First Hand Report From Texas Voter

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:57:22 AM EST
Tags: Texas '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As we're waiting for news of today's election, here's a first-hand account I received from a Texas voter. All of you who voted today are welcome to post your stories in the comments:

Just wanted to write in and let you know what's going on here today in Houston. (FYI, I'm white, male, in my 30's, and support Clinton)

I went to vote this morning in the Meyerland/Bellaire area of Houston. (The area has a real mix of people - different ages, races - and is very much a middle to middle-upper income.) When I left, I was stopped and asked to participate in an exit poll survey sponsored by all of the networks and major papers. This is the first time I've ever been asked to do this.

As I entered my polling place wearing a Clinton button, Obama's supporters (about 6 of them) literally gave me dirty looks and turned their back on me. Other voters were greated with hellos, good mornings, and hope you'll vote for Obama. The attitude of Obama's campaigners to me was rather nasty. It was a real turn-off to me, and if he's the nominee, I'll really have to think twice about voting in the general election.

Other information: At my polling place there were TONS of Obama signs all over the place, not a single Clinton sign. As I mentioned, about 6 Obama people outside, not a single Clinton person. Inside the polling place, it looked like 2 of the 10 or so machines were off-line (a tech was there working on them), but there was no wait. (A precinct judge said it was very busy at 7am).

More...

Earlier this morning I worked for Clinton at another precinct about 10 miles from home (the southwest side of Houston) from 7-9am. There were very long lines at this location because 1/2 of the voting machines (4 out of 8) were not working and people were leaving without voting.

Approximately 40% of the people going in were Black, 30% Hispanic, 20% Asian, 10% White. There was 1 other person there working for Clinton, and 1 person working for Obama. We asked everyone to vote for Clinton regardless of race, and got some surprising responses. Among the people who responded:

About 1 in 4 of the Black voters were very clear that they were voting for Clinton; almost all of the Hispanic voters (say 5 out of 6) said they were for Clinton ALL of the Asian voters who responded were voting for Clinton; most of the white voters wouldn't give any indication of who they were voting for.

I was very surprised by the level of support Clinton seemed to be getting, but the voting line was a real problem. People were leaving in disgust, without voting. I reported the voting problems to the Clinton HQ.

Anyone else have a voting story?

< Is This True? | After TX and OH; On To FL And MI? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

First Hand Report From Texas Voter | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Rules (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:03:18 AM EST

Is it not illegal to do that near polling places? Signs etc?

In NY there is a 100ft limit (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by ineedalife on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM EST

I think wearing a button in the polling area is off limits too.


Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:09:24 AM EST

In California you cannot campaign, have signs or buttons. Actually, it's not polite, in my opinion.


: Basic Campaigning Technique (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:22:47 AM EST

It's quite common for campaigns to set up "visibility" at polling stations, usually just outside whatever the legal limit is. If someone goes to a poll and sees a campaign worker too close, it should be reported to the polling personnel who have an obligation to ask the person to move. Needless to say, this should be done whether the offender is a Clinton or Obama person (and Clinton does "vis" too).

There's usually a perimeter (none / 0) (#8)
by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST

No electioneering inside the perimeter, but I don't know the specific rules for how many feet away from the polling place the perimeter is.


: Palm Beach County (none / 0) (#79)
by MichaelGale on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22:44 PM EST

has a 100 ft limitation

Stay out of My Face! (none / 0) (#22)
by plf1953 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I'm on the fence as I walk to my polling site, and I'm badgered by campaign workers to vote a certain way, I might be strongly inclined to vote the opposite way.

I really don't like something as personal as voting to be messed with like that.


: That's Probably True for a Lot of People (none / 0) (#29)
by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:24:47 AM EST

When I did visibility for Clinton, I'd simply hold my sign and wave, maybe say good morning. You don't want to give a person bad feelings about a candidate as they go in to vote. I would guess the Obama folks would feel the same way. The danger, of course, for both campaigns is that these folks are, like me, volunteers.

No... (none / 0) (#26)
by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM EST

... it is not illegal.

