Caucuses suck

Rubio flyer in Kansas
Rubio flyer in Kansas

Caucuses suck.
Yes, yes they do.

They sucked for Iowa, they sucked for Kansas and the sucked for the Nebraska Democrats as well.

Why? Here is note from a friend who wanted to vote in the Republican caucuses in Kansas:

“Voting started at 10am. Well, it wasn’t clear what time actual voting started, because there were speeches first. I had an 11am appointment with my kids. I would have handed that off to my husband, but he was out of town. And he did not get to vote at all because there was no absentee or early voting.

So I figured I would vote after my appointment, at noon. But I had another commitment at 1pm that I could not miss. But I wasn’t worried because the Marco Rubio sign that I had [above], noted that the whole process only “takes 20 minutes.” Shouldn’t be a problem, I thought.

When I arrived at the distant polling place [there were only 9 places to vote in the largest county in the state] the line out the door was a hundred yards long. A state Rep standing around said it would take about an hour to get to the door, and that was just to check in.

The Rep said that if you were pre-checked in, you could move on up. But the pre-check ended on Thursday. And you probably only knew about it if you had gone to the county party website before then. It wasn’t available if you only looked at the state party site.

I was not able at that point to stand in line for an hour. And the polls closed at 2pm, an hour and a half before I got out of my afternoon commitment.

I suppose I should have skipped my earlier appointment, so shame on me. But is a four hour window on Saturday really the only way to vote for President of the United States?

So, long story short, Marco didn’t get my vote.
I guess my lone vote didn’t make a difference.
But I wonder how many hundreds (thousands?) of others had the same experience.”

 

Nebraska Democrats Hate to Caucus Too

Oh, but the ATTENTION, the Nebraska Democrats gleefully exclaim!

Bernie and Bill and Chelsea came and lavished us with attention!
And the excitement!

Uh huh.

Here are a few numbers to think about:

358,985
Registered Democrats in Nebraska (from 2014).

302,081
Votes Barack Obama got in Nebraska, losing to Mitt Romney in Nebraska in the 2012 General Election.

72,662
Democrats voted in the 2004 Nebraska Democrat primary — the last regular primary Nebraska Democrats had.

52,479
Votes for 2004 winner, John Kerry.

20,183
Votes for all of the rest of the 2004 Democrat primary losers combined.

 

Now, the Saturday Democrat caucus totals:

19,120
Votes for the winner, Bernie Sanders.

33,460
Total Democrat caucus voters.

Take a look at those numbers.
Bernie Sanders received fewer votes on Saturday than the LOSERS back in 2004.
The total number of voters was barely half of the total votes that Kerry got in 2004.

Yet, this is seen as some sort of victory for Democracy?
And don’t even get me started on the fact that the Democrats didn’t vote by secret ballot (same as in Iowa).

Now some may say that this only brings out your hard-core voters. The ones that REALLY want to vote. Hmm. Maybe.

The LJS declares, “Many Nebraska Democrats PREFER caucuses“. Funny but they didn’t seem to ask the 330,000 Democrats who didn’t show.

Some argue we should make it as easy as possible to vote — same day registration, no ID, vote online. But those things are generally looked down upon because of issues of fraud — not because they encourage voting.

Making it difficult to vote — almost a trick to vote, for some people — is not the goal of democracy.

 

“Um…I mean I HATE Hillary! Yeah, that’s it!”

On that note, Ted Cruz pulled out a healthy victory in Kansas, when Donald Trump was the clear favorite in the polls just days earlier.

No doubt the debates made a difference.
But, I also wonder how much the caucus voting schedule kept away the maybe less-intense Trump voter and favored the hard-core, and well organized, Cruz voters.

And then, Sanders in Nebraska?
Again, sure the caucus-goers were feeling the Bern. But there was one UNL caucus where Sanders won 195 to 0.

Hillary, the presumed Democrat Presidential nominee got ZERO!

Then again, since there was no secret ballot, how would you have liked to be the one co-ed at the party that night who stood alone for Hillary?

“Oh sorry, the room is a little fully right now. Maybe you can go down the street to the bingo-parlor to find some like-minded people.”

 

Kay Orr: #NEVERTRUMP

Former Nebraska Governor Kay Orr wrote an Op-Ed yesterday declaring herself among the #NeverTrump crowd, in that she will NOT support Donald Trump if he is the eventual GOP nominee.

