December 7th National Caucus Results

cloakmanor · December 12, 2007, 12:27pm

Interesting, if moderately surprising, results at the December 7th GOP and “Open” Caucus.

http://www.nationalcaucus.com/results

Barack Obama Wins Democrat Caucuses; Ron Paul Dominates Both GOP And “Open” Caucuses

On December 7, 2007 across the country, Democrat, Republican and Open Caucus groups formed independently and Caucused on National Caucus Day. The First National Presidential Caucus is now history and the results are in.

Results were tallied from 19 Caucus groups (Republican, Democrat, and Open) that met on Friday, December 7th, 2007 in Dallas, TX (2D); Sarcoxie, MO (O); Boise, ID (R); Needham, MA (D); Carthage, MO (O); Manhattan, KS (D & R); Pineville, MO (O); Richmond, MO (O); Costa Mesa, CA (O); Springfield MO (R); Winston-Salem, NC (O); Overland Park, KS (R); New York City, NY (O); and Joplin, MO (R), Warrensburg, MO (R), Roselle Park, NK (D), and Philadelphia, PA (O).

Barack Obama wins over Democrat voters generating 40% of Democrat Caucus voter preferences. Obama was followed by a three-way tie for second, with John Edwards, Bill Richardson and “Undecided” each generating 20% of Democratic Caucus preferences.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul obliterated the field for the GOP generating the preference of 50% of GOP Caucuses. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson follow, generating 33.3% and 16.6% of Republican Caucus preferences, respectively.

Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes, followed by Barack Obama (18.75%), Fred Thompson (12.5%), and Hilary Clinton (6.25%).

Some caucuses used multiple voting rounds with minimum vote thresholds to give citizens a chance to change their minds and switch candidate preferences, but all meetings were built on a first round of issue discussion and deliberation. Multiple rounds of voting were not prohibited and each group was encouraged to create the most engaging caucus format possible. However, threshold voting eliminates all but the top vote-getters. While that may have been the intention for some groups, the NPC feels obligated to recognize the efforts and opinions of all caucus goers.

Issue results reflected opposition to Iraq involvement, foreign intervention in general, and health care, immigration and erosion of civil liberties rounding out the top concerns of all Caucus goers.

Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. The NPC feels that the results at each caucus is of greatest importance and relevance to those in that caucus room and to that local community where those ideas were exchanged, relationships were created, passions were shared. We believe this is social capital formation at its finest.

Zap_Branigan · December 12, 2007, 7:41am

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
…
Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. …[/quote]

I think this says it all. When the biggest groups are described as “hundreds” of people it is easy to see that a small group of highly motivated people such as Paul supporters can have a big influence.

cloakmanor · December 12, 2007, 7:54am

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
…
Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. …

I think this says it all. When the biggest groups are described as “hundreds” of people it is easy to see that a small group of highly motivated people such as Paul supporters can have a big influence. [/quote]

Indeed. During the 2004 primaries I believe a record low turned out to vote. If one is to assume a significant increase over the last primary turnout perhaps the percentages would obviously be greatly affected? Would you consider this a fair statement Zap?

lixy · December 12, 2007, 7:59am

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
…
[/quote]

Zap, you probably have seen your fair share of US elections in your lifetime. Have there ever been such a grassroots fuss about a Rep/Dem “outcast” candidate? From what I gather, Paul is having a very active fan base that seem to challenge the “big bucks” candidates campaigns and their professional PR machine.

I mean Hillary is yet-another Democratic hopeful, with hardly anything to distinguish her from her husband’s campaign over a decade back. Rudy is feeding people the typical GOP line (the boogeyman’s out to get you!). The momentum around Paul - and his astonishing growth - is pretty singular. Can anyone draw any parallels with any other past candidate? If not, to what extent do you think the internet is reshaping the political landscape? Would you consider it the ultimate democratic tool?

Zap_Branigan · December 12, 2007, 8:25am

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
…
Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. …

I think this says it all. When the biggest groups are described as “hundreds” of people it is easy to see that a small group of highly motivated people such as Paul supporters can have a big influence.

Indeed. During the 2004 primaries I believe a record low turned out to vote. If one is to assume a significant increase over the last primary turnout perhaps the percentages would obviously be greatly affected? Would you consider this a fair statement Zap?[/quote]

It would work in Pauls favor but I think turnout would have to be even lower than ever for him to win.

