-15 11:48:02 AM  
Personally, I'm a big fan of caucuses as a method for choosing nominees. They're a good way of making sure that the nominee ultimately represents the party (which seems to me to be the entire point of choosing a nominee), because only those interested enough in the party to participate have a voice. Also, they don't cost the state any money - I've never understood why tax dollars are spent on choosing a political party's (which is to say, a private organization's) nominee.
 
2012-02-15 11:50:17 AM  
So Maine results from several Ron Paul friendly counties were conveniently not submitted in time by the Mitt Romney-supporting county officials responsible.

I can understand why Republicans are so keen to tighten up rules around vote fraud. They have absolutely no problem with winning at all costs, and assume the other side to be operating with the same lack of respect for democracy.

The good news is, Ron Paul is gathering delegate power in the ways that really matter. Let R-Money win the beauty contests. This is setting up to be a spectacularly entertaining finish.

And by entertaining, I mean train wreck. But still, entertaining.
 
2012-02-15 11:53:16 AM  
But Sarah Palin said that a long drawn out battle would be good for the party. She couldn't be wrong could she? She went to upstairs Hollywood school of politics.
 
2012-02-15 12:04:01 PM  
Please, please, please let this party destroy itself.
 
2012-02-15 12:15:38 PM  
RON PAUL fans remind me of the people who fervently lecture me on why Southwest is the greatest airline, "Newsies" is the most underrated movie of all time and how Phish is comprised of the greatest musicians of our era.

Enjoy what you want to enjoy, just accept that it's not a personal insult if I have other preferences.
 
2012-02-15 12:16:20 PM  
I think they just need to change their caterer. Serving sandwiches at caucuses never goes down well.
 
2012-02-15 12:32:13 PM  

BMulligan: Personally, I'm a big fan of caucuses as a method for choosing nominees. They're a good way of making sure that the nominee ultimately represents the party (which seems to me to be the entire point of choosing a nominee), because only those interested enough in the party to participate have a voice. Also, they don't cost the state any money - I've never understood why tax dollars are spent on choosing a political party's (which is to say, a private organization's) nominee.


That's a nice idea.

In practice the people who actually participate in caucuses tend to be the people who have nothing better to do that night, and those folks tend to be the derpiest.

A RON PAUL supporting coworker of mine went to a caucus a week or two ago. He said that he just ended up leaving because the only people who showed up were Santorum voters.
 
2012-02-15 12:49:08 PM  
I've begun to think "caucus" is Latin for "bring in the clowns"

/or "dog and pony show"
 
2012-02-15 12:51:23 PM  
There are better reasons to eliminate caucuses, such as the fact that they happen at a certain time of day. So if you cannot make it to the caucus at the time it is being held -- because you work, are out of town, cannot arrange childcare, etc. -- you cannot participate in the nominating process. And in places like Iowa, the caucus voting process is open, so your friends, neighbors, employers, etc. no who you voted for.

It's a total FAIL for America that our nomination process is not either a popular vote or instant run-off, and that we still have this thing called the Electoral College.
 
2012-02-15 12:56:12 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: RON PAUL fans remind me of the people who fervently lecture me on why Southwest is the greatest airline, "Newsies" is the most underrated movie of all time and how Phish is comprised of the greatest musicians of our era.

Enjoy what you want to enjoy, just accept that it's not a personal insult if I have other preferences.


How dare you mention Southwest Airlines in the same breath as those other things!

/I'll get back to you after I take my first flight on Virgin America
 
2012-02-15 01:11:17 PM  

Knara: In practice the people who actually participate in caucuses tend to be the people who have nothing better to do that night, and those folks tend to be the derpiest.


As I said in another thread, this has not been my experience in over 30 years of attending presidential caucuses in Washington. I wouldn't want to extrapolate too much based only on my personal experience, but I've found that caucus participation is pretty good - I see a lot of my neighbors there, and the precinct groups are about as large as would ever be practical. What I don't see is a lot of low information voters. The people I see may be evil, misguided, or shortsighted, but they are rarely uninformed.
 
2012-02-15 01:11:36 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I've begun to think "caucus" is Latin for "bring in the clowns"

/or "dog and pony show"


'What IS a Caucus-race?' said Alice; not that she wanted much to know,
but the Dodo had paused as if it thought that SOMEBODY ought to speak,
and no one else seemed inclined to say anything.

'Why,' said the Dodo, 'the best way to explain it is to do it.' (And, as
you might like to try the thing yourself, some winter day, I will tell
you how the Dodo managed it.)

First it marked out a race-course, in a sort of circle, ('the exact
shape doesn't matter,' it said,) and then all the party were placed
along the course, here and there. There was no 'One, two, three, and
away,' but they began running when they liked, and left off when they
liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However,
when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again,
the Dodo suddenly called out 'The race is over!' and they all crowded
round it, panting, and asking, 'But who has won?'

