As for the caucus process, what a joke! I participated in the Texas Caucus for the 1st time this year. Until about a week before voting, I had never heard of the Texas 2 Step. In my precinct, 130 people showed up to caucus and there was an overwhelming 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of Obama to Hillary supporters and Hillary took Texas popular vote. I live in a huge precinct that covers a large area of town and there’s no way that people would have driven 30 minutes to an hour just to caucus. Also, there are many people being left out of the caucus process i.e. the elderly, shift workers, single parents, students, etc. I don’t have a clue how other states do the caucus, but my elderly mom (she was only there because I drove her) and I spent 4 hours to basically write our information and candidate we supported on a sheet of paper. Then it was announced how many people caucused for Obama and for Hillary, we divided up into those 2 groups and then selected delegates to an end of month convention. In my opinion, it was a complete WASTE of time. I did get nominated to be a delegate and I’m looking forward to expressing my discontent over a very disorganized process in Texas. This week it was announced that there’s such a mess with paperwork getting lost, not turned in, etc. that it’s been decided to just let the delegates show up to the end of March convention and that there would be no official count of caucus delegates. It was by accident I saw the news cast, so how many people will NOT know what has happened.

The thing that really ticks me off right now is that the Republicans are sitting back and laughing at the whole Dem. Party. The one thing that really infuriates me is the reference to how Clinton is picking up most of the Hispanic, women, and elderly votes and in the media it’s been said that Obama takes the college educated voters, etc. I guess I shouldn’t be so sensitive, but I’m a college educated woman and I believe Hillary Clinton is the BEST candidate to take us forward in the next 4 years. 1) With everything going on with the Iraq war still in effect, we need a Commander in Chief with experience that can negotiate with other World Leaders. I think Mr. Obama is an eloquient speaker, but he hasn’t held a nat’l political position long enough. I know she voted in favor of the war, but she like so many Americans were fooled by Mr. Bush into believing Iraq was involved in Sept. 11th. Bush messed up big time. Bin Laden is still out there and now his crazy’s are terrorizing Iraq and other parts of the world. 2) The media would have everyone believing the Clinton’s are hated in Wash. and in many political circles; however, I think her being elected has many afraid she may actually make a difference for America and that’s why so much of the media is handling Mr. Obama with kid gloves. It makes me sick. The media is afraid someone will play the discrimination/race card if they get too tough with Mr. Obama. I don’t care that he’s more accessible and media friendly than Hillary. Do what’s right by the American people, NOT by EGO’s and get the real issues on the airwaves. 3) It’s way past time for America to elect a women as President. Other countries woke up decades ago and America still doesn’t get the message. I believe Hillary will be able to create a more partisan Congress/Senate and get our Trillion $$$ debt turned around toward Black just like when Bill was President. Don’t get me wrong, she’ll do it her way and we’ll become a more financially responsible country, then programs will be in place that will turn around our economy, create more jobs, and dig the middle class and elderly out of this financial nightmare that Bush created.

I just hope the DNC and Howard Dean wake up and smell the roses, instead of bickering over someone breaking some DNC rules. With something as critical as a Presidential election, nothing should be etched in stone. There’s nothing wrong with strict guidelines, but NOT in the case of FL and MI. I just hope neither state uses a caucus because the process is seriously flawed. It doesn’t allow for the greatest possibility of voter turn out and how can that be a fair process.

For the record, my position is that caucuses favor candidates that activists favor, they prevent large numbers of Democratic base voters from participating, and the public nature of them affects how people vote. They just provide fodder for the “pundits” to spout about momentum and other sports oriented drivel.

I have little faith in the DNC and Howard Dean, especially with the way they are handling the Florida and Michigan fiascos. To totally ignore these states will just cause more erosion in Democratic ranks and ensure a McCain victory, and with his positions, that would just mean four more years of the same policies and direction.

I think you are mixing up MI and FL. The circumstances are not the same.

As for Obama winning the caucus in TX, I said that in the original post.

As for this:

For a candidate to come out now , at this stage of the game and say a caucus does not matter is moot.

