Iowans are Taking Notice Of Hillary's Disparaging Remarks About Caucuses... compared to Dean in 2004

[berni_mccoy]

Last week it came out that Hillary called the Iowans who caucus 'creatures of the extremes.' See http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251867182

Well, Iowans have taken notice. And in general they aren't too happy about it. Local NBC affiliate, WHOtv has a story on this and the video goes over reactions and compares it to Dean's mistake in 2004 when old comments of his came out that were very similar to Clintons.

Video Here (worth watching the entire thing):
http://whotv.com/2015/12/07/iowa-democrats-hold-back-criticism-for-clintons-old-anti-caucus-comments/#ooid=pxdmZieTot980uHyER5AvE7N8P0cw5X2

From the print, it's clear this was a huge error. Clinton's supporters are keeping their mouths shut:

Dean had been a front-runner in the 2004 Democratic race for president. NBC News found some old footage when Dean ripped on the Caucuses in 2000, pointing out that Iowa’s cherished first-in-the-nation were dominated by “special interests.”

Prominent Iowa Democrats have offered little, if any, criticism of Clinton since that old email went public last Monday. The Iowa Democratic Party Chair Andy McGuire didn’t respond to a request for comment from Channel 13. McGuire is publicly neutral for this caucus cycle, but she endorsed Clinton’s presidential run in 2008.

Second District Congressman Dave Loebsack, the state’s only Democratic member of Congress, didn’t criticize Clinton’s comments either. Loebsack has endorsed Clinton’s 2016 presidential run.

And from the DesMoines Register: "Caucuses are NOT creatures of extremes"
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/caucus/2015/12/05/column-caucuses-not-creatures-extremes/76750036/

This column is based on a study done by political science professor David Redlawsk.

"Our data also detail the demographics of caucusgoers (with somewhat less detail in 2012) compared to registered voters within each party. The takeaway is that we see very few significant differences here either. The greatest difference is in education; unsurprisingly caucusgoers were somewhat better educated than those Iowans who stayed home. They were also, again unsurprisingly, more engaged in the political process.

As we wrote in "Why Iowa?" and as we think continues to be true when very competitive caucuses generate high turnout, “Iowa may not look like the rest of the country, but those who attended the 2008 caucuses well represented Iowa voters in general… and its partisans in particular”

So, Hillary, there may be reasons for you to dislike caucuses, and you may be less than thrilled with the Iowa caucuses in particular. But saying they are creatures of party extremes is simply wrong, at least in Iowa when the caucus campaigns are competitive

[SidDithers]

1. New CNN Iowa Poll -HRC 54% SBS% 36% MOM 4%

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-iowa-poll/index.html


Sid

[Agschmid]

2. DU Rec.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Hillary is obviously collapsing in Iowa because of those remarks

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Sid...I have a question

If caucuses are such a good idea why don't we elect all our public officials by the caucus method?


Thank you in advance.

[JonLeibowitz]

7. If democratic voting is such a good idea, why not vote democratically for each and every law?

Could it be that some methods have their time and place and should not be extended past a certain point?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. That's easy...

Because unchecked democracy can lead to tyranny.

[JonLeibowitz]

10. yes, arguments based on absurd extremes often yield absurd conclusions.

It could be that there is a role for a caucus measuring grass roots organizing and a simultaneous role for primaries to measure depth of support. Why not both in harmony?


And besides, the courts would still exist to keep the voters in check.

[Agschmid]

12. Sid doesn't know he is Canadian, he should STFU.

[Divernan]

14. Where is he? Holiday sale in Alberta on enemas?

As in his catchy sig line, "This town needs is an enema."

I don't often hear or read the word "enema", but when I do, I think of Sid!

[TIME TO PANIC]

15. CNN is owned by Time Warner, one of Clinton's main donors.

[Agschmid]

17. CONSPIRACY!!!!

There can be no other reason!

Honestly I'm annoyed it's not Malala that's who I voted for.

[TIME TO PANIC]

19. OK.

[CoffeeCat]

67. It's not a conspiracy if everyone knows about it...

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Only 442 of them are likely to participate in (D) caucus.

Lets see who's supporters Care enough to show up.

[Major Hogwash]

29. Bernie will win in Iowa.

Wanna bet?

[SidDithers]

41. Sure. Loser makes a $25 donation to DU...nt

Sid

[question everything]

55. Proabably. And in neighborhing New Hampshire

but from then on it will be downhill.

Wanna bet?

[SidDithers]

69. Crickets...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=883803

Sid

[zappaman]

5. I guess they're realizing murderers support Clinton, eh?

[oasis]

9. A donation to Hillary's campaign counts as another strike on their record.

[Agschmid]

13. Hey I read that somewhere...

Can't remember where, which is odd.