Zap_Branigan · December 12, 2007, 1:27pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…

Zap, you probably have seen your fair share of US elections in your lifetime. Have there ever been such a grassroots fuss about a Rep/Dem “outcast” candidate? From what I gather, Paul is having a very active fan base that seem to challenge the “big bucks” candidates campaigns and their professional PR machine.

…[/quote]

Ross Perot was far bigger than Paul and this was in the days befoe the internet could be used as a political tool.

lixy · December 12, 2007, 1:41pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…

Zap, you probably have seen your fair share of US elections in your lifetime. Have there ever been such a grassroots fuss about a Rep/Dem “outcast” candidate? From what I gather, Paul is having a very active fan base that seem to challenge the “big bucks” candidates campaigns and their professional PR machine.

…

Ross Perot was far bigger than Paul and this was in the days befoe the internet could be used as a political tool.
[/quote]

A net worth of $4.4 billion is “big bucks” in my book.

cloakmanor · December 12, 2007, 1:59pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It would work in Paul’s favor but I think turnout would have to be even lower than ever for him to win.
[/quote]

Perhaps. My initial reaction veers in the opposite direction. It appears that Ron Paul supporters are so intent on turning out to whatever important events occurs that this might hold true for the primaries, thus giving Dr. Paul the advantage. This obvious assumption concludes that the majority of new voters as well as those that did not vote during the 2004 Republican primaries will during the present one.

Of course, whether or not this translates into a favorable result for Ron Paul’s campaign is a question I cannot presently answer.

Your input is much appreciated Zap.

Zap_Branigan · December 12, 2007, 2:13pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…

Zap, you probably have seen your fair share of US elections in your lifetime. Have there ever been such a grassroots fuss about a Rep/Dem “outcast” candidate? From what I gather, Paul is having a very active fan base that seem to challenge the “big bucks” candidates campaigns and their professional PR machine.

…

Ross Perot was far bigger than Paul and this was in the days befoe the internet could be used as a political tool.

A net worth of $4.4 billion is “big bucks” in my book.[/quote]

He didn’t spend it all on his campaign. He was a definite outsider.

Zap_Branigan · December 12, 2007, 2:14pm

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
…
Your input is much appreciated Zap.[/quote]

Your discussion on the matter is also appreciated.

The_Mage · December 12, 2007, 2:38pm

[quote]
cloakmanor wrote:
…
Your input is much appreciated Zap.

Zap Branigan wrote:
Your discussion on the matter is also appreciated. [/quote]

Both you appreciations are appreciated. In fact I appreciate how you appreciate each others appreciation.

The people I know who are into Ron Paul are people who seem too smart to vote for a Democrat, but are still convinced of all the evils of the Republican party, of which only half are true. To support Ron Paul really isn’t supporting the real Republicans.

I listened to him last night, really for the first time, and thought it was funny how he responded to the question of receiving donations from white supremacist groups.

He mentioned he is also backed by school choice people, and he is bringing these people together. I wondered if that meant he wanted more Nazi teaching in our schools.

I know it was an attempt to avoid the issue, but I don’t think this is an issue he should be avoiding. And in fact should refuse any money coming from such groups.

Other then that, his views were a little too much like Buchanan. I was never a big supporter of populist views.

For example Dr. Paul doesn’t just want our troops out of Iraq, but out of every single country in Earth.

This sounds like he is wanting to shut us off from the rest of the world, and just ignore what goes on out there.

I can see our foreign policy being revamped, but if he wants us shut off, I can’t agree with that. But just removing our military from the world would cause big political shifts all over.

Headhunter · December 12, 2007, 3:13pm

Does the highly-motivated group of Ron Paul supporters remind anyone besides me of Storm Troopers? I realize that Mr. Paul’s philosophy is quite different but it would be pretty easy for an evil person to turn this energy into a bad thing.

lixy · December 12, 2007, 3:24pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does the highly-motivated group of Ron Paul supporters remind anyone besides me of Storm Troopers? [/quote]

I’m not fond of these analogies, but if anything, they’re more along the lines of the Rebel Alliance.

The Jedi Code as rewritten by Jedi Grand Master Luke Skywalker reads:

[i]* Jedi are the guardians of peace in the galaxy.