Typically campaigning and signs must be a certain distance away from the doors, but it varies from state to state.

What people do is stand right at the edge of that perimeter and hand out literature and what not.


I live in South Texas (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by ivs814 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM EST

and am a Hillary Precinct Captain. Down here the local races are very contentious. We do not have any Republican opposition so for the most part the Primary determines the election. Hillary is going to win down here with large margins but I must admit that when I approached the polling places and saw all the Obama signs, I was very surprised. Should make the caucus very interesting.

In NJ (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Lil on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:09:27 AM EST

I've had people sneer at me for the bumper stickers on my car, when I park to vote. I happen to vote in a reublican area, although NJ as a whole is a blue state.

same story here (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by sarahfdavis on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:10:39 AM EST

during a conversation about the 2 candidates, my normally very friendly and fair office neighbor said i was "spinning" and that if i were "more dispassionate and objective I'd see things his way".
wow. he was a completely different person. honestly, it was an "invasion of the body snatchers" moment for me.

Anecdotally true (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM EST

African American Obama supporters are nowhere near as anti-Clinton as the young white college/blogger types

I am not sure where this phenomenon is based. Could it just be young zeal? Or could it be a cultural shift away from democratic and Democratic ideals? Or some other root? I don't know...but the first two combined sound likely to me.

AA aren't stupid (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST

African Americans never fell for the "Clinton is running a racist campaign" BS. In south carolina, AA support for Obama was already at 69% before that became an issue, and rose to only 73% when it was at its peak as a controversy. (Based on SUSA polls).

(This is not to say that there was not a lot of discussion among AAs about the issue -- especially once someone had decided to vote for Obama, and needed a rationale for doing so -- in the same way that biased white people will find a rationale for their failure to support a black candidate. I think that Clymer's remarks played a huge role in how the issue played out in SC... he expressed 'concern' with 'the tone' of the Clinton campaign, but never dropped his neutral stance and endorsed Obama.)

But if the SUSA numbers are reliable, while black support for Obama barely rose during the controversy, white support went way up for Clinton, then dropped again once the controversy faded.

I would like to suggest that these white Obama supporters who are so obsessed with the phony 'race card' issue are, in fact, reflecting their own subconscious prejudices and conscious denial of those prejudices. The level of self-righteousness about Obama's white supporters is pretty high -- and I think that the conflict between subconscious racial bias and their conscious decision to support OBama is at the heart of that self-righteousness.


I'll give Obama's white supporters the (none / 0) (#67)
by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:32:02 PM EST

benefit of the doubt. I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me that it some sort of white guilt driving his supporters...I think most of them genuinely are excited, and Obama was/is the catalyst for that (for them). Albeit, I don't understand how Obama excites them (he reminds me of sentimentalism in poetry), I do not discredit the their real and relative excitement.


That is very considerate of you (none / 0) (#75)
by marcellus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST

I'm sure mindful appreciates it. Why not extend the courtesy to AA supporters as well?


: You're right (none / 0) (#88)
by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM EST

I give all voters the benefit of the doubt...(well thats not entirely true...if BO is the nominee I think there will be some people who vote for McCain because he's white; just like if HRC is the nominee, some folks will vote for McCain because he's a he).
With that said, I do take some offense at the underlying suggestion of your comment (and your feeling the need to make the comment). I am not sure if your intention was to offend or not, but I do find it so.

haha (none / 0) (#72)
by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST

I would like to suggest that these white Obama supporters who are so obsessed with the phony 'race card' issue are, in fact, reflecting their own subconscious prejudices and conscious denial of those prejudices.

Wow... how did you get to know me so well?

You are right though... the only reason I have supported Obama for several years is that I am subconsciously prejudiced, but am in denial.

Thanks for informing me.


Wow (none / 0) (#74)
by marcellus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST

You're exactly right. I never believed that whole "Clinton's are racist campaign" BS and then only rationalized it to explain my support for Obama. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't need any evidence.


hmm... (none / 0) (#81)
by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST

... I am still trying to figure out how I am a closet racist and bigot.

p lukasiak, any insight that you can give me to help me uncover my close bigotry would be appreciated.