I haven’t heard any candidate say that. Just as I haven’t heard any candidate say that the superdelegates are a bad idea. What I have heard from Obama supporters is that they think the superdelegates ought to ignore the rules that put them in place and follow the popular vote. And I’ve heard Clinton supporters say that they don’t like the caucuses, but I haven’t heard any of them saying they should be disregarded. I do think you are confusing the supporters of the candidates with the candidates themselves.

Try for a moment to step back from your role as a supporter and look at the overall picture.

but viv, it is the system we have in place now. And who changes it? The members of the DNC. Who voted on the rules we have now.
Just cause a candidate or pundit doesn’t like it now, it can’t be changed.
The states that have caucuses, voted to have them. A state like Va that has a primary, has it because the Dems of Va voted for it. Uniique.
For a candidate to come out now , at this stage of the game and say a caucus does not matter is moot. It is , as they say, bad sport.
And it does not matter.
And a candidate to come out now and say some states don’t matter because they lost them is beyond me.

And Obama won Tx when all the caucus was counted. Why is that not put out there?
You want votes to count, count them all, but not if they don’t follow the rules.
The state of FL set up there own rules as to how they wanted to vote.
They voted to follow the rules of the DNC. They didn’t.

Good job.

Linda – NND is right – all of the candidates were on the ballot in FL.

The Democratic Party in Florida really did not have the ability to stop the scheduling date selected. Then the RNC choose to punish FL by cutting their delegation is half and the DNC made it 100%. It will have no impact to republicans now that McBush is their presumptive nominee. We, on the other hand……..

All names, including Obama, were on the Florida ballot. It is Michigan where only Hillary and Kucinich remained on it.

It is a false comparison and an argument which nobody is making, contrasting VA to FL or MI. Hillary got her butt kicked in VA and that’s that. Whether this whole brouhaha benefits one candidate over the other, Democrats have a huge problem in need of a solution.

It is well within the current rules to exclude seating the delegates (political suicide for the fall,, IMHO). It is well within the rules to seat them through the convention credentials committee (highly unlikely). It is also well within the rules to have the states petition the DNC for an acceptable plan to seat them, according to none other than Chairman Dean.

“All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they’ll be seated,” Dean said Thursday during interviews on network and cable TV news programs.

So this whole meme that Hillary is trying to change the rules after the fact is not accurate. She is trying to seat the FL and MI delegations (yes to possibley her benefit!) within the rules. One could argue, I suggest, that it is Obama trying to “change the rules” with the “demand” that unpledged delegates “must” vote a certain way. They do not.

XXXOOO

But I do have some suggestions for consideration:

Schedules for primaries should be set well ahead of legislature’s ability to change them. If the party has a problem with date the party should inform the state that the delegation will not be seated and encourage the state party to ratify (ahead of time) the date for a contest that will actually count. The problem with the Michigan and Florida situation should not be allowed to occur with anyone thinking they are casting a vote that matters when it does not. A major part of the reform is to eliminate the notion that Iowa and new Hampshire actually deserve such special status.

Eliminate primary dates such as Super Tuesday as they discourage candidates without infinite resources to be competitive in a quasi national primary. No more than 7 contests should occur on any date. 7 X 9 events gets them all in. 9 contests over 3 months should get it done. The advantage is a candidate can spend time in each state which is virtually impossible with a 22 state primary occurring after Iowa, NH and SC.

Super delegates can exist but should probably be limited in their percent of the total delegate allocation. 20% is just ridiculous. This is a party question and I have no problem with zero supers if primaries are closed. However closing primaries discourages people from switching to the party… which is good for the party.

Caucuses should be altered or perhaps even eliminated. However caucuses are much less expensive to run and eliminating them is difficult because of that. Modify the format to include a secret ballot followed by the caucus. Results of the secret ballot are then added to the caucus results for the total result and apportionment. If 15% threshold votes from the secret portion that are otherwise abandoned get divided to the open caucus result. This virtually eliminates any intimidation factor and allows for write in votes to the caucus as well. The effect is an inexpensive primary (write in) with a caucus.

At least 20% of states delegates should be winner take all. Award 20% by state popular vote then do any district allocations. This virtually assures an electoral flavor and that the popular vote winner gets the lions share. (Clinton would probably have a current lead in excess of the popular vote in this system.)

