One thing that the primaries can tell us is how good are the candidates at putting together an organization that can run a campaign. I will admit that this does not always scale up to the general election or to putting together an organization that can run the White House and administer the government. For example, Mike Dukakis had a well organized primary campaign, but a terrible general election campaign. However, I believe that the failure to create a well-organized campaign machine is a bad portent for the general election and the White House. Hillary has one of the worst primary campaign organizations that I have ever seen from a major candidate, especially the front-runner. I can understand how Gary Hart's campaign was not prepared for their success because he was an insurgent whose campaign suddenly sprung to prominence. Hillary should have been prepared from Day 1 to run for President. She wasn't and many of her problems (e.g., losing almost every caucus state) have been the fault of Solis and Wolfson and Ickes and all of the hacks that run her campaign (it doesn't help that she's a terrible candidate, but so was Kerry and he did well through the primaries).

It doesn't help that you're a terrible poster. If you weren't maybe you would realize just how unfair and anti-democratic it is to have so many caucuses that working people and the elderly just don't have the time to endure like say privileged college students.

I agree with the author. So many people don't vote in primaries and especially caucuses. There has been a surge of young voters this year, but will that last until November to make a difference? The young people of today, need to come together as a generation on their own and stand by their own values, their own committment, and determine what is important to them as a generation. I would not advise putting all their hope and dreams on any politician - - at least not to the extent they have. They will only get hurt and disappointed.

But I wouldn't have a problem making it to a caucus in the evening...

It seems to me that the jobs that would interfere with showing up to a caucus are mostly held by those uppidy college kids you keep complaining about.

If SC had held a caucus, it would have interfered with my gym time, not my work time...

You're blowing smoke here RealSlimK...

well, I think the percentages (and low low representation of voters each time) supports my argument: that caucuses are not fair and benefit some citizens over others. Certainly anyone who goes to work early in the morning--or swing shift, or graveyard shift, or has kids or medical problems etc. can't just drop everything the way YOU can change your gym day. I say let Iowa keep the damn thing if they want, out of history, but all the other states should aim for more equal and greater total participation.

I prepare my breakfast and lunch; go to work; get home, prepare dinner, work in the yard, go to the gym, walk the dog, then relax... If we had a caucus at 7:00 PM, that would interfere with the gym, not with my work schedule.

As for the inconvenience: it's not like the caucus is a surprise that they spring on the voters every four years... I have friends that live in a caucus state, and they arrange a babysitter weeks in advance... There's a slight hassle, but nothing all that serious. To say "anyone who works can't POSSIBLY get to the caucus" is complete BS...

I can respect a state being more interested in finding out which candidate has motivated support rather than just who gets the most names punched; and I can respect a state saying that making the vote as easy as possible insures that more people have a voice... both options have arguments for and against... But whichever way a state decides is their choice, and that is the law of the land. Trying to invalidate those states by making up completely false statements ("If someone works 40 hours a week they couldn't make it to a caucus that starts at 8 PM... or a caucus that is held on a Saturday...) just shows that you don't like the results... You aren't giving any legitimate argument against the caucus itself.

If a state had a caucus at 3:00 PM on a Tuesday, then we'd be in perfect agreement... as it is, the college students (waiters, cooks, retail clerks, etc...) would seem to be the most likely to be inconvenienced... and as you've noted, they seem to be able to show up. :)

It's not just that caucuses are inconvenient and poorly attended, it's also that more emphatic supporters have an advantage there. Where people have to get together and decide after some conversation, the enthusiastic Obama supporters might convince (or wear down) the luke warm Clintonites so that a room that starts out evenly divided ends up caucusing for Obama.

In a general election, it doesn't matter if you're head-over-heels for your candidate and I'm only slightly in favor of mine; our votes count equally. Winning primaries, therefore, might (maybe) be more of a show of general election strength than winning caucuses, if only barely.

The reverse argument is that the caucuses give an indication of the donor support and volunteer muscle that the candidates could expect in the fall, which in a world where only ~7% of the votes actually swing would make the difference.

Both views are valid, and it is up to the state to decide what type of measure they would use to determine who they supported.

I'm just saying that the argument that caucuses are somehow "undemocratic" since some people "can't get there" is absurd. If you give me four years warning, I assure you that I can show up to a caucus site 400 miles away at 3:00 AM, regardless of the weather. The people can drive down the street and hange out one hour at 7:00 PM.

there is a reason caucuses aren't used in the general election...

Wait a minute. Let's get back to my original point. That was that Clinton's campaign organization has performed poorly. And the caucuses are very relevant to that assertion. The caucuses may be undemocratic or not, but they are. No one sprung the caucuses on the Clinton campaign at the last minute, but they have acted as though they had no idea what to do about them. The best organized campaigns always, ALWAYS win caucuses. Hillary has been preparing for this run since 2002 (probably since 1998. at least). She and her people should have figured out how to organize in Wyoming and Washington and Texas to get their people to the caucus sites and make sure that they had wranglers there to keep people together and what ever else it takes. Perhaps I am a terrible poster, as someone suggested, but I am alert enough to recognize that the Clinton campaign should have won this nomination easily given all of the natural advantages that they have and the advantages that the party threw there way. That they haven't tells me that we are in for a long four years of disorganized government if she somehow wins the presidency. That's one thing that is predictable from the primary results.

'terrible' was a word you used, I used it kind of ironically. Not a very respected word in debate class, I recall. Value judgment, red mark, my prof. would have said.

If you are so against 'disorganized' campaigns, wasn't that the exact same excuse Obama used to explain his unapproved surrogate's pro-NAFTA remarks made to Canadian officials? THIS is an example of Obama's expected organization as a president?

Caucuses are out and out anti-democratic because they discourage full participation. Similarly, refusing to re-do the primary voting of Michigan and Florida is also anti-democratic. The question we hear all the time from the Obama cult, is 'you wouldn't be saying that if Hillary was ahead.' But I disagree. Democracy, letting as many people vote as possible, is much more important than campaigns/exit polls, and yes, even internet blogging...

I don't think there's anything wrong with a party using an undemocratic method of picking their nominee.

That said, I'm not sure the ability to run an organized campaign correlates to being the best-qualified for the office of President.