On nearly every major issue of our day — defending the unborn, the Second Amendment, and government-run health care — Trump has taken positions not only out of the mainstream of our party, but in direct contradiction to our party’s values and platform.

With Trump as the nominee, we risk undoing the work of generations of conservatives who have championed the ideas and policies that are the backbone of the Republican Party.

She did not mention whether she would support a third-party candidate if Trump wins, as Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse said he would.

The #NeverTrump brigade is certainly growing — at least as a campaign tactic, in any case. For instance, you can find a variety of “#NeverTrump gear at MarcoRubio.com:

Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 8.56.27 AM

But it should be noted that at the last debate, Rubio declared that he WOULD support Trump if he is the eventual nominee. So maybe he’s just selling the hashtagged gear, but wouldn’t actually wear that hat.

For Kay Orr, one note on her Op-Ed. She wrote…

“…projections show that Trump is unlikely to clinch the nomination until after Nebraskan Republicans vote.”

Er…Trump won’t get the nom UNTIL AFTER the Nebraska vote?
But, he WILL still get it then?

Maybe that was meant to be written differently…

 

Dark Money for ME, but not for THEE

And then there is Democrat Congressman Brad Ashford…

Brad apparently went to the Democrat caucuses on Saturday — and it isn’t clear whether he voted for Jeb Bush or for John Kasich. (He has declared his like for both of them, see.)

But Brad also declared that he wants to GET RID OF PAC MONEY in politics!

He feels so strongly about the “Dark Money” in politics, that he posted a very clear pictogram to show just what he means!

Here you go!

Ashford-PAC

You see…
..there are two people connected by the wrist…maybe they are Siamese Twins…or maybe they just have very long cuffs on their shirts so we can’t see their hands…
NO MATTER!
It is clear that one of them is behind a counter. Possibly a bank teller.
And the other one is so upset about Dark Money that he is peeing down his leg!

Ashford PACWell…Congressman Ashford really feels strongly about it!

Yet, somehow he was OK accepting more than $430,000 in “dark money” ads from the Democrat group House Majority PAC to boost his 2014 campaign.

To show that he is against peeing on bags of Dark Money, will Ashford decline the evil cash bags in 2016?

Or will he CONTINUE to sit on the other side of that counter?

 

7 days

Only a week away from Über Tuesday, when the deal REALLY goes down.
The winner-take-all states will give a serious boost to someone.
Can Marco stay alive in his home state?
Can Trump create an insurmountable lead?
Can Cruz be the “establishment” savior?

If possible, things are likely to get even weirder.

Keep track by following @LeavenworthSt on the Twitter and Liking on The Facebook!

73 comments

  1. Republican Donor says:

    Kay Orr is generally regarded as one of the worst Governors (if not The worst) in the history of Nebraska. Nebraska’s voters, in the aggregate, don’t care who she supports or doesn’t support for President, Senator, or dog-catcher.

    • Republican Donor says:

      There was a reason Republican Kay Orr was a one-term governor in the extremely conservative state of Nebraska – eventually losing her office to a DEMOCRAT. There was a reason she was heartily booed at the Nebraska-Oklahoma State game in 1988.

      Kay Orr was a total failure as Nebraska’s governor. Just another fake-conservative trying to tear-down our next President, Donald Trump.

      GO TRUMP GO!

    • I guess I missed where you were elected spokesman for Nebraska’s voters, you know, the ones who voted for Sasse, Trump’s nemesis, by a 2:1 margin. And it’s laughable to claim Orr was the worst governor; she would have been re-elected if Ben Nelson hadn’t exploited the nuclear waste issue. She was defeated by only 0.7% of the vote.

      Try Norbert Tiemann, father of the state income tax.

      • True Truth says:

        She lost by 0.7% during an election when Republicans were over 60% of likely voters. She was a total disaster as governor.

      • Republican Donor says:

        Gerry,

        Now you’re defending Orr’s track-record as governor? Your ignorance is really shining at this moment, making it unlikely that anyone here who was an adult during Kay’s 4-year debacle as our state’s CEO will ever take you seriously again.

      • Crap. Kay Orr’s revenue increase from the tax law change was $11m – $14m. Chump change. She vetoed the major tax increase of her tenure; the veto was overridden. Those would have been mostly Republicans overriding it.

        The electorate subsequently shelled out $150m for electing Nelson.

  2. Bluejay says:

    KMTV reported on the genius Dem caucus at Beals school. Gym was full so it was held on the playground.

