Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

(10,721 posts)

19. WA also had a primary, by the way. Higher turnout in spite of being meaningless.

Thu Dec 22, 2016, 12:43 PM

Dec 2016

And a much different result, too.

Anyway, I'm all for getting rid of caucuses.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

19 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

All of the Democratic faithless electors were from caucus states [View all] Gothmog Dec 2016 OP

for sure MFM008 Dec 2016 #1

They weren't "faithless" because of the caucus FBaggins Dec 2016 #2

I saw those reports also Gothmog Dec 2016 #6

Definitely. There's no way to spin this NWCorona Dec 2016 #17

Yes. And have Democrats choose the Democratic candidate. Squinch Dec 2016 #3

Minnesota has already voted to eliminate caucuses The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #4

The caucus system is "outdated" and should be eliminated frazzled Dec 2016 #7

I think they demonstrated why even an electoral college is flawed. dubyadiprecession Dec 2016 #8

The problem is it is far more expensive to have primaries. duffyduff Dec 2016 #9

Texas had both but had to drop the Texas two step Gothmog Dec 2016 #10

One possible solution Retrograde Dec 2016 #11

That is how primaries work in many states Gothmog Dec 2016 #13

Agreed. sheshe2 Dec 2016 #12

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #14

Minnesota had one, but he was replaced with a loyal elector. MineralMan Dec 2016 #15

caucuses are disenfranchising to the democratic base, and those who support it La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #18