My Caucus Experience In Nevada

I posted this last night in GD, but thought others here might be interested, too. :shrug:

I was a volunteer at the caucus and, all in all, I think things went pretty smoothly for us. There was potential for disaster, and I think, from the criticisms I've been seeing, having a good solid base of fair-minded volunteers is what makes things run more smoothly at these events. We had four good folks (5 including myself), including my SO who re-registered as a Dem to participate and ended up being a great and much needed volunteer!

I learned only this week that my services were needed -- I started a new job back in October, so I had given up my volunteer work with the Party back then. But, I was asked by my neighbor if I could help -- he had just been asked to chair the caucus. I immediately said yes, I'd do whatever was needed. We both went to caucus training this week, picked up the materials from Dem HQs, and bought supplies -- paper, markers, food, water, name tags, masking tape, etc. (can I write this stuff off as a donation on my taxes? :shrug: :)) Anyway, better to be prepared than get up there in front of 150 people, some whom you know, and be ill-prepared.

I stayed up late last night making signs for each candidate, agonizing over whether they were equally spaced, spelled correctly and of equal size and aesthetic. Nothing fancy. I didn't want anyone to think we were playing favorites. ("Who's Gravel?", most people asked.) I re-read the caucus rules twice to ensure I knew what the heck I was doing.

I arrived at the caucus early this morning, and I was met by a group of Clinton/AFSCME supporters from Iowa who assured me they could volunteer for us. They seemed eager and sincere, but I did wonder why one kept suggesting that she would help us count. I thanked them for their offer and immediately gave them a name tag that said "Observer" and sent them to where we had set up a place for observers. I told them that they could not participate in any aspect of the caucus. The Caucus Chair backed me up on this -- we set the ground rules from the start with observers, and I think that saved us some hassles in the long run. (Observers were strictly forbidden to walk around after the meeting was called to order.)

After 11 am. the line outside suddenly doubled! Having been a District volunteer since '04, I knew our precinct and the precincts surrounding ours (I've probably walked almost every street), so I was able to help manage the lengthy line of people outside standing in the cold. I grabbed maps that I had printed out (experienced canvassers know that most voters don't know what precinct they live in) and walked the line to check if they were in the correct location. Many were not in the right location and I directed some to the precinct around the corner, down the street, etc. We even had a couple of Republicans looking for their caucus site, and I just happened to know where that was, too. ;)

The Obama observer was concerned that I would close the door at 11:30 -- he had heard me tell a gentleman that he was in the wrong place and needed to be at a school down the block by 11:30. I assured the Obama observer that we would get everyone in. I was very cognizant of the fact that the observers were making sure we were running a fair caucus -- and our Caucus Chair knew the importance of this, too.

We had 44 new voter registrants -- checking people in was a laborious process. But we got it done, asking for people's patience and consideration.

The Caucus Chair was great. He joked with the crowd, made them feel comfortable, and told them that with their cooperation, we could have them all out as soon as possible. I had a good community feeling of being in a meeting with people I know -- many of my neighbors attended, to my surprise.

It was a bit awkward casting my 'vote' in public. My two candidates didn't meet the viability required and I had to re-align. It was the toughest decision in my voting career, and I felt odd making a choice like that with others watching and trying to convince me. The second re-alignment was exciting, because the two big camps -- Hillary and Obama -- were trying to convince the smaller two groups --Kucinich and Edwards -- to come to their sides. The Hillary and Obama folks surrounded our small group. Two people left in defiance -- I ran after them to make sure they knew that if they left, they forfeited their 'vote.' "If I can't vote for my guy, I can't vote for anyone!" one strong Edwards supporter yelled at me. Of all the voters in the room, my SO was the most vocal. I was inspired and was proud to hear that he had been paying attention all this time. ;)

I could go on, and I appreciate all who care to read this. On the one hand, I feel proud to have been able to participate in a community event like this -- being in a room full of Democrats who took time from their day to support change was exciting -- the positive energy was palpable. On the other hand, I remain saddened and still cynical that candidates with sincere and important messages have been virtually shut out of this race by the media and other powers that be.


I am exhausted.

I missed this last night.

And it does require the ability to communicate persuasively in "opposition" to other groups (in some cases in support of an Un-Committed delegation) a skill you're not going to see real often, especially in a circumstance in which people begin by feeling uncomfortable about "voting" publicly.

In our case, our numbers were much too small and that would've required 10 or 11 people to switch to our group. Considering that the Clinton and Obama groups' numbers were so close -- each had about 60 or 65 -- none of them were interesting in giving up any people. These two groups dominated the caucus with their numbers.

I've talked with friends from other precincts, though, where they were able to pull that off -- garnering support from other groups to allow their candidate to receive a delegate or two. (Most of my friends are Edwards or Kucinich supporters.)

show enough margin, to not only engage in constructive persuasive statements, but to also ask more Socratic questions of other groups and individual group members? Of course, you wouldn't do so in order to destructively criticize, but for more strategic reasons. Is that kind of probing okay?

and that is why I was so proud of him. He had, for example, asked both Obama and Clinton supporters how they could defend their candidates on the issue of corporate control/moneyed donations (I had recently showed him some of the charts from DU and elsewhere showing Clinton and Obama neck and neck in donations from corporations, for example). He gave specific examples of how both were guilty of garnering much money from corporations. He pointed to Obama's hypocrisy on the matter and 'the Hillary corporate machine' (my interpretation not his words). One Hillary supporter rationalized it by saying, "At least Hillary isn't denying she does that!"

Most of the Clinton supporters became defensive, and I wasn't privy to the entire discussion because we had people leaving and I had to man the doors and such. But, bottom line is that it was my SO's opinion that neither group could adequately support or defend their candidate -- and, of course, we knew they couldn't. It didn't help to change their minds -- and it didn't help to change ours either.

While it got people thinking, and caused quite a stir, it just wasn't enough to change their ingrained minds. I think many of these people are surface thinkers -- and I don't mean to sound elitists or whatever. These are average voters who don't go on line like many of us here do and learn to extract info for themselves. They are spoon-fed their info from teevee -- they are hard working people who work, in many cases, two jobs, and who don't have the time or inclination to really go further to examine the issues behind the choices they are made to believe they have.

I, and about four other people that I knew, including my SO, really saw this as having to 'vote' for a lesser of two evils. Now I know that doesn't sit well with a lot of DUers who think that any Democrat is good enough, and when it comes down to the GE when it will be a choice between a Dem or a Repub, I will cast my vote for the Dem no matter who it is. But, in this situation, where I felt in my heart that neither of the 2 choices put in front of me were the best choice for various reasons too numerous to expand on now -- where my convictions were so strong that I agonized over it like I never imagined that I would have to -- it did boil down to which was the 'least worst', IMHO.

:kick: and R!

Thanks for the insight - the most I understood about this so far comes from your post.
I am very happy my state has a primary, though.

for the Democrats.

It is very informing how the process works. As an Edwards supporter, can you give me any idea of why he did so poorly? I'm wondering if the precincts are so small (number of voters) that it was difficult to get the 15 minimum to keep him viable. I work elections in California and the smallest precinct I've worked had well over 400 voters with maybe less than half showing up to vote. Despite that, they can vote for any of the candidates so all of the candidates get votes. It seems that the more voters in the precinct, the more likely there would be enough voters to maintain a third place or lower candidate. Since Nevada outside the big cities is not that populated, maybe some of these caucuses consisted of less than 100 voters. I'm just trying to understand whether it was the nature of the system or the lack of supporters that garnered Edwards 4%.

get another chance to see it.

Obviously not a real account.

No, he did not. :)

I'm a veteran of several caucus's in Iowa.
I read your piece and could relate with it from beginning to end. Very Good.
I am glad to hear how you handled the observers. That needs to be handled firmly and efficiently. They can have no influence. It sounds like you did just that.
The chair position is not a fun position to be in. It sounds like you educated yourselves very well to the process and handled it very well.
It seems to me most people do not understand that the people that run these things are volunteers and yes mistakes are made. But all in all most are handled very well.
From what I read Nevada had an amazingly large turnout. We had a similar situation here too. I think this bodes well for the future of the Democratic party in these states.
Congrats on handling this well.....and thank you for volunteering your time for a wonderful process.

Coming from a veteran of Iowa caucuses, I appreciate your comments much -- I'll pass the word on to all the other volunteers that worked our precinct. They will be happy to know this, I'm sure. The Secretary called me this morning to apologize because she had been ill and felt she was not at the top of her game and could have been more organized. I told her, "Nonsense!" She did great and you are right -- we are all volunteers. Mistakes are made. We do the best to correct them, learn from these mistakes and do better next time.

Thanks again! :hi:

edited typo