home

Another Electability Argument Regarding Caucuses

It's generally recognized that caucus results are less representative of a state's voters than primary results. Their curtailed voting hours and the lack of early voting, absentee or mail-in voting ensures it. But they count for choosing pledged delegates, so that's water under the bridge.

When it comes to electability arguments for the superdelegates, however, I think there's something they need to consider -- that caucus results vastly undercount one particular segment of voters who will vote in big numbers in the general election: The elderly and infirm, including nursing home residents who weren't mobile enough to attend a caucus but who can vote by absentee ballot in primaries and the general election.

If unable to attend caucuses, and most likely were, their preferences were excluded. This is one more reason I don't think that a superdelegate can equate a caucus win in a particular state with a win in that state against John McCain in November.

The Democratic party needs older voters this year more than ever against John McCain. And they have been coming out in primaries for Hillary. Statistics on our 37 million residents over age 65, 1.9 million of whom live in nursing homes, are below:

America's population over age 65:

In 2006, 37 million people age 65 and over lived in the United States, accounting for just over 12 percent of the total population. Over the 20th century, the older population grew from 3 million to 37 million. The oldest-old population (those age 85 and over) grew from just over 100,000 in 1900 to 5.3 million in 2006.

The states with the largest elderly populations:

In 2006, Florida had the highest proportion of people age 65 and over, 17 percent. Pennsylvania and West Virginia also had high proportions, over 15 percent.

As to gender:

In 2006, women accounted for 58 percent of the population age 65 and over and for 68 percent of the population age 85 and over.

By race:

In 2006, non-Hispanic whites accounted for 81 percent of the U.S. older population. Blacks made up 9 percent, Asians made up 3 percent, and Hispanics (of any race) accounted for 6 percent of the older population.

On to the statistics for nursing home residents:

In 2006, 1.9 million people lived in nursing homes.

The Census Bureau reports:

  • Females comprised approximately half of the total population, but were nearly 70 percent of the nursing facility population.
  • Nearly three-in-four residents of nursing facilities were 75 or older. The median age of nursing facility residents was 83.2.

There's been a big difference this year in results from the three states that have held both primaries and caucuses.

  • Washington: Obama won the caucuses with 21,000 preferring Obama to 10,000 preferring Hillary, but in the primary held two weeks later, he only won 51% to 46%, 353,000 votes to 315,000 votes. Only the caucus votes were used to determine delegates.

The elderly clearly aren't the only group under-represented at caucuses, but they are a somewhat quantifiable one. I attended caucuses in Iowa and Colorado. I saw only a smattering of people who seemed to be over 70 and none looked to me to be in their 80's. I spend every weekend at a nursing home visiting my mother, and almost without exception, the TV's in the residents' rooms are blaring CNN. (Their cable doesn't get Fox or MSNBC). These voters will vote, in person or by absentee or mail-in ballot.

My point: When superdelegates consider electability against John McCain in November, Barack Obama's caucus wins should be among the least important factors. The results are skewed and not representative of the state's total voting population.

< More Support For A Unity Ticket | John Edwards to Endorse Obama in One Hour >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jeralyn, Jeralyn, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    (Sigh) You're doing it again - thinking in the reality-based world. Don't you know there's a narrative going on here that is bigger than mere mortal voters?

    Anything that dares criticize the caucus system and calls into question the coronation of Obama is strictly verboten and any SD who even considers it will be "disappeared".

    Because despite the media BS (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    This race is very close, especially if Florida and Michigan are included. It's almost a tie.

    They want to push Hillary out and take attention away from West Virginia.

    Parent

    The NYT article says the rally is timed to (none / 0) (#53)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    hit the evening news to take attention away from WV.
    Here

    Parent
    Won't help (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    and looks desperate.

    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    Obama's fatal flaw. He thinks that an Edwards endorsement will help him with working class whites. It won't.

    Obama must really be running scared and afraid the nomination is slipping away from him if he's doing this kind of thing.

    Parent

    But why would Edwards do this? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DJ on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    I feel like I am part of some upside down universe.  What is happening?  It makes no sense.

    Parent
    He's (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    probably been promised something.

    Parent
    Can you say pandering and trying to remain (none / 0) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:58 PM EST
    relevant like the others:  Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle

    Parent
    I don't think Edwards is pandering (none / 0) (#100)
    by stefystef on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:39 PM EST
    I think he still wants to be relevant and a player in the Dem Party.

    Do I think his endorsement will help?  No particularly.  But very few people want to be seen as backing the losing team.

    The Democratic Party is on it's way to another '72 debacle.

    Parent

    Is Edwards Looking to Run in NC again (none / 0) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    The Edwards endorsement only makes sense to me if he gets something out of it.  The possibilities that I can think of are:
    •  Tapping into Obama's magic mailing list for financial support for Edwards' poverty initiatives;
    •  VP nomination
    •  Hoping to ride on Obama's popular vote coattails in NC if he once again runs for elective office there?

     

    Parent
    really jeralyn... (none / 0) (#67)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:35:53 PM EST
    most of these older votera are already registered, and thus can't be considered the "new" voters that the party is so crazy about.  And you need to get with the program regarding the "new coalition" as well -- since we're going to have to do stuff that all the new members of the coalition want, that means the concerns of the current members of the coalition have to take a lower priority.

    and as someone who considers myself "old" but not yet "senior", I have the feeling that on some subsconcious level I, and other "old" people, don't react well to all this emphasis on "new."  Obama's messaging sucks for older voters. They have "hoped" that politicians would do the right thing and had those hopes dashed in the past so they know that "hope" isn't something you can count on.  And they lived through lots of "change", and not only is in not always a good thing, but the older you get, the less you feel like dealing with the adjustment required for change.

    I mean, if I was in a nursing home, I'd probably vote for McCain, because I'm pretty sure he won't pull the plug on my healthcare... but Obama, who knows what he'll do?


    Parent

    has nothing to do with registered voters (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    it has to do with attendance at caucuses.

    And many of them are democrats who won't vote for McCain but for Hillary who has the better health care plan.

    Or are you being sarcastic?

    Parent

    Just looking at the way (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    the internal elections are conducted, you have to objectively conclude that the GOP are more democratic in this respect than the Democrats.

    In three ways:

    Tranparent proceedures. The delegate allocation is a mad house in the Dem primary system. You have texas with a primary and a caucus.  The Superdels decide it anyway.  The PR system is niether Proportional nor easy to understand.  

    Then you have the willingness of the rules committee to meter out arbitrary punishments for infractions.  The rules people are using power in unpredictable and OTT ways.

    The excessive use of caucuses.  They are a fun way to do the preliminary stuff but they stink to high heaven when you look at Texas, Washington and Nebraska.

    and (none / 0) (#8)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:10:54 PM EST
    Transparent delegate allocation.  Easy to understand. winner take all. Similar to eventual process.

    modest use of rules committee metering out a rebuke that respects the voter.

    Almost no use of caucuses--although I could be wrong about that. Also the caucus they do use is often a papaer ballot of some sort.

    Parent

    Salo (none / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:55:19 PM EST
    I believe you're right about the GOP caucus system.  They simply vote.  There's no viability requirement, no exposed voting of any kind, strictly private ballots.

    Parent
    Paul is never sarcastic (none / 0) (#108)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:00:56 AM EST
    What's wrong with you?

    Parent
    My only disagreement is re point one (none / 0) (#48)
    by fuzzyone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    Delegate allocation was only more transparent in winner take all states, which is massively undemocratic.  The reason that they had so many winner take all states, as I understand it, is that Guilliani got a bunch of states he expected to win to switch to that formula.  I do think delegate allocation needs to be fixed to be more transparent, but I don't think winner take all is the solution.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    It's a good way to imitate the final college.

    Why run a contest that is manifestly different from the one you will need to run in?

    Parent

    By that logic all primaries should be open (none / 0) (#106)
    by fuzzyone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:51:45 AM EST
    Since everyone is going to be able to vote in the general election.  I thought the point was to be more democratic.

    Parent
    very informative Jeralyn - thanks (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    Anybody know how many states only held caucuses?


    Nevada should have been the last one. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#24)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    Iowa, Nevada, America Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nebraska, Us Virgin Islands, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming, Guam

    Washington and TX hold both caucus and primaries...

    Parent

    BUT (none / 0) (#45)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    But the WA state primary doesn't allocate delegates for the Dems (Rs allocate half their delegates from each place).

    Parent
    you left out... (none / 0) (#84)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    Alaska and North Dakota

    Parent
    oops! (none / 0) (#98)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    Not only the elderly... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by eric on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    This year's caucuses alienated anyone who cannot bear a room packed full of boisterous youngsters all juiced up on Hope.

    We left our caucus...it was unbearable.  I'm 35.

    That was planned (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:18:42 PM EST
    They planned on taking over the caucuses. There were diaries on Daily Kos talking about just how far they could go, and generally claiming that Clinton's people had cheated, with periodic comments implying that it would not be a bad thing if they made lots of noise to discourage Clinton supporter's.

    Parent
    You are not alone (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by stefystef on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    I read many posts and diaries about the overbearing obnoxiousness of the Obama followers during the caucuses.

    They totally took over and "fixed" the contests.  That's why Obama's campaign budget stayed in the black... he basically got free labor for the last 6 months, getting "disciples" instead of supporters.  He didn't have to pay people because everything was donated and volunteered.

    But you see the differences will people go to vote in private, without a bunch of loud, annoying, spoiled self-righteous eggheads pressuring you to vote their way.

    The votes were very different.  And that is going to happen in November.  The vote will be very different.