[question everything]

56. Who are the murderers that you are referring? Please? (nt)

[zappaman]

58. I read it here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251880826

[Agschmid]

6. A few thoughts...

All in my opinion of course...

- Caucuses disenfranchise "voters"
- It's long past time that Iowa and NH loose their first in the nation primary.
- Caucuses put great candidates like O'M out on their ass (we will see what happens).

[berni_mccoy]

25. In other words, like Hillary: "To hell with Iowa!"

[Agschmid]

37. Well it sure would be nice if people were disenfranchised.

If they could solve that problem it would certainly help.

[NCTraveler]

47. We get it.

You like the undemocratic process that starts off our primary. A process that includes and electorate that looks nothing like the country as a whole. I remember a very short time ago when we damn near all agree on this. Hmmmm. What's changed. lol.

[Major Hogwash]

30. "Caucuses disenfranchise 'voters' ".

It's the American way.
We hold our hands up, they count the hands, and viola, the votes are counted.

WITHOUT DIEBOLD INTERFERRING WITH OUR ELECTION!!!!

Boo-yah!

[Turn CO Blue]

33. I'm in Colorado, we caucus. There is room for improvement.

A primary would be better in my opinion, especially since we're a mail-in paper ballot state.

And we hold a vote for what? The delegates are uncommitted anyway. When they go to county and then state they do not have to vote how the precinct voted.

[artislife]

44. Why are they disenfranchised?

Anyone can go and learn to caucus and do it.

We have free classes at the libraries to learn to do it.

[question everything]

54. Because if you have a sick child at home, or a shift in the hospital

and you cannot attend the caucus you cannot cast a vote.

You have to be physically present in a caucus to cast your vote. With primaries, you have all day and you can vote absentee.

[JaneyVee]

11. Actually, she's 100% correct about caucuses. They absolutely are.

[berni_mccoy]

26. Hillary and her supporters: "To Hell with Iowa!"

[Turn CO Blue]

34. I'm in Colorado. The caucus is long, boring and complicated here.

and in the end, there is quite a bit of speechifying, and a bit of bullying because some people always have to switch to get the percentage break right. Just the way it is.

And after all that, the delegates are uncommitted, so they don't have to vote how the precinct voted anyway - and can be replaced at any moment also by an insider or a party official -- so what is the point? It's not as democratic as some suggest.

We are a mail-in paper ballot state with high turnout (compared to other states). A primary would be better.

I will be caucusing for Bernie.

[Kentonio]

35. Do the delegates vote differently to the vote very often?

[joshcryer]

45. Not traditionally.

But the other poster is right that they could if they wanted to, it's all state level political crap, people who have shown their commitment to the party, etc.

In the end though all delegates are expected to vote for the nominee (even pledged delegates for the losing candidate) and if you don't,* have fun being able to go back to the convention 4 years later (LOL) and being a real pariah in your local state party groups.

*technically the losing candidate could refuse to 'release/recommit' their delegates for the nominee, but that would be a disaster for that candidate's political future in the party, way worse than some local town chair deciding not to vote for the nominee.

[Kentonio]

48. Ah interesting, thanks.

[CoffeeCat]

53. They never have...

This convoluted criticism of the Iowa caucuses started only after Hillary came in third in 2008.

Her sour-grapes, poor sportsmanship was noted.

Now, these baseless criticisms are starting up again, which seems to indicate that the Hillary camp may be worried about losing the Iowa caucuses again.

The delegates have never voted differently than the original vote. It's just that simple.

[joshcryer]

65. The Clinton's falsely blamed the caucases...

...and still do, but Bill is not wrong that they are undemocratic.

They needed an excuse for the implosion of her campaign.

[Turn CO Blue]

66. Iowa can do what it wants, I'm talking about CO and caucusing for Bernie

The criticisms of the Colorado caucus are valid. I can't speak to Iowa and woudn't.

I will be caucusing for Bernie here.

The CO caucus could stand some improvement. I just researched it and the state decided in 2000 to stop paying for primaries - so now the party pays for a caucus. The Repubs are not even going to have a CO caucus this time.

So it's not like this is some long-standing tradition here in CO like in Iowa.

Point one - the night is TOO LONG with too much to cover -- state party politics, reading of rules, and platform votes and assembly nominations, assembly votes, local candidates, delegate nominations, delegate voting -- that goes on BEFORE we get to the caucus for President.