State by state inconsistencies in delegate allocation need to be eliminated. Odd and even districts can alter the result of the popular vote. However this problem is already removed with the 20% rule above.

No two step voting should be required as in the two step texas system as it disenfranchises those that can only attend one vote relative to those that can attend both. However the dual process of the same time prima/caucus system above avoids the problem and allows for significant results from those unable to attend as well as secret balloting.

One of the merits of the caucus system is similar to the merits of super delegates. These are often people that will actively work to get the party nominee elected. While the system is flawed it does have the merits of allowing the party’s grass roots elements who will actively work for the party nominee to have a slightly larger impact overall. I suppose its arguable whether that is better than 100% democracy but if that is the argument there should be no super delegates either.

All of these are debate-able reforms which may be the real goal of your post that I agree with. Caucuses are a problem but so are the proportional primaries. In my opinion, a proportional primary that results in two or three net delegates from a huge state is nuts also.

Changing the rules for Michigan or Florida (as Clinton wants) or super delegate independence (as Obama basically wants) is not allowable in the middle of the game. I also have a real problem that a single contest (Iowa) results in not enough funds to go on for real experienced candidates such as Dodd, and Biden.

But campaign financing is a whole other can of worms.

Personally I’d rather have Biden answer that 3.a.m. call than McCain, Clinton, Bush or Obama. But I don’t want him answering the calls any other time so what good is that? Maybe that’s why Presidents have advisors and contingencies for most of what would be said on the 3 a.m. call. There was even such a thing for 9/11 which included scrabling planes and later taking out the Taliban plan already drafted before Bush was elected.

ANyway hope that was more on point despite the late in the post ramble.

Buzz…Buzz…

The problem she has is her strategy was always consistent with Red State blue state politics. Win the big states and get a majority of the pols to wrap it up with inevitablility, superior fundraising and super tuesday. In a real sense its like Guiliani’s strategy in a lot of ways. Her lack of a knockout left her in a deep delegate hole in post super tuesday contests. Now she can;t catch up and the party is iin peril if she is perceived as stealing it with superdelegates. It’s that simple.

Michigan and Florida won’t do it either. Obama would do pretty well in Michigan to avoid a major delegate loss and the magic number would be raised past 2025 if they go back in with a revote. Same problem at the end.

One thing about Obama his campaign at least IS his red state blue state message complete with organization from followers committed to “making a difference”. They caucus which is rewarded. But if Clinton supporters caucus they would be rewarded as well. Despite the flawed system there is no advantage in it to either.

I know a ton of active people in each camp and call tell you anecdotally what I see with the voters (not the campaign supporters)

The “ask not what our country can do for line” applies.

Clinton voters want to know what he country can do for them, Obama voters want to know what they can do to change the country. Look at the material they send out if you don;t think its so. So before you attack the line consider its an over-generalization not an indictment of the “what can government do for me” base of the party Clinton wins.

But the difference in the supporters makes for an epic struggle, and while I think the camp with the largest army wins in a democratic process, the camp with the most committed army might actually be far superior in getting things done.

at least thats how the caucuses have worked isn’t it?

This will happen in large part becasue most of the black voters who have been the most loyal supporters of the democratic party will be outraged. Forgetting about Obama’s rabid progressive youth, which he might be able to bring in if he is veep, I think this “wishes of loyal black vote issue” is the most serious issue facing the party. These voters do play by the rules which for them include backing only viable black candidates historically. THat is, there is a reason Jackson never got this kind of support and that reason and historical goodwill toward the party will be eroded with a SD reversal.

Though counted on in the general election to carry many swings and blue states, their voice in the their own party nomination process will have been trumped by the supers. Even a small dispassion by Blacks in swing states barely won by the DEMS (Wisconsin /carried by blacks in Milwaukee, Penn/ carried by blacks in Phillly) are two examples, will result in an electoral defeat.

It’s also a disaster for Ohio/(cleveland) and Michigan/(detroit among others) though I think Michigan could remain blue. As for swing state Missouri it’s only close becasue of Blacks in St. Louis. It will stay red with a super reversal.

