But I happen to know that elderly voters make up a much larger chunk of caucus-goers than usual. Look at the exit/entrance polls if you don't believe me.

Ex: NV: 32% of voters were 42-59, 36% over 60!

you are wrong.

They suck!
....

I have been to many caucuses. I have talked to many people who have caucused MUCH longer than you and I put together.

I saw lots of confusion in our caucuses. It was nuts. Most people just tried to get the core voting of the people who were actually there completed. There was little if any oversite to prove the age of the voter or if they were even registered.

Actually, I could have voted in my caucus, went to other tables or other locations and voted there and then go to a republican caucus and also voted there. As long as I had enough time before the final tally and if I wanted to be an ass and nobody noticed, I could have done this.

Here is some info on my states caucuses.
http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?pa ge=display&id=266

Look for question 11.

Also see more here.
http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucusinfo

Most people have no clue as to how to run these things. There is always confusion and always mistakes.

They also have a narrow upside, in that they gauge a candidate's ability to mobilize and organize on the ground.

The fact is, though, that NONE OF THIS MATTERS. Each state gets to choose how it selects delegates. That's not a rule that's going to get re-written in the next 4 years, or likely in any of our lifetimes.

The lesson is: Know the system. Know how to work the system. Obama did this, and went from a "who?" to being one of the two candidates for the Dem nominee. Clinton missed this, and went from the "inevitable" candidate, to one who is running a close second late in the game.

This year was my first caucus and it was pretty exciting.  A little confusing too, partly because of the large turnout.  

This diary is one of the reasons why I am so strongly opposed to Obama.  His election will represent a terrible set-back to real democracy in our party and country.

He has a history of gaming the system to get elected, ever since he maneuvered to get all his opponents thrown off the ballot in his first primary run.  Now he is rounding up his "activists" to shout down people at caucuses, steal voter signs up, and otherwise intimidate his way toward attempting to steal an election.  When anybody even dares suggest that a secret-ballot system would be better, brownshirts like you come forward and say hi wonderful non-secret ballot systems are that discriminate against workers, parents, and the elderly.

I have news for you.  I have been active politically for several decades, starting when I marched against the Vietnam War as a child and then when I worked full-time for the United Farmworkers for $5 a week.  I have voted Democrat in every election for decades.  But if there was an evening or weekend caucus, I wouldn't be able to attend.  We have 3 kids in diapers, one of whom has special needs.  All our babysitters are also U.S. citizens and voters (and thus themselves would be caucusing), and our family's needs are such that I would not be able to leave our kids with strangers.

Meanwhile, my Mom is 89 years old.  She broke both her arms this past year and is very fragile.  She got out to vote (which only took a few minutes), but she never would have had the strength to make it through a caucu (especially of the chaotic, prolonged type they just had in Texas.

Caucuses discriminate, but Obama will NEVER lift a finger to try to establish a more democratic alternative, because it has served him well.  His brownshirt supporters like yourself will cheer him on.  God forbid that Obama wins the nomination.  Maybe he'll try to take over state Democratic parties so that "expensive" primaries can be abolished, and we can have more of these "democratic" caucuses and thus keep nominating terrible candidates who will get slaughtered in the general election.

to be screamed at and told why their choice of candidate is wrong.

I'l quit thinking caucuses game what little democracy there is if you quit whinning about how wonderful they are, how democratic and how they favor your candidate.  I am sick to death about this subject.  Everyone who isn't a bot sees the difference between a democratic primary and a gaming table.  That is what the caucus system is in the hands of Obama supporters.  They don't even check IDs or residency, you can vote multiple times, the poor working people disabled or elderly are discriminated against and when you go you are harassed and called a racist if you don't support Obama.  Geez could it get any more undemocratic?  Yeah, the super delegates do that in spades.  While I don't like caucuses the super delegates seem to be just fine just as long as they vote for the guy that already gamed the system in the various ways mentioned.  If Obama gets this nomination by threat, subterfuge, intimidation and the other things and then bribes, or threatens the super delegates to get this nomination, especially if the voting totals aren't in his favor, or by so little as to be questionable, when he loses, which of course, he will because only bots are drinking that coolaid, when he loses the GE, even though I will mourn for our country, I will be laughing all the way to the poor house, except there are no more poor houses so I guess I'll just be living on the street.  But I'll still be laughing through my damned tears, because we were so democratic you know?  How depressing.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#WY

There are 59,000 registered Democrats in WY. 8,690, 14.7% of them voted today. 5,378, 9.1% of them voted for OBama.

More than 90%, or 54,221 registered Democrats in Wyoming did not vote for Barack Obama today.

Let's say that 40%, 21,688, of those who didn't signed a petition telling the pledged and super delegates of the state that if they were to vote for Obama at the national convention, then they, the voters, would vote against them the next time they ran.

What should the delegates do?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8583.html

:)

This diary is incredibly stupid and arrogant. Each delegate in primary requires 20 times more votes than in caucus and caucus attended mostly by activists, who enjoy wasting half of the day very counter-productively.

Yep, building the party at the grassroots level is very "counter-productive." No wonder you're a Clinton supporter.

Caucuses should be banned. They're inherently undemocratic. There are no caucuses in the GE. The purpose of a primary season is to pick the best person to represent the party in the GE. If the structure of the primary races is such that someone could be chosen who would be at a disadvantage in the GE, that structure is a failure.

The Dem party has lost the past two GEs, both of which were extremely close. So far, the only Democrat who was successful in the past 28 years was Bill Clinton.

Democratic losses:

* 1980, Jimmy Carter to Reagan

• 1984, Walter Mondale to Reagan
  
• 1988, Michael Dukakis to Bush I
  
• 2000, Al Gore to Bush II
  
• 2004, John Kerry to Bush II

Over the years, the DNC has changed the primary rules and today, we have the horribly messed up reality of today. We need to have primaries that emulate real world voting conditions in the GE. You know, things like winner take all. No caucuses. You can only vote in the state and precinct in which you're registered.

The only variation needed from a general election is the Democratic primary should be for Democrats. There's no point in letting cynical Republicans and right-leaning independents skew the results to suit their own purposes.

It is the sense of entitlement and willingness to try and change the rules in the middle of the game and the assume that most folks are too soft in the head to see through the transparent excuses for doing it that is undemocratic.

If there was a problem with they way the primary season was to be executed in each state, the time to say something was before the primaries started.  To wait until it becomes clear that a butt kicking is in the works and then try and change the rules to avoid said whoopin' rather than accept what the voters have said is undemocratic.

Some caucuses have absentee balloting. Maine does and Obama carried it 59-40.

Yes, caucuses are a game.  Obama is good at playing the game.  He planned ahead for the game.  He has the organization and enthusiastic support to swamp the field.  That's why he's winning...and winning big.

On the other hand, Clinton sucks at the game.  She figured the race would have long been over by now, and didn't bank on having to win all these red state caucuses to secure the nomination.

Obama's success has been based in large part on Hillary's missteps.  These caucuses COULD have gone for her if she had the people, organization, and enthusiasm in place.  She didn't, and that's her own fault.

Caucuses are certainly not the best representation of the will of the voters, but that's the game, and everyone knew the rules far in advance.  Instead of writing diaries about how unfair they are, write diaries about how Clinton messed up by assuming her name recognition and establishment backing would carry her to victory.