I saw a poll recently that asked AA's (none / 0) (#91)
by hairspray on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:51:29 PM EST

about their support for Obama. From the poll, the AA's were clearly voting for one of their "own" and not as a rejection of Clinton. Their approval rating for Bill and Hillary was quite high in spite of voting for Obama. The white liberal/press Obama supporters think the Hillary campaign is racist, but seriously most AA's do see through the spin.


i'm not so sure... (none / 0) (#30)
by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:25:00 AM EST

a few aa blogs have consistently made me cringe by tearing her to shreds. i can't even look these days because i'm afraid it'll turn my stomach.


: You see it more on the blogosphere (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Daryl24 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:54:53 PM EST

regardless of community. In the offline world the overwhelming majority of AA still hold a very favorable view of the Clintons.

We (none / 0) (#96)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:44:13 AM EST

have three college-aged kids, two of them are for Obama. It's a generational thing, they like the idea that they are supporting someone who is "not your Daddy's president." I was a college student during the counterculture, that sentiment was fueling the whole movement more than anything else, so, an interesting parallel, IMO.


Checked major-metro newspapers (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by 1jane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:12:32 AM EST

Took a cruise around all of the Texas major-metro newpapers via the net. First observation, on all of the newspaper sites visited except one, a big ad for Obama opens the site. Second observation, stories reported voting was steady, lines were moving, no reports on troublesome issues.

Ohio newspapers, on the other hand report some confusion at some sites by the election workers, bad weather but drivable, steady voting, lines moving well. No big ads by Clinton or Obama on the newspaper sites visted.

Anedotal reports from voters from Ohio and Tx are sure to be welcomed on this site. Looking forward to hearing reports from Obama and Clinton voters.

: From OH, mentioned in another thread (none / 0) (#94)
by trishb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:12:33 AM EST

Here in SW Ohio, NE Hamilton County specifically, the biggest problem seemed to be the poll workers didn't know their own rules. The roommate and I went at different times but had the same hassle. The address on the driver's license didn't match the registered address. I had even brought the mailing with my polling location from the county board of elections just in case. I needed it. My roomie was told to use a provisional ballot, but protested a bit. In both cases we were allowed to have the Dem ballot.
No one cared who we were voting for, it was just a bad process with poorly understood rules.

Interesting. Here in NY (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by JohnS on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST

where I volunteer at the polls, there is no campaigning allowed within 100 feet of the polling place, let alone inside. Even lapel buttons for HRC or BHO weren't allowed inside. And poll workers are not allowed to express political opinions -- that's actually a criminal offense.

interesting. i like that a lot. (none / 0) (#49)
by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:10:45 PM EST

federal elections (none / 0) (#55)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:13:54 PM EST

must have a standard law regarding this, right? (I know it's the primary, but it seems odd that they would change the rule from election to election)


: Doubt it (none / 0) (#60)
by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:55:00 PM EST

elections themselves are handled by the states.

Same here in Cali. (none / 0) (#77)
by BrandingIron on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST

And didn't Chelsea Clinton have to remove/hide her pin (she was wearing a pin for her mom) when she went to vote?


It's the gloating.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:08:14 PM EST

I just can't stand the gloating.

It never ends.

: Gloating? (none / 0) (#97)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:45:59 AM EST

I just caught part of Obama's non-victory speech on CNN. AS usual, he spoke as if he had won everything. The guy is so ungracious.

Dont know about Texas law (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by riddlerandy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST

but in California, both the button and the signs would be prohibited anywhere near the polling place, and certainly inside the polling place. But as their delegate selection process shows, TX may well be a bit different.

I've disliked a lot of things ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST

about Obama and his supporters. Especially the blame Clinton thing, which was uncalled for at Obama's press conference yesterday.

But if Obama gets the nomination, I will turn on a dime and start defending him. And I don't give a damn how disingenuous it looks.

