View Story | 56 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Caucuses show a level of commitment that is not associated with a primary election, because of the time required, the "inconvenience", etc. That commitment can translate into hard work for the candidate in the general election. From that perspective, caucuses are a good thing.
by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
on who can sit in a room for two hours, pretty much any candidate will have commited staff and volunteer, im more interested in not disenfranchsing people who work, or have kids, and cant afford to sit in a room for over an hour while people yell. Just look at waht happened in TX Caucus as an exmple of why they suck. Now of course, this cycle we already used them, so of course they should count, but in the future i prefer all primaries in every state.
by rigso on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM PDT
our candidates that way, we might have a chance of winning in November.
by cph on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:03:00 PM PDT
Because my understanding is that purple states is where we usually get screwed.
by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:09:26 PM PDT
That it doesn't represent a good cross-section of the population. Should single moms who don't have a lot of free time get less of a say because they cannot commit all day to vote? What about non-union hourly workers who cannot take time off work? And people who travel for work?
by sunshineonthebay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:02:43 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 56 comments