Comments on: The Curious Caucus Experience 2

by: shcb

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:47:57 +0000

I think you just hit on the problem with blogs as news sites. There needs to be a level of accountability. We trust Matt’s account of caucusing because he has proven to us to be reliable and, well, trustworthy. But this is very small community unless there are legions of silent readers that don’t contribute that I am unaware of. In the normal media credibility is easy to regulate since the reporter’s paycheck is on the line. None of us rely on all these hours we spend writing to put bread on the table. Growing up in a small town many of the “reporters” for the local paper were unpaid folks that liked the notoriety of having a column in the paper and it was a way to give back to the community. Their credibility was insured by everyone knowing them, embarrassment kept them honest. But in this brave new world of the internet and the anonymity it provides there are neither of these forces to let the reader believe the writer knows what he is talking about or is telling the truth if he does. The compromise would probably be a newspaper type entity acting as an editor and screener, finding a small but reliable army of writers to give local news new life. The biggest obstacle will be allowing some of the freedom and spontaneity of blogs with the credibility of a news organization. Then is there a market.

by: ymatt

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:26:03 +0000

enki the way the caucus process works in Texas, the ability of Republican agents to affect the outcome of the primary or caucus results is really only limited by their willingness to spend the time on pretending to be a Democrat. That said, I think that Republican cross-over is probably one of two factors that caused the difference in results between primary and caucuses. The primary voting is quick and non-personal, and requires no declaration of party affiliation. Caucusing only requires that you voted in the Democratic primary, but it’s very much *not* quick or non-personal, which I think is just enough discomfort to keep turncoats away.

Also though, my guess is that the confusion and rigors of caucusing kept most older voters away, who clearly broke much more heavily in favor of Hillary in the primary. Even of those who did caucus, the age skew was very obvious.

To Steve’s comment: setting aside the compliment, which is clearly undeserved, I also wonder about this. It seems like even in the popular blogosphere (as much as I hate that term), there is a skew toward the big, expected narratives in news reporting and commentary. The only difference is that there is a little more demographic splitting. It would be really interesting if a website or news organization could tap into a network of trusted local bloggers to cover events like this and raise those stories to better awareness as useful.

by: Steve

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:01:57 +0000

This kind of post makes me wonder if blogs could be a viable source to replace lost local reporting. It strikes me that ymatt’s report of this process is way more readable than most of what you’d find in a newspaper. It’s short and sweet without any of the tired media storylines that clog up most articles.

by: enkidu

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:46:13 +0000

thx for your inside scoop ymatt

I am curious if anyone in Texas is talking about or trying to quantify the effect of Rush Limbaugh asking R voters to vote for Hillary? It would seem to me you wouldn’t need all that many crossover voters to tip the primary vote. Much harder to sway the caucus process with such chicanery. Hence the Hillary primary vote win vs the Obama caucus win in Texas.

+5 to Obama overall right?

by: knarlyknight

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:14:10 +0000

Yes indeed, thanks.

by: jbc

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:51:32 +0000

Yeah: Fun to read about, even if it would have been like pulling teeth (for me at least) to actually experience it first hand.

Thanks!

by: shcb

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:52:22 +0000

Steve kind of touched on this, but what I have always found amazing is how our founding fathers designed a system that has lasted this long. In cases like caucuses and the electoral college there was a practicality in their time. But there is still the need for these processes even though the practicality has been outlived. Reading letters written by Hamilton and Adams and such and reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers you come to realize this wasn’t by accident, they really tried to balance the need of the day with something that would last into the future. That’s not to say they got everything right, they were in large part pretty elitist, but they got a lot more right than wrong. Thanks for the report Matt, that was fun.

by: ymatt

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:20:11 +0000

Oh definitely. If anything, I should be even more impressed now having seen how we make a system work for people with such differing, conflicting points of view. I just suppose it’s one thing to see an engine humming smoothly from the outside, and another to be inside the pistons where all the fiery, lurching combustion happens.

by: Steve

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:43:21 +0000

What you got to observe with all the wrangling for advantage is the system the founders intended. They knew well what human nature was like, how we’ll take such terrible actions when power is on the line.

I don’t think there’s any such utopia where strangers can get along with peace an harmony. It seems the best we can hope for is to set up all these inane rules to channel our sin natures into a process that can yield a result that everyone can agree is legitimate.

I share your concern about the caucus system. I can see how it might be useful for a small, tight-knit community. However, most places don’t have that anymore.