I will vote for Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:40:33 PM EST

.. but while a month ago I was scolding fellow Hillary supporters when they said they would'nt support Obama in the GE, I don't feel as comfortable doing that anymore. If BO wins the nomination, it will be his responsibility to win back the Hillary voters. His campaign seems to have chosen to silently allow many of their supporters to behave badly towards people who's support they'll be needing. I believe that he can win those voters back, but he has to be willing to make the effort. For one thing, he needs to admit that the Clinton presidency was good for the country. That would be a good start.


In my mind... (none / 0) (#78)
by BrandingIron on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:40:42 PM EST

...it's not a question of spite, it's question of policy. I've read so much on Obama the man and policy maker that I really feel like we'd have a choice between two Republicans in the GE (Obama is NOT progressive!). So I'd only be going with the Republican that has been relatively honest about where he stands on my issues (McCain) even if I disagree with them. Plus I think McCain is better suited to be Commander in Chief than Obama.


: Ditto (none / 0) (#98)
by tek on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:47:14 AM EST

More and more I feel really uncomfortable about his lapse in judgment and his tendency to break rules and tell outright lies. SOSO.

speaking for myself, i'll write hillary's name in. (none / 0) (#86)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:52:02 PM EST

i am sorry but the damage has been severe for me.


I am a yellow dog Democrat, but (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by magnetics on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM EST

"lower than that ye shall not drag me."

Make of it what you will; I am a Hillary supporter who never imagined I would write the words above.

I wouldn't vote McCain for dogcatcher, and have voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since 1972; but if Obama wins the nomination, he is going to have to work for my vote. At this point -- incredibly! given my history -- it is not a given.

Let's not even get into the recylcing of Rethuglican anti-Hillary talking points on DKos -- I mean, here we have a freshman senator who has done nothing but run for president since his election in 2006. Hillary was warned in 1998, not to use her senate seat as a launching pad, but to work at being a senator. Obviously sauce for the goose is not intended for the gander.

I Have To Say... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by AmyinSC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:13:38 PM EST

I completely understand. I have voted striaght-ticket Democrat for years now, and have not missed an election. If Obama "wins" this nomination (by that I mean he has been given EVERY advantage in the media, and Clinton has NOT, to put it mildly), I cannot vote for him. It is not just his supporters, but HIM and the DNC that have sanctioned, and engaged in, tremendous sexism. I'll be darned if I will vote for the man who is FAR less qualified than the woman in this race, and who has been arrogant, condescending and PATRONIZING to her, for president. We already have a president like that - untested, arrogant, and inexperienced - I don't need another one, even if he does claim to be a Dem. I fully intend to write-in Clinton's name should the DNC and its spokespeople keep up the drumbeat to get her out.

(And isn't it INCREDIBLE how well she has done given having to fight against Obama, the Republicans, the media, AND the DNC? I mean, REALLY - what does it say that they are essentially tied when HE has been given passes on EVERYTHING, and she has been REAMED on everything, even inventions of the media?? Makes me like her even more.)


: Yes, when even Bush has not said (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM EST

so many sexist things as a Democratic candidate has said -- not even counting what has been said by supporters, media, etc. -- well, realizing that really solidified matters for me. Try giving everything said the test of not just whether Clinton or other Dem candidates have said such things but whether BUSH has said such things, even with all his misstatements and missteps . . . and that highlights how bad it has been in this campaign.

I really have a problem (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by ChrisO on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:42:57 PM EST

with the whole "both sides do it" excuse. Obama supporters, especially at places like Kos, HuffPo and TPM, have no rival when it comes to nastiness. I have compared them to right wing talk radio audiences, just waiting for the next outrage. What I find particularly annoying is their certainty that every single bump in the road for Obama is Clinton's doing, and that every remark is part of a carefully plotted plan to "smear" (their favorite word) Obama. I truly do think that it's partly a product of a lot of new voters being involved, who don't get that you can have a primary campaign without hating the other candidate.