    And the most important number in Nebraska is 90,000; the capacity of Memorial Stadium.

  3. Bob Loblaw says:

    Caucuses are absolutely 100% undemocratic for a whole host of reasons. Votes aren’t secret, no absentee, too long of a time frame to vote, unorganized and confusing rules and procedures. Go to a primary ballot and be done with it. The numbers prove that less people are voting. How is this a good thing?

    Also, I would like to see the demographics of caucus goers compared to the overall democratic electorate. I’m guessing it skews whiter, richer, and younger.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Bob Loblaw, There were absentees in NE. Do not think caucus is more democratic, and suspect you are right on demographics. Activists like it because it is a good way to find willing workers and donors and increase participation in party activities. I do not like them, but I am not in charge.

    • Sparkles says:

      Bob Loblaw,
      Re your complaint:
      “Caucuses are absolutely 100% undemocratic for a whole host of reasons. Votes aren’t secret,..

      Kansas Republicans used secret ballots in their just completed caucus.
      And it’s a private process in Iowa, where caucus-goers marked their preferences on a secret ballot, sometimes printed, sometimes just a scrap of paper.

      Democrats feel no such need for secrecy. Say it load and say it proud.

      • Bob Loblaw says:

        Right say it loud. Is that why Democrats in the Unicam are for secret ballots for committee chairs?

      • Sparkles says:

        You’re absolutely on the wrong side of that one.
        The reason Kintner & Kompany want public ballots for committee chairs is so they can exert partisan political influence on R’s they deem aren’t toeing the ideological purity line of their self-empowered Tea-addled collective.
        All those in favor of political thuggery – raise your hand!

        While we’re at it – here’s another indefensible bit of NEGOP debauchery –
        30 senators support a bill intended to make it harder for candidates to misuse campaign donations – and it is Republican John Murante who is single handedly blocking the bill.
        The six-member, bipartisan Accountability and Disclosure Commission voted unanimously to support the bill. Secretary of State John Gale serves on the panel.
        A bill that would ensure the basic integrity of the campaign reporting system, is being blocked by John Murante.
        Explain that one to me.

      • In the Sparkley lexicon, making a vote transparent and accountable is “political thuggery”.

        And when one GOP senator (and let’s face it, there are many members of the unicam who are democrats in GOP clothing) opposes a bill, with a majority of the GOP supporting it, it’s “another indefensible bit of NEGOP debauchery”

        By that ‘logic’, a single Democrat Congressman sexting pictures of his penis means the entire party is composed of perverts. (Though I wouldn’t be at all surprised)

  4. Sparkles says:

    I spit up a bit coffee when you concluded your caucus tirade with:
    Making it difficult to vote — almost a trick to vote, for some people — is not the goal of democracy.

    Really?
    There are certain to be at least 1000 articles written over the last decade about Republican’s attempts to suppress and/or make it difficult to vote.
    At least 1000.
    Dozens of those articles with direct quotations from Republican officials and operatives admitting to their attempts to suppress the vote.

    Voter ID laws… anyone??
    “Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters”

  5. The Eye Ball says:

    This has been said some where else before by someone else, but it is the responsibility of the candidate to unite the Party and Trump is not doing it. Deal with it!

    Also, if you take a look at the latest on the Louisiana primary, Ted Cruz got as many delegates as Trump.

    Trump is going to lose the more people realize he plays to paranoia politics.

    • Republican Donor says:

      Not true. Trump is changing the composition of the GOP, in real time. Trump has masses of loyal supporters.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Republican donor, letter in National Review from prominent Catholic conservatives opposing Trump might indicate the remade party is going from GOP to Old Male Protestant Party.. Little hard to treat any of the signers as liberals and George and Weigle are very influential.

  6. bynd says:

    I heard the lines where so long for the Dem caucus because of all the illegals that were invited to participate. The Dems can invite who they want. But nothing like invalidating the vote of American citizens by allowing non citizens to vote. Different sides of the same coin.

      • bynd says:

        Just as much as supports yours. But I do understand how your unsubstantiated proclamations are so much fun to throw out there. We must be different sides of the same coin! Yours would be the worn down can’t really tell what is on it side:)

    • Oracle says:

      What idiocy! Voters were checked against the voter database. You seem to believe any wild rumor that fits your world view.

      • bynd says:

        As if we don’t live in a goofy world where non citizens can sue the government for rights meant only for the citizens. And win!