Jedi use their powers to defend and protect, [b]never to attack others.
*Jedi respect all life, in any form.
Jedi serve others rather than ruling over them,[/b] for the good of the galaxy.
Jedi seek to improve themselves through knowledge and training. [/i]

Sounds like Paul-ish foreign policy to me.

cloakmanor · December 12, 2007, 4:19pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does the highly-motivated group of Ron Paul supporters remind anyone besides me of Storm Troopers? I realize that Mr. Paul’s philosophy is quite different but it would be pretty easy for an evil person to turn this energy into a bad thing.[/quote]

I think the above statement is a gross, if somewhat understandable, mischaracterization of Paul’s supporters. Were Dr. Paul’s promotions for an ever-greater increase in statism I would likely agree. Reason being is that as centralization of authority is increased, so too is the corruptive nature of a given centralized institution. However, as you imply above, the advocation of smaller, less-intrusive government suggests the opposite of what a “storm-trooper” mindset would ultimately culminate in. All Paul supporters, me included, are advocating is to allow individuals to direct their own lives within the confines of the law of private property rights and its related themes.

As an example perhaps most immediate to those visiting this website is that of the liberty to intake the supplements one chooses into their bodies for whatever purposes they deem desirable. The Biotest supplement MAG-10 for example appears to have been withdrawn from production and distribution due to political pressure/law (my memory of the precise reasons are presently sketchy). Under a Ron Paul administration, the direction would be more toward those who desire the self-regulation that body builders plus professional and recreational athletes would prefer when intaking sports-related supplements.

True such supplements could be abused to the detriment of the user, but then anything from over-the-counter or prescription drugs, as well as supplements and even illegal drugs can be abused. If one is to allow the government to protect even from themselves then Biotest would be completely out of business.

Instead individuals would be forced to come begging to bureaucrats for access to such elements of physical fitness (one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Communist system. They cannot rationally allocate resources via such centralized planning). I seriously doubt they would come close to the qualifications necessary to make such decisions. Tim Patterson, TC, Chris Shugart, and so forth are obviously significantly more qualified to create and distribute such products.

One of the primary reasons one sees the extremely enthusiastic support for a candidate such as Ron Paul is due to their belief, rightly or otherwise, that this is perhaps the last chance one has at preventing the continued growth of statism. Whether or not one agrees with an even greater increase in government however is another matter.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Both you appreciations are appreciated. In fact I appreciate how you appreciate each others appreciation.
[/quote]

Good one, heh.

cloakmanor · December 12, 2007, 4:24pm

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Does the highly-motivated group of Ron Paul supporters remind anyone besides me of Storm Troopers?

I’m not fond of these analogies, but if anything, they’re more along the lines of the Rebel Alliance.

The Jedi Code as rewritten by Jedi Grand Master Luke Skywalker reads:

[i]* Jedi are the guardians of peace in the galaxy.

Jedi use their powers to defend and protect, [b]never to attack others.
*Jedi respect all life, in any form.
Jedi serve others rather than ruling over them,[/b] for the good of the galaxy.
Jedi seek to improve themselves through knowledge and training. [/i]

Sounds like Paul-ish foreign policy to me.[/quote]

Despite the corniness of the metaphor, this outlined principles could be stated of his entire platform, not merely on foreign policy-related issues.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 12, 2007, 4:28pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
…
Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. …

I think this says it all. When the biggest groups are described as “hundreds” of people it is easy to see that a small group of highly motivated people such as Paul supporters can have a big influence. [/quote]

Denial is great.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 12, 2007, 4:30pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does the highly-motivated group of Ron Paul supporters remind anyone besides me of Storm Troopers? I realize that Mr. Paul’s philosophy is quite different but it would be pretty easy for an evil person to turn this energy into a bad thing.[/quote]

No. People are not generally evil. They like peace.

Ron Paul is about Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 12, 2007, 4:31pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ross Perot was far bigger than Paul and this was in the days befoe the internet could be used as a political tool.
[/quote]

Perot support was nowhere near as large as Ron Paul’s is. Perot didn’t have to win a primary.

cloakmanor · December 12, 2007, 4:38pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No. People are not generally evil. They like peace.
[/quote]

Human beings appear to have a dual nature, hence their capability of committing actions influenced by both good and evil. True, it is often easier in the short run to commit an evil act, but then, this is precisely the reason why the concentration political of power–regardless of who is in power–should not be encouraged, quite the contrary.

Zap_Branigan · December 12, 2007, 4:50pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
…
Self-organized and independent, most gatherings were small, informal discussion sessions, while others attracted hundreds of participants including party officials and campaign operatives in a raucous bid for supporters. …

I think this says it all. When the biggest groups are described as “hundreds” of people it is easy to see that a small group of highly motivated people such as Paul supporters can have a big influence.

Denial is great.[/quote]

I am sure you know more about that than I do.