Point two - a primary vote would be more representational. We vote, and have another vote later after trying to reach consensus or whatever. I can be a little shy - I know they are just my neighbors, but still... people will be urging me to change to the other candidate before we take a final vote that night. And I'm supposed to urge them to change to my candidate. It could be low pressure or high pressure, but still, no thank you. I'd like a secret ballot please

Then the precincts send their delegates, and the state party sends delegates -- over 9800 delegates meet at the county convention with some 426 of those uncommitted (a small % I do concede). This all becomes the 70 (will now be 79) national delegates.

Just seems like a primary would be way less convoluted and more representational of the people who voted in the precincts. If the state would pay for it.

[joshcryer]

40. It was painful caucusing for Edwards.

The peer pressure was very real.

But you're wrong that the delegates are "uncommitted." While they have the option of voting for whomever, traditionally you send the second place or third place delegates to the convention so that they're represented.

In 2008 Clinton got 15 delegates, for example, and they went to the convention and voted for Obama when she committed (released) her delegates to Obama. Theoretically, they could have pressured the platform to put something in there that they wanted, even though they were "only" 15 delegates.

(Edwards got 0 delegates, and many people were pressured to vote uncommitted rather than choose Obama or Clinton.)

We'll be sending a Sanders delegate to the DNC if he loses the primary. My hope is for an upset, but I know he's a long shot, so my second hope is to send a marijuana advocating delegate to the DNC so that the platform can have a semblance of legalization in there (I think this is likely to happen anyway, but all politics are local).

Paper ballot mail in primaries would be amazing. Love the mail in system. That needs to be made happen federally.

[artislife]

46. Interesting...

Our states, Washington and Colorado are so similar on this and cannibis. We caucus and have mail in ballots...and we have the weed, too.

[Turn CO Blue]

50. I thought I understood 64 delegates are uncommitted going into the county convention

then 47 are uncommitted going into the district convention, then 25 uncommitted going into the state convention. Then eventually we send 14 uncommitted delegates to the national convention. (not arguing, just explaining my other post)

I could misunderstand what all of that means easily, though.

I'm not saying any delegates do flip or would flip, they're still running a campaign at each event to get one of the national spots, after all.

But I'm also assuming there would be peer-pressure to reach consensus on one candidate at each level, but that is assumption - I haven't attended the next-level conventions.

So for all that, the caucus seems less representational than a primary to me.

I get why we have uncommitted - things change, candidates drop out of the race, like Edwards (had more than the 15% threshold.)

Yes, the mail-in is amazing and we need it federally! Absolutely agree.

Our convention speech simply has to include something about legalization!

" From the great western state of Colorado, home of the dankest strains of cannabis!" (LOL)

edit: spelling

[joshcryer]

60. Colorado actually sent 70 delegates.

Of which 55 were decided by the caucases (the others were superdelegates).

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/CO-D.phtml

https://completedefeasance.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/colorado-democratic-delegate-totals/

In reality it's all smoke and mirrors imo, because it's so damn unnecessarily complicated.

One thing no one tells you is that delegates gotta pay for convention expenses out of pocket, which is even crazier.

[Turn CO Blue]

62. It's crazier than we think - at the county convention (not national) there were over 9000 delegates

in 2008 - of those 426 are uncommitted, and most of those 9000 are state party people. Just looked it up.

Those 9,895 delegates vote to apportion the percentage of the 70 delegates (55 national and 19 party). Which last time the portions stayed the pretty much same as the night of the caucus, but not exact (35/19 Obama/Clinton became 36/19 Obama/Clinton. So Obama added one more than on caucus night, I assume more of 426 uncommitted broke for Obama at county level)

Then at the national all get released to the national candidate anyway. LOL.

Yep smoke and mirrors.

We will be sending 79 to the national this time. Higher population now, I guess.

Too convoluted if you ask me.

Also researched the primary thing. We used to have primaries, the state didn't want to pay for it anymore, stopped paying for it in 2000, so that is why we have party caucuses now paid for by the party. CO Repubs not even going to hold a caucus this time.

[joshcryer]

63. It's convoluted to the point of hilarity, to be sure.

I actually find it fascinating, though, that it even works at all. Fun stuff.

We tried to bring back the primary for 2016 but it didn't have the votes.

[question everything]

57. Don't bother. The OP just tells us that we "support Hillary"

and does not bother to respond to any of our comments.

Well, if all of Sanders are like that, good luck to them.

[joshcryer]

64. Check out our subthread.

We are more involved politically and know what is up, at least in Colorado. Nice discussion above about it.

And we both support Sanders.

[upaloopa]

16. I don't think I have ever seen as many mole

hills being turned into mountains as on this board during this primary season.

So much to do about nothing.