I was actually undecided about who to support until New Hampshire. I found myself on places like HuffPo (before realized what a lost cause it was) continually defending her. I wasn't even a supporter, but the slurs were so over the top it was driving me crazy. I mean really, how many different times can you read that Hillary is a slimy, Rovian Republican with blood on her hands before you start to realize that there's some serious irrational hatred here? All of those posts made me seriously think about my impressions of Clinton (cold, calculating, driven only by self interest) and ask myself what I have ever seen her do that would lead me to think that way. It occurred to me that my impressions were driven almost entirely by the Clinton hate machine, and caused me to look at her with fresh eyes.

I don't hate Obama, and I'll certanly vote for him in the GE. I'm not particularly concerned about most of his attacks on her; I'd probably say the same stuff if I was in his position. But the one thing I will always carry with me is the way he allowed his campaign to paint the Clintons as racists. That's like child molesting in Democratic politics, and the Clintons have done far too much to deserve that treatment. That one thing has prevented me from ever viewing him as a transformative figure, and certainly has ensured that I will never be one of his starry-eyed followers.

: I'm with you on the race-card call (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST

and that's when Obamans lost me for good, too. If even the Clintons can be attacked as racists, after all both have done for so many decades, even since their high school years -- then I fear (and already have seen) the impact could effect the exact reverse as discourse will shut down.

: Yes (none / 0) (#76)
by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:35:03 PM EST

That was the moment that I realized that even should Obama win the nomination, I can't vote for him. That a democrat would do this to another to win an election is beyond repugnant to me.

Well, (none / 0) (#1)
by ajain on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM EST

Its a pretty arbitrary poll, but kinda makes you feel good.

: projective test (none / 0) (#4)
by Lil on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM EST

This made me feel very nervous!

Jeez (none / 0) (#5)
by ineedalife on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST

1/2 of the voting machines not working? Something is fishy there. I can see them crapping out later in the day but aren't they tested in the days before the election? Smells like voter suppression to me. I hope those folks come back after work.

machine problems (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:08:47 AM EST

All the voting locations are run by volunteers. If you follow the boot-up procedures, things should run smoothly. It is unusual for half of the booths to be inoperative, but at least they had somone there who was attempting to work on them.

I helped out in Florida for Kerry and one large University had one voting location with a total of 2 booths for 30K students. Now that's supression!


: I was one of the unfortunates (none / 0) (#80)
by MichaelGale on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:28:48 PM EST

that waited in line, 2004, for 8 hours to vote.
10 voting machines for hundreds of people

impact your vote for Nov? (none / 0) (#9)
by Lil on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:07:28 AM EST

It's hard for me to understand. I'm all for Hillary but have every intention of voting for Obama if he's the nominee. What is the alternative? In my world I hear a lot of Hillary supporters saying they will support Barrack if he gets the nomination. I don't hear a lot of Barrack supporters saying that to me, but it may just be my personal bias that I'm not hearing it that way.

I have the opposite experience. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by ivs814 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:13:46 AM EST

Every single Hillary supporter tells me that they will either not vote at all or will vote for McCain. For the most part they feel that the Obama campaign has really disrepected the Clinton's and their legacy. Maybe it's a Hispanic thing but they don't like to see that stuff play out at the expense of someone they really admire.


united party (none / 0) (#25)
by Lil on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:19:18 AM EST

We have to do this if we want a win in Nov. At some point Obama and Clinton will appear somewhere holding hands in front of a big crowd and bring us all back together again. Right now I think emotions are running very high and both sides are saying some really dumb things. In the end McCain is 4 more years of Bush and eventually people will remember that and vote Democratic (we all should remember that the Supreme Court is a stake.)


: Honestly, I think it's going to take... (none / 0) (#36)
by Dawn Davenport on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM EST

...a unity ticket with both candidates to get Dems to not sit out if their candidate choice doesn't win.
And with the nearly 50-50 split in popular votes and delegates, a unity ticket makes sense.

This is a result of who his core (none / 0) (#20)
by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:17:08 AM EST

of supporters is. This should not be surprising. Hillary does well among rank and file Democrats...Obama's supporters often don't identify as Democratic, or their identification with the party is solely a result of their support for Obama...

No surprise there, and no expectations should be made to maintain their support should Obama not win the nomination (or down ticket support for that matter)


This is why (none / 0) (#17)
by eric on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:15:38 AM EST

campaigning should be left at the door of a polling place. (Outide a good perimeter, actually). Here in Minnesota, that is the law.

However, the law does not apply to caucusus, of course, as they are inherently political gatherings. The problem is - this year anyway - that they turned the caucus into a quasi-primary in which you could just vote on a scrap of paper and leave. Because it was called a "caucus", the election law didn't apply. It was disconcerting because all of the "election" volunteers were fully clad in Obama gear. Not exactly a comfortable atmosphere.

Caucuses (none / 0) (#33)
by themomcat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST

are inherently undemocratic in that they are not anonymous and are too easily manipulated by over zealous supporters of specific candidates who can be very intimidating. Caucuses need to be controlled by a non-partisan organization, usually a state board of elections, and partial observers need to be present to insure fairness. My opinion is that caucuses just need to abolished along with the Electoral College. One person, one vote. The popular vote should decide the President.The US needs to come into the 21st Century. But that is just my opinion


Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by blogtopus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST

I don't see how people can ignore the fact that Obama supporters/followers/worshippers/whatevers have been vociferous in their support, much more so than Hillary supporters/etc.

Honestly, it is very religious in nature. People take it so PERSONALLY when you criticize Obama. I think most of it has to do with the fact that you can't really defend most of the criticism about him. Facts are facts, and he is not really a progressive candidate. When you have an injury or open wound, it is sensitive to poke at it; I imagine it's the same way with his voting record, his experience, all the things that he claims that are untrue, etc.

People new to the political realm (ie: most of Obama's young supporters) don't understand that EVERYONE is tainted in some way; they want to believe that he is above it all, untouchable, and when evidence comes along showing he is not, it hurts them and their worldview. Hillary fans have had 16 years of that garbage, and are used to it.

So, to remain on topic, I think that the caucus set up is a huge disadvantage for Hillary, whose supporters tend to more tempered natures. It's very easy to get mobbed by Obama supporters. I'd love to see a poll of caucus goers, a secret poll, and compare that to the caucus results. I'd be willing to bet that the public caucus results come out highly off-balance in favor of Obama.


: i agree. (none / 0) (#43)
by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:03:58 PM EST

Exactly, I'm a very nervy person... (none / 0) (#37)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:39:41 AM EST

...but I don't think I would really enjoy a caucus if it was really contentious, which is part of the problem of taking the caucus model out on the road, just my opinion having never participated in one.


Caucuses are much more fuss... (none / 0) (#63)
by ItsGreg on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST

...it's true, but I don't think that makes them "inherently undemocratic." I used to reside in Iowa and I found the caucuses to be an intriguing alternative to the standard primary system.

True, because they take a long time not everybody can attend, and that poses a serious problem for people who work in the evenings. But I found the lack of anonymity to be refreshing. I think secret ballots are absolutely necessary in the actual election, but I'm not convinced they're critical in the primary phase. I liked the fact that people stood up openly for their candidates and were able to articulate the reasons for their support.

I certainly never saw any intimidation taking place. Since it all took place in public, I don't think any of us would have allowed anybody to be intimidated.

A caucus certainly isn't an efficient process. And it does disenfranchise people who work in the evening. But I think it would be hard to deny that they're a classic form of direct democracy.


People have many opportunities (none / 0) (#65)
by ChrisO on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:26:55 PM EST

to articulate their support. Why does it have to happen as people are voting? I happen to think that the secret ballot is a cornerstone of Democracy. And who knows how many people stay away from a caucus because of the atmosphere?

I thought a lot of the criticisms of the Nevada caucus were right on. Minimum wage culinary workers had to stand up at their workplace, in front of their bosses and union stewards, and declare who they were voting for. How can that not be intimidating?

I can't say for sure this has happened, but I can't believe it's very comfortable for an AA voter to stand up at an all-black caucus and declare support for Hillary.