Bottom line DEMS lose if it plays out that way.

THe party is really playing with fire here in my opinion and risking disenthused support from the base. Listen to some black radio if you think this is not so.

“party takes us for granted” is a meme. and at 90% loyalty it’s a disastorous mistake to let that meme turn into voter emotion and lower turnout.

As the stated purpose of superdelegates is According to Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean,

“Their role is to exercise their best judgement in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party”

the issue I suppose is going to be nation and party. A superdelegate “reversal of the pledged result” will kill the party and result in a loss for whatever national interest there is to have Clinton at the top of the ticket.

While I agreee in principle with everything you said, Hillary is not going to have the pledged delegate lead at the end. So while I disagree with the message of Ms. Brazile, she perhaps is right in what needs to happen for the party.

Just my $.02 as I hope they avoid this train wreck.

“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and one of nearly 800 party leaders known as superdelegates for their ability to determine the nomination. “In order to clinch the nomination, he must anticipate the worst attacks ever….If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate,” Brazile said. “But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby.”

I understand Ms. Brazile’s aversion to negative campaigning, since her unsubstantiated accusation of an extramarital affair against George W. Bush got her fired from the Michael Dukakis general election campaign. (Said Brazile at the time, “The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House”.)

I do not necessarily mean this in a sarcastic way—people learn from their mistakes. However, neither is the irony of Donna Brazile (who accused an opposition presidential candidate of planning on sharing his White House bed with a lady not his wife, and more recently injected race into the Hillary vs. Obama campaign by urging on CNN that Bill Clinton’s use of the words “kid” and “fairy tale” in reference to Obama was racist) describing Hillary’s “3:00 am phone call” campaign add as particularly negative lost on us.
Indeed, some might legitimately refer to Donna Brazile as the queen of campaign mean.

But we can think of at least two reasons why any attempt by the DNC to force an early end to Hillary Clinton’s primary bid based on the content of her campaign message is a bad idea.

First and most obvious, the idea that a political party would try to censor the speech and ideas of a political candidate or campaign in this manner is not only offensive but contrary to the constitutional values of the United States of America under the First Amendment.

Second, ending the primary process now before any candidate obtains the minimum number of pledged delegates will disenfranchise the voters in those states where the Democratic primary elections have not yet been held.

That would mean that the DNC—in addition to disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan (which the DNC has already done, as punishment for holding early primaries)—would be telling the voters with later primaries in their states that their votes will not count either.

In other words by fiat of the DNC, the voters in Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and West Virginia will join the voters of Michigan and Florida in the “your votes don’t count club”.

I applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement on Wednesday implying that the super-delegates should back off for now and let the primary process continue to play out. (“I was never among those who believed this would be resolved by now.”)

I do not think that Speaker Pelosi has gone far enough to insure democracy.

Unless and until a single Democratic Party candidate wins enough pledged delegates to capture the nomination the last primary in the last state should be held and the votes counted.

Only then should the super-delegates cast their votes—in the manner provided by the rules.

All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all
former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of
the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and
all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.

Here in VA, our DNC members will be elected at the state convention.

A caucus is still the general population. Anyone motivated enough to make it to their caucus site gets to participate. There’s no atmosphere of “party bosses” or back-room decisions here.

The primary bill, which at this point had been rolled into a larger legislation train, went to a vote in both houses. It passed almost unanimously. The final bill contained a whole host of elections legislation, much of which Democrats did not support. However, in legislative bodies, the majority party can shove bad omnibus legislation down the minority’s throats by attaching a couple of things that made the whole bill very difficult, if not impossible, to vote against. This is what the Republicans did in Florida, including a vital provision to require a paper trail for Florida elections. There was no way that any Florida Democratic Party official or Democratic legislative leader could ask our Democratic members, especially those in the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, to vote against a paper trail for our elections. It would have been embarrassing, futile, and, moreover, against Democratic principles.

Of course there were only 2 votes in either house of the Florida legislature against the bill. Florida Democrats didn’t exactly put up a fuss about it.

