First the GOP frothing-at-the-mouth rabid regulars, need to be put in a perspective regarding their good judgment, with this reprint from Feb 6, 2010 (between the dotted lines). Not that progressives dislike their being who they are - or how they run their party. The reprint was titled: Not to belabor a point, but the man is Elmer Gantry on rollerblades.
...................................................
Read all about it.
A sleuthing hat-tip to Phoenix Woman and the Awl.
...................................................
They choose as they do, when caucusing.
The wisdom of giving everybody and anybody a choice? There is no other viable option, and the GOP rabid regulars, when caucusing, are entitled to prevail by numbers in their rabid bent to lose a statewide or nationwide general election by selecting a candidate at precinct levels who is most like themselves. (By sheer numbers, they prevail in Sixth Congressional District contests, despite their candidates' quality issues, with that overpowering strength in numbers vexing the thinking folks - there are some - in the District.)
Andy, here, first noted a disparity between GOP and DFL caucus attendance; then here suggested he knew more about how the DFL should run and handle its affairs than the DFL knows, promptness being to him next to godliness. I do not belittle Andy's general post quality, e.g., this as one of his better more recent presentations - more objective than subjective, and focused upon a real issue and choice of a "best" statistic to be looking at to judge the severity of the depression now facing us nationally and worldwide.
An easy answer to a disparity in numbers: Numbers en masse, are not an equal to quality in fewer numbers, at a caucus situation early on where this month the GOP turned out in roughly twice the numbers as DFL caucus-mavens. Probably such a belief in relative numbers not reflecting relative quality served as a rationale and balm of an excuse for and among the Emmerites upon statewide reason prevailing as shown by final general election returns favoring Dayton in the most recent governor race, (by a margin great enough that no Tony-crony recount expense ever was needed).
From my DFL precinct experience, the evidence I have without speculation, the presidential straw vote was a last thought formality, almost forgotten when the precinct attendees were ready to adjourn; with the focus being platform resolution voting and with the only strong party focus seeming to be upon showing a strong unanimity for defeat of the photo ID thing (something shown unreliable in the next post below when/if photo ID processes, particularly among the vain, would show a voter's photo as the voter wanted to be, not as the voter is per a current voting-day appearance in person, being eyeballed by precinct election judges).
My approach to discrediting voter ID suggestions uses a disproof by counterexample, of the contention that a voter ID (with photo) would eliminate all chance of confusion over a person being who he/she claims via being able to do a visual matching of a person at the poll with a photo on a plastic thingy the person presents in saying, "That's me."
Disproof by counterexample is well respected, among logicians, and if it is the logic of the sham that is at question, it stands disproved (while the real GOP motives, to quell as much as possible the other side's general election voter turnout, has nothing to do with matching an image on a plastic thing to a real face looking at an election judge - the ostensible argument the GOP disingenuously advances - to make it easier for election judges to spot "fraud" despite obvious "fraud" possibilities in photo retouching and despite the potential for fraud in any photo ID issuing process - where presumably you do not present a photo ID to obtain one - else there be a Catch 22 to the GOP stance).
GOP rabid regulars, used to caucus packing from way back in the days when Gary Laidig was waylaid by a mad woman's bloc, are fundamentally unlike the more educated and laid-back DFLers; and they did their thing. They were "incentivized" by rampant emotion over the Romney and anti-Romney choice, something they doubtlessly emoted over well in advance of caucus day while pitching tea into the Mississippi as part of working up to what for them was a suitable caucus attendance frenzy.
I expect a few pulpits resounded in that ramp up, noting the characteristics of the man in sweater vests re what we believe, done because perchance those sitting below and facing the pulpit lacked sufficient "independent" judgment to make a good choice absent the advertisement. But that's only a guess, since I don't view that sort of thing as a participatory predicate to my life and my moral judgments, which I make on non-mythological bases (i.e., including a rejection of the mythology that Reagan was spiritually or communicationally special, indeed worthwhile, rather than highly destructive to things long-term, with Reagan appearing banal and insensitive to any long-term dangers of his whims, propaganda and biases, something clearly obvious to me when I objectively considered the man and his surrounding people - what he did - what he said - and who he, as an ostensibly great delegator, delegated to). Reagan was second rate and Santorum is several cuts below that.
Not that Obama has lived up to promises of "change." Not that Obama has been disappointing to progressives and progressive hopes. Just, it is not judging Obama in the abstract, how he turned out in comparison to how he might have been, it is Obama in comparison to Santorum, or compared to an ethically challenged Newt Gringrich or to a corporate raider aptly described by Colbert's observation, "If corporations are people, then Mitt Romney's been a serial killer."
That is the conundrum our GOP friends face, among their choices. And they will not run Ron Paul. That leaves them only their three stooges. Obama should win easily, and can continue to not have to be as great as many had hoped and been led to believe he would be. With the Republicans indulging in waste management the bar is set low for Obama's reelection.