[jalan48]

18. Please, no controversy over the coronation.

[SCantiGOP]

20. 2nd time you have posted this lie

You say Clinton said that "the Iowans who caucus are creatures of the extremes."
As I pointed out last time, she made a general comment 3 years ago that "caucuses are creatures of the parties' extremes."
Your interpretation is not accidental, and is purposely misleading.

[berni_mccoy]

23. Iowans know she was talking about Iowa...

Why else would they be discussing it the way they are...

[SCantiGOP]

24. It was 3 years ago

And she referred to both parties.

[berni_mccoy]

32. I think everyone, including the Iowans in the articles in the OP, understand her intent.

[merrily]

59. So?

[rurallib]

22. Once more let me say as an Iowan - what a load of crap

Will you be peddling this load once a week until 2/1/16?

I am mostly for Bernie. If you think this kind of crap will help Bernie or O'Malley you are sadly mistaken.

[question everything]

27. Any disparaging remarks about the Iowa caucuses are well deserved

It is anti democratic. Like all caucuses it disenfranchise many who cannot take an evening off, in cold winter where it may be snowing or icing.

If you are work in a hospital, or in the fire department, or with the police, tough. Your voice will not be heard. If you have to stay home to take care of a sick family member, if you have to be out of town, tough. In contrast to primaries where one can vote absentee, or one has the whole day to vote, not so in the caucuses.

Iowa, especially is bad since the sanctity of the voting booth is absent. You have to stand up and declare your support in front of neighbors, family members, friends and.... bosses?

It is time to eliminate both Iowa and New Hampshire as "first in the nation." They are small, mostly rural, mostly white, no inner cities - nothing to compare to the rest of the nation.

[berni_mccoy]

31. Hillary and her supporters: "To Hell with Iowa and their extremist voters!"

Thanks for validating the OP.

[question everything]

38. You obviously do not live in Iowa otherwise you would have felt the same

Last edited Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Or, you are a party activist determined to protect the turf.

Either way, you don't even bother to response to the specific issues that I raised.

But, hey, why bother to respond if you can just trash comments. Typical of the Sanders followers.

[Agschmid]

52. How do you feel about people who can't "vote" in them...

- Because they have to work during the timeframe.
- They are unable to afford childcare?
- They cannot find transportation at that time to the polling site?

Ever think about that?

In general caucuses disenfranchise people.

[treestar]

36. I'd like to see some sort of limit on when they can start

to shorten the Presidential campaign. It's over a year now, mostly because of the states trying to get attention by being first.

[question everything]

39. Back in the 90s many state secretaries proposed to have rotational regional primaries

However they left Iowa and New Hampshire first.

Perhaps this will be the year for the Republicans, at least, to take notice.

[Major Hogwash]

49. In 2008, Bubba complained about the caucuses and tried to get the rulez changed in mid-campaign.

It demonstrated just how far the Clintons will go to get their way.
Time magazine even had an article a few weeks ago about how the Clintons don't think the rulez apply to them.

[Agschmid]

51. Yes... So much YES.

[Historic NY]

28. Still plugging that old chestnut, it like trying to get traction on a wet manure.

Iowa Democrats Hold Back Criticism For Clinton’s Old Anti-Caucus Comments because they know

The latest State Department release of Hillary Clinton emails contained this message from Clinton to friend Sidney Blumenthal: "If Mittens can't beat Grinch in Florida, there will be pressure on state Republican parties to reopen or liberalize ballot access especially in the caucuses, which as we know are creatures of the parties' extremes."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=867182

[SidDithers]

42. Monmouth: Clinton holds double-digit lead over Sanders in Iowa 55% - 33% BS...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/monmouth-dems-216534#ixzz3tkKFy9fL

Sid

[MaggieD]

43. Not according to the polling

But carry on.

[leftynyc]

61. Then explain this

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/262449-poll-clinton-holds-big-lead-over-sanders-in-iowa

illary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by 22 points in Iowa, according to a new poll.

A Monmouth University survey released on Tuesday found Clinton with 55 percent support compared with Sanders's 33 percent. That’s in line with the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls, which shows Clinton with a 24.7-point lead over Sanders.


Female voters, who favor Clinton over Sanders 61 percent to 27 percent, are bolstering her in the state. Among men, Clinton holds a narrow lead, 47 percent to 42 percent.
While Sanders has a 10-point lead over Clinton among younger voters, she dominates among voters over the age of 50, taking 63 percent support compared with 27 percent for Sanders.

And Clinton’s support comes from those who are more likely to participate in the caucuses on Feb. 1, the poll found.

Among those who have participated in past caucuses, Clinton’s lead expands to 27 points.


Wishful thinking doesn't win elections.

[wildeyed]

68. She probably did, and then Obama beat her based on caucus results.

So pretty sure she is not making that mistake again