And it should be noted that Florida is being penalized by the RNC too. Their rules call for Florida to lose half its national convention delegates for holding an early primary, and they were still planning on enforcing them as of last November. Of course, with a consensus candidate, they may end up seating the whole delegation (and a few other violators as well) for the sake of making nice. But they don’t have one candidate trying to get the rules overturned for the sake of gaining an edge.

And as far as Obama and the superdelegates go, the difference is this: Obama himself has never advocated changing the rules to pledge the automatic delegates. He has made an appeal to those individuals to consider the results of the actual voting when making their decisions. A number of his more hot-aired supporters have called for trashing the rules, but they don’t speak for the candidate himself.

Caucuses strike me as an exceptionally bad method of picking delegates for all the reasons mentioned above.

How laughable by Obama supporters on the one hand to brag about netting more delegates out of Texas where Obama lost the primary (subverting the will of the people) and on the other hand bitching about the possibility of unpledged delegates choosing the nominee (subverting the will of the people).

Deliciously ironic and quite hypocitical when in both cases, merely rules of the game (stupid rules in the Texas case).

Speaking of allowable rules, I predict the Democratic Parties of FL and MI will resubmit new delegate selection processes to the DNC for approval (which will happen) thereby avoiding a credentials fight (also a legal way to have them seated). Both states will be fully represented in Denver, NOT subverting the will of the people in 2 battleground states in the fall.

Secondly, the idea that a caucus is really just a popularity contest is somewhat misleading. In the Texas caucus, we basically just waited in line and wrote our name down on a piece of paper. Essentially it was just voting. Okay, it wasn’t secret ballot, but that isn’t necessarily a problem; why do we believe that people shouldn’t have to publicly justify why they’re voting for a candidate? We had public voting in this country for well over a century until we ran into the problem of buying votes. I’m guessing there aren’t any accusations of that happening right now? If not, then there’s probably no reason to be upset about it.

But of course, there’s always the argument that caucuses are “undemocratic.” Perhaps so, but is it any worse than the “first past the post” system we use in the primary, where someone could win by getting less than 50% of the vote if there are more than 3 candidates? At least in the Iowa caucus, people get the opportunity to have a second, or third, or fourth, etc., choice, while in a normal primary people only get a first choice. How is the idea that someone can win because they won 40% of the first choice democratic? At least some caucuses can counteract this.

Also, what about the unfairness of geographic representation in primaries? Texas was broken down into geographic districts that award delegates based on winning various districts. As a result, one person might win the popular vote but lose the delegate count, as was a real concern for Clinton. As it stands, Clinton won delegates and the popular vote, but just because the two occurred simultaneously, that doesn’t mean the process is wholly democratic.

And, what about the fact that Texas, which will not be voting for Democrat in November, is getting a chance to decide who is the best candidate? Is that a good system or not? We are picking the Party’s nominee, not necessarily picking the candidate that is most favorable to Democrats (and any Republicans and Independents that happen to join in) nationwide. What about the staggered voting system of the primary system, which seems to benefit states that go first as opposed to those that go second? Is that more or less “democratic?”

Listen, I’m not trying to justify the caucus, or argue against the system we have, but what I am doing is suggesting that there are problems with EVERY election system, including just a pure popular vote. I think it is unfair to discount the Texas caucus and to praise the Texas primary as somehow being a better reflection of the real result.

The biggest problem is that the winner of a system of caucuses may not be the strongest candidate in a general election where it’s not as easy to game the system for the benefit of that state’s activists. In a general election, all those excluded from the caucuses can, and will, come out to vote, and it may not be for the candidate who breezed throught the undemocratic caucus system.

I’m an Obama supporter but I’d feel a lot more secure if he were doing as well in the large, more inclusive primaries as he is in the insulated world of the caucuses.

Florida has a different set of circumstances in that the Republican-controlled legislature set the date. The candidates, for the most part, did not campaign there, yet some 1.7 million Democrats voted in a closed primary. I think the argument can be made that the FL delegation should be seated with a penalty imposed (like only seating half) because the Democrats there had no choice in the matter. I don’t think, however, there should be a do-over here, either.

At the same time, I fully understand the argument against seating any delegates from either state. Rules are rules, after all, even if they hurt my candidate.

