SCC Moves to Hold Presidential Caucuses in 2008

Feb 11, 01:26 AM CST

Your State Central Committee acted on a motion yesterday to move ahead with plans for a Presidential Caucus in 2008. The SCC’s action paves the way for caucus…which will be enacted either by a bill that is in front of the Unicameral currently (LB 460) which calls for the caucus system for both parties…or by enacting state law which allows us to hold a Democratic Party caucus on our own.

We’ll certainly be talking a lot about this in the near future, as we have a lot of work ahead of us. I wanted to make sure you were aware of the Committee’s decision. The SCC’s action follows an Executive Committee vote in favor of the motion.

Here is Don Walton’s story from the Lincoln Journal Star:

In a bid to have some voice in the choice of their presidential nominee, Nebraska Democrats decided Saturday to hold presidential caucuses in the state next February.

The decision by the party’s state central committee to choose Feb. 9 as their caucus date represented a gamble that the Democratic presidential contest still will be undecided at the time.

The 2008 race begins with kickoff caucuses in Iowa and Nevada and presidential primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

A number of big states, including California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey, are considering quickly jumping into the fray on Feb. 5.

“The decision for us was do we want to go on Feb. 5 and run the risk of being lost in a mix of big states or choose Feb. 9 with the risk that it’s all over by then,” Democratic National Committeeman Vince Powers of Lincoln said.

Feb. 9 appeared to be the better risk, he said.

Otherwise, Nebraska Democrats—as well as Republicans—essentially will have no voice at all in the choice of their presidential nominees because the state’s primary election does not occur until May long after the battle is over.

Under the new caucus system, Nebraska Democrats would meet and vote their presidential preferences while they choose delegates to their county conventions.

Delegates to the national convention in Denver would be chosen later at the party’s state convention.

– by Eric Fought | Send this to a friend

  1. For those of us who are still a little confused about the whole thing (I’m learning as I go along), what does this mean for us? My understanding is that the state party will run the caucus unless LB 460 passes. Is that correct?
    — Dave Sund    Feb 11, 03:56 PM CST #
  2. The state party will run the caucuses in any case. If LB 460 passes, both the Republicans and Democrats will run caucuses under (new) state law. If LB 460 does not pass, the Democrats will run caucuses under rules adopted by the party.

    This system contemplates organization at the precinct level. Right now we don’t even have minimal organization in over half the counties, let alone at precinct level. There is one year to do it.
    — trublu    Feb 11, 09:01 PM CST #
  3. Congratulations to Barry Rubin on his new position
    — Brian T. Osborn    Feb 12, 01:21 AM CST #
  4. This is the best news I’ve had since the Dixie Chicks won five Grammys. After being allowed to sit in and observe a Democratic caucus in Kansas in 1984, I’ve hoped we’d make the switch. Our May primary has long been rendered meaningless after the heady days of the 60s and 70s when we actually mattered. Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy came to my small hometown in 1968. Let’s get back in the game.
    — Rick Wigington    Feb 12, 10:24 AM CST #
  5. Right, because after all in a party named after the democratic system we want less people making larger decisions. The citizens of Baghdad rioted in the streets when we tried to set them up with a caucus system because of it’s inherently undemocratic dispostion. An early caucus isn’t the way to make Nebraska more powerful, real economic growth and increased voter turnout is what will give Nebraska a larger voice in the political arena. An early caucus will just make us trendy.
    — *sigh*    Feb 12, 02:19 PM CST #
  6. sigh,
    I have to disagree with you on that. Left to their own devices the only election the majority of Nebraskans and, for that matter, Americans are going to give a damn about is the one on American Idol.
    I for one will be very happy that those people who care enough about our system to WANT to participate in the selection process will now have the opportunity to do so.
    The selection of our candidates will now be more dependent on the stands they take on the issues than the content of their 30 second TV soundbites.
    It is unfortunate, but true, that far too many of our fellow citizens don’t care about the system that governs their lives. They are too busy being distracted by the Lindsay Lohans and Paris Hiltons of the world.
    — Brian T. Osborn    Feb 12, 02:43 PM CST #
  7. Sean:
    How has the may primary been a benefit to nebraska dems when it comes to the presidential race? How does having a primary after the winner has been selected increase voter turnout? I guess I do not follow your criticism of the Party’s action.
    — vince powers    Feb 12, 06:53 PM CST #
  8. sigh, It is genetically and spiritually improbable for any Nebraskan to be characterized as being “trendy.”
    The February caucuses(cauci?) give Nebraska Democrats a voice in the Presidential race. The caucus system also is a great incentive for us to organize better at the precinct level.
    — Steve Hollister    Feb 12, 10:35 PM CST #
  9. I apologize, I was probably too harsh in my first post. It’s not that I don’t see the point behind putting those who vote on the issuses and not the advertisements in a position where they can exact a greater control upon our government. But then that’s not really a democracy anymore, it’s a meritocracy or something close to it. If it was the actual primary date that was being moved forward in the calendar, I would at least feel reassured that everyone was getting the opportunity to throw in their two cents.

    But aside from my basic philosophical qualms with the caucus system I do have other doubts about the NDP moving their presidential decision making process to Feb. 9. It makes me nervous to see states getting into an election race with one another. I would much prefer a national primary day so as not to artificially inflate any state above another. My concern is that a candidate might tailor his/her platform to suit one state while it leaves another out in the cold because that is what is politically beneficial at that moment. I guess I just don’t want to see any state taking a short cut to get it’s particular concerns to the forefront of the national arena. In my opinion 50 people in one state should have the same political weight as 50 from any other. I realize this is idealistic but it seems to me that, that has to be the primary goal of a democracy; to make certain everyone is heard with an equal voice.

    My final concern is that due to the unfortunately low voter turn out this nation experiences, won’t it simply exacerbate the situation to seperate the state specific races from the national one? If we take away the appeal of voting for a fresh leader of the free world won’t that depress the turn out of the may elections? Surely we would be driving down the voter turn out of all the rest of the races by doing this. I simply can’t see how we could benefit, being the party of the people, if less of them voted in the primary elections.

    Again I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous post, but I have some very real concerns about the possibility of a presidential caucus and am made increasingly nervous by these recent developments.
    — Sean Flowerday    Feb 12, 11:09 PM CST #

Search