: exactly. (none / 0) (#95)
by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:39:22 AM EST

Which means it disenfranchises (none / 0) (#66)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:27:11 PM EST

a whole faction of people (blue collar workers), which isn't a small issue.


: Not an entire faction. (none / 0) (#83)
by ItsGreg on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST

Because the caucuses are held in the evening some working class folks on second shift might be disenfranchised.
I come from a working class family in Iowa. Both of my parents were solid Democrats who never missed a caucus, even though my mother always worked the evening shift. She usually arranged to swap a shift with somebody who wasn't going to the caucus. Not everybody who works second shift can do that, of course, but I suspect most can. It's not as if the caucuses are a surprise; we know for weeks or months in advance when they're going to be staged.
Most people who want to attend a caucus are able to arrange a way to do it. Working class people aren't helpless.

Caucuses were first dreamed up by (none / 0) (#92)
by hairspray on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:05:02 AM EST

party pols. They were designed to be held in obscure places at odd and poorly announced times to ensure that only the "insiders" selected the appropriate candidate. Horse trading was expected and it was done real quick. Now the crows have come home to roost and only the hale and hearty indpendents come in large numbers ready to force a vote for their candidate. If caucuses must remain they should be weighted. In Washington state we will soon see how far off the cauces were from the popular vote.


Really??? (none / 0) (#18)
by pennypacker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST

any phone calls I have received from Clinton supporters asking for her vote were extremely rude when I said I was voting for Obama. When I made phone calls for Obama the campaign stressed over and over again to be friendly no matter who was voting and it showed at least with the people I was with.

Well (none / 0) (#27)
by NecSorteNecFato on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:22:27 AM EST

I have made phone calls for Clinton, and I can tell you that it was also stressed to us that we are the face of the campaign, be polite to everyone no matter what, etc. I'm sure that both campaigns are careful to make these statements, but given the negative experiences people have been reporting with both Obama and Clinton supporters, clearly the heated nature of this campaign is causing some people to have difficulty keeping themselves in check.

Also FWIW, I voted early in Ohio yesterday, and our BoE said they have been slammed all week and were still pretty disorganized. No one I saw was wearing anything for one candidate or the other. There aren't too many Clinton signs around here, but Obama has a HQ in my town and has inundated every place with signs. I also think someone took the time to peel the Hillary sticker off my car...I think the "movement" meme of the Obama campaign is fostering a kind of with us or against us mentality.


Calling for Clinton (none / 0) (#34)
by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST

In my experience, the Clinton staff always stressed orally and in writing to be polite as well. If a person was for Obama (or Edwards) we were to simply thank them for their time and move on.

I tend to give both campaigns a break on their volunteers. No campaign can completely control them, they do the best they can. FWIW, I spent quite a few hours in a Clinton phone bank and never heard any Obama bashing (at least not on the phone, heh). But I'm sure there has been incidents of it on both sides, that's the price any campaign pays for using volunteers.


: I'm sure the Obama campaign.... (none / 0) (#39)
by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM EST

...tells volunteers to be polite. But do they all listen? Probably not. Funny how Clinton has the rep for being the fighter, but in my view more Obama supporters are looking at this as a war, calling Clinton the enemy and so on. Although I have often been angry at the Obama campaign I never have thought of them as the enemy. I still know an enemy when I see one.

: Yep (none / 0) (#46)
by spit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM EST

as somebody who wrangles volunteers on a regular basis for a tiny local nonprofit, I can't imagine how hard it would be to successfully herd them on a state or national scale.
To be clear, in my experience, most volunteers are terrific. But there's always a subset that are very hard to even vaguely control, even with clear and direct instructions.

well someone forgot to tell obama (none / 0) (#84)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:48:58 PM EST

supporters outside my voting place this morning here in houston to be polite. when i told them i was voting for hillary, i have rarely seen such rude folks. they can take their candidate with them. i want nothing to do with folks who behave like they did.


one things for sure Obama wins the SIGN wars :-) (none / 0) (#21)
by thereyougo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST

i hear they're everywhere! at my polling place you can't have a sign or any kind of campaigning within 50 ft.

