Seattlest: The Washington Caucuses Helped Renew Voters' Faith In Democracy. Why Does Paul Krugman Gotta Hate On That?

cbendixe

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:52:15 -0800

Kids, there's always more venom out there. Perhaps you've been in the Seattle kindness bubble for too long. I'm not saying Krugman is right, but I wouldn't doubt that supporters of any of the candidates have gotten up in his grill. As for those "people don't bother to put in the two hours on a Saturday to make a bigger difference than a pen mark": I'm the only member of my family, all WA State voters and hardcore Dems, to caucus on Sat. Everyone else had to work. Oh, and did I mention that we're Mexican-American? It's been said in the MSM that Clinton has won in the primary states (all those pen users), while Obama has won big in the caucus states (non-lazy democracy participators). Any correlation between that and the fact that Hillary has been getting the Hispanic vote in larger proportions than Obama? I know, I know, my case is a purely anecdotal one. Just sayin'.

arborheightsist

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:25:17 -0800

My little knothole on this whole process in southwest Seattle was that everyone agreed to support whoever the Dem candidate is because we don't need any more republicans (w)recking the republic.

romulus

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:06:34 -0800

It was my first caucus, and despite the perception that it is exclusive and wasteful... Well, it's not exclusive, it's just that most people don't bother to put in the two hours on a Saturday to make a bigger difference than a pen mark. Really, it wasn't onerous at all. In fact you don't even need to stay there the whole time. But the best part of the caucus for me was getting to share opinions and make impressions on people. While my precinct was already majority Obama, we convinced enough people to switch to make it a total win. I spread what I thought about my candidate to others who were listening, and it had results. Granted, I might have not been so successful in outcome if it had tilted the other way. But it was still an important process for me. So it's neither onerous or wasteful, its involving. Krugman's argument is... well, pointless. He's arguing that the two candidates are equivalent in order to suggest, I suppose, that we should all therefore support HRC. Well, I don't at all believe the candidates are equivalent, and neither do the rest of Obama's supporters. But to see Hillarites publicly going on a sort of whiny defensiveness like this... Ehhxcelent.

Michael van Baker

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:06:16 -0800

I suppose it depends on the ground as you define it, Jeremy. Aside from the vitriol that Krugman has come in contact with, you seem to be saying, there's not that much vitriol. I'd like Krugman to have specified the provenance of this venom, sure. I'm just assuming he's talking about what he's personally run into. (Washington may be a little isle of civility compared to NY and the Beltway.) As for it being absent from our caucuses: that may be. He doesn't reference them. That's what I mean about reaching, and mostly in reference the post title.

Jeremy M. Barker

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:44:30 -0800

Michael--of course that's not the hyperbolic part, the hyperbolic part is suggesting that Obama (or his supporters) are as vitriolic as Nixon or as cultish as W. and his followers. That's not to say that Krugman wasn't a big Edwards supporter, and on that I fully agree; Edwards drove the policy discussions in the run up to the primary, and that had a positive effect on the overall campaign. I count myself an Edwards supporter and would still like to see him get a v.p. nod. And yes, of course people feel vehemently about their candidates. I far prefer that to the lukewarm response we've had in the past. Shouldn't people care strongly? Isn't this important? Isn't it a bit disingenuous of Krugman to suggest we should all be happy with either as a choice (a fair enough statement) then turn around and accuse one of them of fear-mongering a la Nixon and strutting like a puffed-up Bush (the lowest insult a liberal could throw)? Would Krugman be happy--really--with someone of whom that was true? It's a political broadside. And given the suggestion that the supporters might be the ones really to blame strikes me as unfair, and an uptick of vitriol that was largely absent from our caucuses. Perhaps its Krugmam who step back from his inbox and look at things with a bit more perspective. The op-ed pages of the Times and they furious, enraged email fussilades he's accustomed to don't really seem to represent the reality on the ground, I'm sorry.

Charles Redell

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:37:01 -0800

most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. Interesting because my experience at my caucus was that the Hillary folks were VERY defensive and very sullen. In fact, this whole season, it has seemed that they are quite against the thought of anyone else taking the presidency from their girl. Admittedly, many Obama fans are the same. Espeically the young ones. And I AM afraid that if he loses (especially because of super delegates) they will skip voting and we'll have another bat-shit insane R in the office.

Jack

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:35:38 -0800

I appreciate the caucus process for its exclusivity, in that the people who actually leave the couch to participate get to have the most say. On one hand, I'm glad the primary doesn't mean anything to the democrats because it's a flawed system wherein any nut with a crush can vote for their candidate with the simple lick of a stamp. On the other hand, the caucus-only preference by the Dems does unfortunately leave seniors and others with mobility issues out of the process. I don't know what the right answer is.

Michael van Baker

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:27:11 -0800

Is this the hyperbolic part:Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.I don't know, Jeremy -- you're reaching. People keep labeling Krugman a Clinton supporter when he was more admittedly an Edwards supporter. Also, while you may not have seen much venom at WA caucuses, I think Krugman probably sees much, much more without leaving his Inbox. And of course there's Josh's point about the 15% of eligible voters. I'm glad they turned out, I had a great time myself, but listening to Obama supporters try to persuade me to vote for him was an education in cult of personality itself. Not that there are not good things to say about Obama, but a good deal of people are voting who seem to believe that Mr. Smith Goes To Washington was a documentary.

sciencevsromance

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:15:50 -0800

Somewhere around fifteen percent of eligible voters participated in the caucus. It was recordbreaking and fun and inspirational, but it is a process that is by design exclusive and not especially efficient.

jessejb

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:08:45 -0800

Im glad someone else mentioned national news' lack on mentioning anything at all about WA caucuses.

Katelyn

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:58:47 -0800

I got an email from Barack Obama himself this morning, telling me that I personally was the one who did what all the cynics said we couldn't do. Apparently I created some momentum, and set an amazing standard, and also provided a huge boost. It's all me, bitchezz. Gifts, flowers and cards can be sent to my caucus location up at Prospect Church. They know how to reach me!