        As I said to Oracle, are you folks so paranoid that even something that “goofy” would get you into such a tizzy?

        In each statement is a little truth that makes it seem possible. That would be the issue.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, a couple my siblings were out doing the checking and saw none of this. The post is just not plausible.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd If non citizens sue and win, the rights involved must be rights of persons, not citizens. Given language and history of Constitution no big surprise, particularly where due process and equal protection are involved. Like Father William you should stick to arguing cases with your wife. I can not do that, my wife is an excellent lawyer and usually wins.

      • bynd says:

        RL: The post was not plausible. That would be the point. Still interesting how the libs knee jerked their defense against such “non plausible” statements.

        As to the rights for illegals. Do they have the right to demand/sue for state ID cards? Do they have the right to sue for drivers licenses? They do and it works. Do they have the right to stop Americans from celebrating America? They do it all the time. Especially in schools.

        Sorry RL, some of us still believe in the common sense of the law and not the perversion driven by PC. And least you are tempted to dispute, there must be a reason that Dems and Repubs work so hard at getting their folks on the bench. Because it isn’t about justice, it is about the legal system.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, Granting driver licenses or state ids to illegals is a matter of statute not litigation and varies from state to state. It is totally irrelevant to your original post which was not limited to illegals. What PC has to do with it is beyond me.
        As far as not celebrating America in the schools, I have no idea what you are talking about, probably because you do not know what your talking about.

  7. Bob Loblaw says:

    Sparkles,

    You still don’t answer the question of whether or not you think caucus are good for democracy or exclusionary.

  8. Sparkles says:

    House Majority PAC is in fact, not “Dark Money”.
    As per FactCheck.org – totally transparent, all it’s donors and recipients disclosed:
    “As a super PAC, it can take donations of any size from individuals, labor unions and corporations, but must disclose its donations and expenditures..”

  9. Anon says:

    Withering attack by the globalists led by general Romney and Washington (Post), Cussing, Nazi’s, and what the foreign nations think. Big amounts of money to direct playing with America’s blood and treasure

      • Sparkles says:

        Almost time to retire my position in tin foil futures and, in preparation for a contested convention, roll the sizable profits into torches and pitchforks.

        4 hours ago – Cleveland.com
        “Cleveland seeking to buy riot gear for Republican National Convention”

        Man, this is going to be a great summer.
        Pass the popcorn.

      • With nearly a thousand Trump delegates coming to town, riot gear may be the cheapest thing they need. They’ll need special teams to teach people to use indoor toilets, lots of methamphetamine testing labs, and detox equipment to treat people who drank too much meth.

  10. Ricky says:

    How much of a chance do the rightys give the GOP to take down Mr Ashford? After all isn’t he supposed to be vulnerable the first time he has to run for re-election to the House?
    Here are the chances I give to the seat going to the Repubs: SLIM and NONE!.
    Oh but wait a minute I see my failed City Councilman Franklin Thompson AND loyal Republican Aimee Melton have endorsed Don Bacon. OMG ! That means trouble for Brad! Ummm not really.
    Thank God we don’t have to see Lee Terry’s puss in the news anymore. Where did that guy go anyway?
    Traveling anywhere but Omaha?
    Good.
    ricky from omaha

  11. Sparkles says:

    Would some of you Republicans please pass this headline on the NE Legislature, if possible, specifically to Mark Kolterman –
    “The US Supreme Court on Monday overturned, with no dissent, an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that denied a same-sex adoption.”

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Sparkles, Case deals with full faith and credit to a judgment of adoption from another state, has nothing to do with state laws barring adoption by gays and lesbians. If you are going to give legal advice, read the case. Stigma argument from SSM Case might ultimately impact adoption statutes, but not this case.

      • Sparkles says:

        I did read an overview of the case and I know exactly the specifics to which you refer.

        You being a former professor of law, choose (rightfully) to view specifically the narrow, precise legal ruling. I understand just enough about law to know is exactly how the ruling should be interpreted.

        But, having no background in law, I choose a broader view. A view in which this case could indeed affect other states that challenge or deny same-sex adoptions, according to a brief submitted by adoption and child welfare agencies.
        I think in an indirect manner this ruling is relevant to the bill Kolterman put forward. And of greater relevance, to any desire the state of Nebraska might, yet again have, to waste time and money on a lawsuit they are certain to lose, a lawsuit motivated purely by political pandering.