I Just Voted (none / 0) (#31)
by glanton on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:25:57 AM EST

In South Central Texas. Standing outside the precinct, a few Ron Paul and Obama partisans. No people outside the precinct, celebrating Clinton.

However, on my way there I passed what a rather large roadside gathering of Latin-American men and women waving Hillary Clinton banners, soliciting us to honk our horns. As I told my wife on the phone, it was striking to see such a spectacle in the flesh, as it were, after weeks of watching cable pundits talk Clinton's strength with that demographic.

But back to the precinct. An Obama guy handed me a bumper sticker, which I accepted and then told him I was voting for Clinton. But that I would keep the bumper sticker in case Obama won.

Obama support (none / 0) (#35)
by CST on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:30:32 AM EST

While I agree that there has certainly been some negative support given by some Obama supporters to suggest that it is one-sided is completely unfair. (P.S. I am not talking candidates here). There has been some extremely hateful, racist, anti-muslim zeal been shown by a number of clinton supporters as well. But I don't think for a second that what is shown online represents the average voter. Most Obama supporters I know are respectful of Clinton, just ready for a change, and most Clinton supporters I know aren't racist. It is sad that some of it exists but don't project the online negativity to all voters.

: You must not read dkos. n/t (none / 0) (#93)
by hairspray on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM EST

Obama supporters are easily insulted. (none / 0) (#42)
by echinopsia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST

I had one of them stalking every post of mine here yesterday, demanding an apology for something that s/he thought was offensive to Obama supporters.

For the record, the words "Obama" and "supporters" did not even appear int he post in question.

it is very true (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:11:49 PM EST

that there are some nasty Obama supporters out there, and that they mostly seem to be on the internet, but I think that here at TL we have at least a handful of sane ones, and they make their points very clearly and without trying to be vicious about it.

I also agree that the mob mentality on some blogs has fostered a real "for us or against us" stance that is tearing folks apart. And I mean mob mentality in the true sense, where no one speaks up early on, so it just snowballs into a rolling pile of hatred. That certainly seems to be resulting in what the first "reporter" said about his experience at his polling place where Obama supporters turned their backs on him. And of course we have seen countless examples of outright hostility reported during the NV caucus.


i wonder what will happen when the (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:50:57 PM EST

primaries are over. in my opinion many obama supporters will drift away. as far as the blogs, i'll continue to stay away from those in whom i lost faith. i feel that way now about countdown. it's a shame!


I think you'll probably see a bigger slump (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:21:57 PM EST

in some of the hypocritical blogs after the GE...

My prediction is that many will have lost a lot of influence after this election...maybe a re jiggering of relevance...or maybe they set the whole political bloggosphere back in terms of non financial influence...

wait and see :)


: talk left should gain more influence and (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST

rightly so.

That's pretty far down (none / 0) (#48)
by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST

My list of words to describe it.

Obama has the money for signs apparently (none / 0) (#50)
by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST

So the Obama signs are everywhere... and I take that as a sign that Hillary is going to lose Texas tonight. Really. Unless people have a supernatural epiphany where a light shines down and the choirs begin singing that Hillary needs their votes.

: We Hillary voters (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by echinopsia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:33:19 PM EST

Don't do epiphanies.

Egh... (none / 0) (#56)
by Virginian on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST

just like it is unfair to punish hillary for the actions and comments of her surrogates and supporters (those not under control of the campaign), likewise for Obama...

Yes, his flock has a hateful edge, but I am not ready to blame Obama directly for that.

Ohio (none / 0) (#58)
by zimmjim on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:54:47 PM EST

I voted in East Liverpool, Ohio this morning. Had problems with the machine but they took the paper ballot and were awaiting the "rover." More people than normal for early voting, primarily middle-aged women. Hear there is some potential flooding around Steubenville for which they moved sites as a precaution.

They lost me (none / 0) (#62)
by Daryl24 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM EST

after the oatmeal cookie comparison.