    <Obama- our generation's McGovern</i>

    Parent

    We'll know in a few weeks (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by phat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    How many of the caucus attendees in my county voted in the NE primary.

    I'm very curious about those numbers.


    You're forgetting... their votes don't matter (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    This is about the new Democratic Party - the one composed of young people and blacks. The people who remained faithful to the party over the past decades are not important. The future is what it's all about.

    Okay, I'm feeling cynical... but in all seriousness, I've become quite dismayed by how Democrats run their primary. The phrase "Politics is like sausage, you're better off if you don't know too much about what goes into it" comes to mind. It's as if the party has designed a process for selecting a candidate that is guaranteed to result in a candidate who is likely to lose the general election. Did the Republicans have a say in this? They couldn't have done a better job of coming up with a system guarnateed to ensure them continued power.

    True (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    Karl Rove is chilling the Cristal for May 20, when Obama announces he's king of the world...oops...I mean the presumptive nominee.

    High fives all around at Fox News.

    Parent

    That the primary process for the Dems (none / 0) (#19)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:16:39 PM EST
    mirrors the schedule of the GOP indicates that the two systems are designed to produce similar candidates. The media also get to excessively stick their rotten noses into the process and thumb the scales.

    i'd note that the GOP version of the primaries is more transparent, simple to comprehend reflective of the popular vote and therefore more democratic than our own method.

    Parent

    The parties (none / 0) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    are private organizations.

    It's just that one is dumber than the other when it comes to electoral politics.

    The Democratic Party hasn't been the same since the McGovern Commission in 1970.

    Parent

    I agree that number of voters is the (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Joan in VA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:04 PM EST
    worst part of caucuses. How can 20,000 award the same number of delegates as 200,000? That is ridiculous.
    Also a 1 hour timeframe to hold it excludes many voters. And, the secret ballot is the standard here because it eliminates coercion. Dems need to get with the program!

    also leaves out (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:35:37 PM EST
    active military, people whose employers won't give them time off, hourly workers who can't afford to lose $8/hr x 4 hours in order to caucus, people out of the country or traveling.

    I think it's very interesting that Jeralyn focussed on a group that so strongly loves Clinton and all she stands for: elderly women.  These are the folks Bill Kristol said, "we can't do anything about them."  Well, apparently, you can: caucus and leave them out.

    Cady Stanton would be at his throat with a knife.

    Parent

    The caucus (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    is fun for a few contests, but on supertuesday it's got to go.

    It's so 16th century.

    Parent

    Multiple star chambers... (none / 0) (#35)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    ugh.

    Parent
    Not to mention the lack of organization (none / 0) (#27)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    It seems to be more or less an honor system, in which people can easily cheat if they want. This may work well when people aren't emotionally vested in a candidate, but does not work when some people think that the opposition is the devil incarnate.

    Parent
    This is excellent Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:19:52 PM EST
    I hope you will send it to the DNC so they can change the freakin rules for the next cycle in 4 years.

    Wisconsin (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:18 PM EST
    Also off topic and very old news:

    Feb 19th I sent this email to a friend:

    "obama's camp has been pushing any state (such as wisconsin) with open election (dems and reps can vote) party affiliation, to turn democrat and vote for him for the day.  the republican white males have come out in strong numbers for barack because they do not want to oppose hillary in the general election (and obama encourages it!)  they will of course not vote for him in the general. this is being reported all over the net, i'm not making this up!  the republican numbers are lower than normal due to them voting for obama for democratic candidate.  they know hillary is stronger and vetted and they will have a cake walk against obama the new teflon man. he will be an easy target."

    After the counts that night I sent him this:

    "This is a poll of party affiliation, they were evenly split in the dems, however 27% of the whole vote was surpringly "independents or something else"  and obama got 63% of those crossover republican etc votes.

    Party Pct. of total  Clinton Obama
    64 Democrat            49     50
    27 other party         34     63

    Who thinks republicans really wanted obama in the white house?  Raise your hand, don't be shy.

    Caucus this... (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Buckeye on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    Obama's support in the causus states is built on an empty house of cards that the slightest breeze knocks over. Take Texas, Obama won the caucus by 10 points, but lost the primary vote by over 100,000 votes.  This is why Obama netted more overall delegates out of TX, even though he lost the popular vote.

    Washington state and Nebraska showed the same patterns. Obama won the caucus in WA by 33 points, with a turn out of around 30,000. Two weeks later, Obama only won the WA primary by 3 points, with a 200,000 turnout. Obama also won the Nebraska caucus by over 30 points, and it had around 35,000 people participate in it. Last night, around 100,000 people voted and the presumptive Democratic nominee with deep fundraising pockets and broad-based media support only won the primary by 2 points.

    This PROVES an important point.  That if all the states' were structured in the same manner as the GE (no caususes that consist mainly of liberal party insiders and college students), Hillary would be well ahead in popular vote and elected delegates and would be constructing her GE campaign as we speak.