        Speaking of which, former AG Bruning brought several such (special interest, political pandering) cases, losing case after case. There was always great fanfare when the lawsuits were launched, but it required great effort, many months later, to find news of their ultimate demise. Never was it reported how much it cost the NE taxpayer to lose such cases, taken up on behalf of special interests.
        I’ve always wondered, would the majority of legal professionals rate Brunig; good, bad, mediocre?

      • Sparkles says:

        Also relevant to the case, in a peripheral but meaningful way, is that it was a summary decision reversing the Alabama Supreme Court.
        A court presided over by the the ever-offensive Chief Justice Roy Moore.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Sparkles, Problem is this is a technical case in a very lawyerly part of Con Law. Not a good case to look for tea leaves. NE AGs used to be mostly lawyers, now they are mostly politicians. Hard to rate when they are reading election returns not law books.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Sparkles, your second comment about Ala. S Ct is right on.Court is not unaware that elected judges some times play to voters and leave the right answer to SCOTUS.

  12. Nice piece on Politico about Trump’s war with Silicon Valley. He’s attacks Apple, threatening (impotently) to make them do iPhne fabrication in the US; and insulted Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. He hate high tech, probably because almost everyone there could spot him 50 IQ points and still be smarter.

    Nice; a Republican who hates America’s most successful industrial sector.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Sparkles, you say Republicans attempt to suppress voting. Democrats and independents also suppress voting. All checks, balances, bicamerals, etc., exist because we all maximize our advantage and disadvantage our opponents to the limit of rules and penalties instituted. Thus if caucuses allow intimidation, that is the problem. You cannot take intimidation out of people. You can only remove it from elections by having all voting for public officials done by law in voting booths. You outlaw caucuses for picking public officials. For picking in-party boogers, caucus all you want.

    Eye Ball says “the responsibility of the candidate to unite the Party and Trump is not doing it.” Wow, that is incredibly stupid. It is the nominee’s job, not a candidate’s job, to unite a party. You cannot unite a boxing match while its going on. Anyway, how did “Reagan Democrats” unite the GOP? Reagan didn’t unite the GOP, he changed it at the bone marrow level.

    Fellow bloggers, if you must resort to spasms of career ending stupidity, keep using pseudonyms.

    • Sparkles says:

      Anonymous, you state;
      “Democrats and independents also suppress voting.”

      Please point to a single instance where the Democratic party engaged in voter suppression.
      One.

      This b.s. of “both sides do it” is ill-informed and a cancer on our nation.

  14. Dean BakenshipFormerDemocrat says:

    LETS BE REAL – A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SOUTH OMAHA IS MADE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

    No one can dispute this fact. It is not racist, it is simply stating reality. It’s not hard to figure out. The Police know, the Mayor knows, ICE knows, employers know, lots of people know this but its unspoken because all and all everyone just gets along with it.

    Yet, so many have fake ids and vote under their fake names that they have taken years ago when they first entered. I know this from personal experience. I am not saying most of these illegals are bad people, they are not, so many are wonderful and I would probably be in their same shoes if I was born in some of their situations but the fact is they are illegal and they vote. (which is unfair)

  15. Danger says:

    I read from a good source that 25-30% of the republican voters are Freikin’ Nazi’s, I don’t mind the low per cent of illegal voters but this is crazy, they should have everyone have a college degree to vote

    • bynd says:

      Danger: How about have a meaningful college degree. What would that mean? A degree that will earn the person who paid for it enough to pay back their student loans and still support themselves. How ignorant can one be to not be able to figure that out?

  16. According to this morning’s WaPo/ABC poll, Trump’s lead is shrinking; he’s down by 3 points over last week. More important, in terms of the number of Republicans who would be satisfied with him as the nominee, he trails Cruz., Rubio, and even Kasich. Only 51% of the GOP would be satisfied with a Trump nomination.

    He has no chance of the presidency, and a steadily decreasing chance of even being nominated. He has flip-flopped so much no one knows what his position is on anything. He’s now back to being pro-torture, but now he says the law needs to be changed to allow it. The ‘law’ here is the Geneva Convention; good luck with that.

    Time to stop wasting your time, Trumpkins, and go back to whatever it is you do with your lives. You’ll probably live down the disgrace some day.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I expect GH to eat his words when Trump rides the wave of disgust with politics as usual from both Republicans and Democrats and beats Hillary. Stranger things have happened, i.e. the last 8 years of Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.