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought,
and it sat for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead
(the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures
of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said,
'EVERYBODY has won, and all must have prizes.'
 
2012-02-15 01:30:54 PM  

BMulligan: Knara: In practice the people who actually participate in caucuses tend to be the people who have nothing better to do that night, and those folks tend to be the derpiest.

As I said in another thread, this has not been my experience in over 30 years of attending presidential caucuses in Washington. I wouldn't want to extrapolate too much based only on my personal experience, but I've found that caucus participation is pretty good - I see a lot of my neighbors there, and the precinct groups are about as large as would ever be practical. What I don't see is a lot of low information voters. The people I see may be evil, misguided, or shortsighted, but they are rarely uninformed.


Anecdata.
 
2012-02-15 01:37:32 PM  
The people in power are scared that Santorum might froth his way to victory. That's why they're not happy with the caucuses.

/penis
 
2012-02-15 01:50:00 PM  

Knara: BMulligan: Knara: In practice the people who actually participate in caucuses tend to be the people who have nothing better to do that night, and those folks tend to be the derpiest.

As I said in another thread, this has not been my experience in over 30 years of attending presidential caucuses in Washington. I wouldn't want to extrapolate too much based only on my personal experience, but I've found that caucus participation is pretty good - I see a lot of my neighbors there, and the precinct groups are about as large as would ever be practical. What I don't see is a lot of low information voters. The people I see may be evil, misguided, or shortsighted, but they are rarely uninformed.

Anecdata.


Yes, I think I covered that. The thing is, so far anecdata is the only kind of data I've seen in this discussion, unless you count "data someone received on faith."
 
2012-02-15 01:56:06 PM  
Consider also the lesson of 2008 - caucuses were the key to Obama's come from behind nominating campaign. But for better-than-expected success in caucus states, Clinton would have buried him early. Caucuses allow an underfunded candidate with compelling ideas to compete on an even playing field. Sure, sometimes that leads to demagoguery and extremism, but that's always a risk in the world of partisan politics where cheap attacks on "the other" can feed the lunatic fringe. But it also allows a candidate like Obama a better opportunity to outwit the party's money machine.
 
2012-02-15 02:52:58 PM  
It seems more the problem isn't with the caucus system itself, but rather the Republican party's incompetence in running a caucus is the problem. It isn't like they have never done this before and they had no idea this was comming. The whole GOP nominating process so far has resembled herding cats than anything remotely organized. With all these "anomalies" occurring mysteriously going in the favor of Mitt Romney, the process doesn't seem quite honest either. I never thought I would say this but Reince Priebus is making Michael Steele look competent as GOP chairman.
 
2012-02-15 03:16:37 PM  

unyon: So Maine results from several Ron Paul friendly counties were conveniently not submitted in time by the Mitt Romney-supporting county officials responsible.

I can understand why Republicans are so keen to tighten up rules around vote fraud. They have absolutely no problem with winning at all costs, and assume the other side to be operating with the same lack of respect for democracy.

The good news is, Ron Paul is gathering delegate power in the ways that really matter. Let R-Money win the beauty contests. This is setting up to be a spectacularly entertaining finish.

And by entertaining, I mean train wreck. But still, entertaining.


I read this and thought, "surely they just declared the winner early; they didn't actually ignore results."

TFA links to this article (new window):

"All along, state GOP officials said communities knew that their votes would not be included in the final results if they did not hold their caucus by Feb. 11.

However, a review of the town-by-town results released Saturday by the Maine GOP suggests that some communities that had caucused prior to Feb. 11 were not counted. Nearly all Waldo County towns held caucuses on Feb. 4 but those towns were blank in the results released by the state party. Additionally, Waterville held its caucuses ahead of time but were not included in the results.

Waldo County GOP Chairman Raymond St. Onge said the results were sent to the state party on Tuesday, Feb. 7. He said those results probably would not have changed the outcome but was disheartened the votes were not included."

Wow. They even admit the deadline was the 11th, but they tallied everything on the 7th. And caucuses held on the 4th weren't counted.
 
2012-02-15 03:36:52 PM  
|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\||____
| RON PAUL 2012 |||""'|""\___,
| _____________ l||__|__|__|);
|(@)@)"""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)


/ummm hot?




Better yet...

|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\||____
| NAPOLITANO '12 |||""'|""\___,
| ______________ l||__|__|__|);
|(@)@)""""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)
 
2012-02-15 11:23:20 PM  
Caucuses have always been stupid. A bunch of people gather around in a room and wander from one corner to another to choose a candidate? What the hell...?

Closed primaries are the way to go: one person, one vote to choose the direction in which their chosen party goes. Yes, the states have to pay for primaries, but it is worth it for the oversight of making sure that the political parties aren't screwing over the voters. Political parties may be private organisations, but given that they field people running for public office they should be closely scrutinised.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report