In the end, this really is less about our preferred candidates than it is about the process. Whether Clinton did better in primaries or Obama did better in caucuses isn’t the point. The point is that we should all want a fair system. And if the system is messed up, we should be calling out those people who perpetuate it.

The Washington Post has a great article up on some of the internal politics of Clinton’s campaign, and it hits at the internal division over how to handle the caucus states at the end of page 3 and the beginning of page 4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030503621.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008030600084

The rules of the game were set before anybody started playing. Whining about caucuses and “insiginificant states” is no more nor less ridiculous than whining about superdelegates. The rules are the rules – everybody has to follow the same ones, and we can work on changing the ones we don’t like down the road.

The same argument holds, not incidentally, for the Clinton argument visa vis Michigan and Florida. When this contest started, the rules regarding those two states’ delegates were in place. That Clinton wants to change those rules now that they don’t benefit her is disingenuous, as well.

If the superdelegates are boud to follow the vote in their state or district then their intended purpose is rendered meaningless. And before folks assume that I support Senator Clinton’s attempt to leverage superdelegates to overcome her inability to win a majority of elected delegates, let me identify myself as an Obama supporter (after Edwards left the race). Having said that, the superdelegates had better have very sound reasons for overturning the will of the voters in favor of an establishment candidate such as Clinton who will unquestionably energize a dispirited and divided Republican Party and whose negatives make winning moderate independents in November problematic. I fear we will, yet again, face a bring out the base and suppress the opponent’s turn out election. I liked it in the old days when we fought these things between the forty yard lines. It is no coincidence that we were much better able to formulate sound public policy after those elections than after the modern slash and burn elections.

Caucuses are indeed less democratic than primaries. I have personally been disenfranchised by having a caucus conflict with work. I’d like to see us never hold another caucus and go totally to primaries. I’m sure many people have other views on the subject. I think we need to have a dispassionate discussion of this. The time for that discussion is not during the heat of a campaign. Particularly one where one campaign has consistently tried to alibi their own failures by blaming the rules that were well known by all in advance.

The reason to scrap caucuses is not because Clinton has performed so poorly in them. Obama’s campaign has organized circles around her’s. There were no impediments to her competing in them except the arrogance that led her campaign to discount her opposition and conclude that it wasn’t necessary.

The Democratic Party is an important institution that clearly needs to take a look at the way delegates are chosen to our national convention. The proportional allocation system sure needs some tweaking. Let’s take a look at this next year. Let’s win in November first.

A friend told me that the caucus model is a lame attempt at “team building.” If you have ever attended any of these moronic management efforts, you know why I’m sneering. I saw Donna Brazile defend the caucus format on CNN and I had to laugh.

They are undemocratic. They’re great fun for people with lots of time (like some of us who sit at computers). Old people who have trouble getting out, parents (especially single parents), retail workers, not so much.

The elderly and the lower wage folks are the ones the Democratic Party is supposed to protect. Yet the caucus system discriminates against them. The current system the party users is hurting the party and America by fouling up the democratic process.

I do hope that Michigan and Florida hold new elections to help us sort through this mess. I am not in favor of seating delegates based on the existing vote totals, which were based on incomplete election processes.

As for funding them, I think the Democratic Party should set up a separate donations website, with a goal of a specific amount needed to fund the two special elections.

I also think we need a new national chairman.

I like the fact that it is “retail politics”, it’s nice for voters to be able to ask the candidates questions. There’ s a lot of one on one questions and the voters really get to know the candidates.

I don’t like the fact that union members are often put in almost binding situations. We had one supporter who REALLY wanted to caucus for us but didn’t want his boss to see him. Like you quoted earlier, it is VERY public.

I also like the fact that the ads don’t matter as much as face-to-face contact. I think it also causes voters to follow issues more closely.

It tests a campaigns organizational skills and people who participate in the caucuses are the ones who really believe in their candidates. I’m not saying that primary voters dont care but this is giving up a few hours on what is usually the coldest night of the year (IA).
I wish more people participated though, it comes down to a small percentage of a small groups.
However, I like the fact that the candidates get “back to main street” and there is more one on one.

http://goodtimepolitics.wordpress.com/