Caucuses v primaries
One of my take-aways from Tuesday’s Super results is that political machines have a hard time influencing caucuses, when they can easily dominate primaries. Take a look at Romney’s many caucus victories versus McCain’s none. The same is true on the Democratic side with Obama winning an overwhelming majority of the caucuses (the only exception on this side is Nevada) over Clinton
Is it significant? Perhaps not, but I think it provides at least a small window into the hearts of the American voters. When they’re allowed to discuss, persuade, and influence among each other the results are quite a bit different then if they’re isolated in booths or with mail-in ballots. Caucuses are old-fashioned, grass-roots efforts from the ground up. Movements by the people, where neighbors influence neighbors, and friends campaign with friends. Primaries are persuaded by perceived national opinion - they seem more likely to be based on who the polls say is ahead, or who the media projects will win.
To me it looks like caucuses are where what people really think comes out. People are free to choose, petition, and express within a manageable circle of influence, and their true opinions rise to the surface without being told who to vote for by deeply-entrenched political machines.
(Somewhat) Similar Posts:
Pat Buchanan says it best: If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of...From The Wall Street Journal: "More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country, to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose....