Well, this seems to be "it". The general consensus amongst the pundits is that if Obama wins the caucuses tomorrow night, it will catapult him to the nomination. If he doesn't, then we're stuck with Hillary as our nominee. It seems that every single poll has a different leader and other than the Des Moines Register poll, which shows Obama way ahead, every one is within the margin of error. On a pure fan of politics level, this is incredibly fascinating and exciting. It's literally a toss up. I was watching Hardball earlier tonight and Chris Matthews said he hasn't seen anything like this since Kennedy-Nixon. Usually in the last week, someone pulls ahead. Not so this year. Even on the Republican side it's too close to call. I'm going to go out on a limb and say John Edwards won't get nearly as much support as everyone seems to be saying he will. In fact, I think he'll finish at least 5 points behind the winner.
Tucker Carlson had an interesting point of view earlier tonight. When talking to some campaign manager, he said he thought the entire caucus process was undemocratic. By its very nature, the caucus excludes people. Soldiers overseas, people who work night shifts, single parents who can't leave their kids to caucus for 2 hours at night, etc. Carlson's argument stems from the fact that people just can't get out and vote like they can in a primary. It takes time to caucus. You've got to rearrange stuff in your life. It's not a secret ballot. You have to get in front of people and argue for what you believe in. Because it is so "difficult", you end up with a small amount of people who make the decisions for everyone.
Now, I can see Carlson's point. However, I think it brings up an interesting argument to the bigger debate of whether or not there should be a "test" in order to vote. I've said in the past that I believe everyone should be able to vote. However, I do believe that people should be able to answer some basic questions. As of now, I'd be for a weighted voted system: everyone gets to vote, but their vote isn't worth as much if you don't know what the hell you're voting for. Come to think of it, that's definitely another area in which I'm not "Leftist". I don't know a single liberal who would even consider a "test" to vote :)
Anyways, my point is that I think a caucus is sort of a "test" in a sense. The people who caucus are far more knowledgeable than the average primary voter who just drops their ballot in a box and leaves. Caucus goers have to interact with the presidential nominees. They have to actually get in front of their friends and neighbors and argue why their nominee is the right nominee. Isn't this a more democratic way of doing things? I'm not quite sure. It would be a good topic to talk about on the Dead Politics podcast. Obviously, one argument against this would be "well, that Iowa soldier in Iraq might really want to participate but can't for obvious reasons". Of course, there's plenty of people in primaries who have stuff come up as well. I don't know, it's an interesting thing to talk about.
One thing's for sure, I'm gonna have my popcorn out tomorrow night :)
I'm watching Leno and he's knocking stuff out of the ballpark. The Tonight Show and Conan are hamstrung by the writer's strike, whereas Letterman has struck a deal with them, so Leno and O'Brian are relying on themselves to do jokes and come up with bits. I have to say, Leno did a fair job. I can't wait to see what O'Brian does.
No comments:
Post a Comment