An assessment of the LA caucuses

[aymn27]

I'm getting online late today, and I'm confused.... Did we win Louisiana or not?

(yes, I know people keep asking that but I haven't seen a definitive answer yet)

We definitely did not get any delegates in District 3 and 7. All other Districts (five of them) are waiting on provisional ballots to be verified for the final results.

This Pro-Life/Pro-Family group basically bumped us from the top 15 spots in the 7th district by combining other candidates delegates onto one "ticket". So the top fifteen in my district are a hodge podge of delegates for the other candidates. The problem is that ALL delegates are technically "uncommitted" so we cant really determine who is for whom!

PS - it is interesting to note that in vote total order, Ron Paul delegates placed from 16-28 consecutivly and then number 30 and 32.

 

[parocks]

You have a great point. Could RP delegates have omitted RP's name entirely and called themselves the Pro-Life, Pro-Constitution, Pro-America slate? This is something to think about for future caucuses and elections that have similar opportunities.

There are probably a skillion different tricks that could've been used.

Maybe those people on the Pro Life Pro Family slate were all Ron Paul supporters.

They all secretly signed on as delegates for the other campaigns. When the Pro Life Pro Family slate was cobbling together it's 15, it chose from a wide variety of Ron Paul supporters who were pretending to be supporters of Romney, Huck, etc.

And we were out in force handing out Romney slates with our names on em,
Huck slates with our names on em. When you hand a Romney flyer with a Romney list to a Romney supporter, they vote for the people on that list - or not.

I've never been to a caucus, and what I know about this stuff is mostly from these boards, but those are 2 tricks that could've been used and weren't.

We had a lot of Ron Paul bodies on the ground. But a generic prolife profamily ballot did have a certain appeal to average citizens there - those who go to caucuses a lot, the politically active, but not necessarily those who are committed to any political candidate.

 

[CelestialRender]

"There was no corruption."

I'll bet ya anything that "Pro-Life, Pro-Family" ticket includes Giuliani supporters. Regardless of whether it did, their defining issue is "Pro-War", but they lied to voters to get them to support their ticket. Not that's illegal; it just makes them exceptionally terrible human beings.

 

[CGMike]

Wow, I'm pulling some valuable lessons out of all of this for the next caucus state which is Maine. Our meetup groups here are working hand in hand with the RP Folks in our three offices in Portland, Bangor and L/A, culling our delegate lists for each city/town/plantation and informing those voters coming out to caucus which delegates to vote for on the caucus slate. Remember that each process IS a learning experience for many of us who haven't been involved in local/state party politics before or are unfamiliar with how the caucus functions in general. I've learned lessons from New Hampshire and now Louisiana that I can take back here to my home state and use successfully. I hope other out of state readers are taking note as well.

 

[parocks]

Our biggest strength would be knowing who the other supporters are and standing strong together (even in hiding if that's what's necessary).

If people went to meetups and knew who the RP delegate noms were without them shouting it to the world, yesterday might have had a very different conclusion.

It was Ron Paul vs the others. When really it should have been US throwing the others off balance wondering "so which ones ARE the Ron Paul supporters?"

Yes. But it's much more fun to wear Ron Paul clothing, wave Ron Paul signs, chant Ron Paul, and try to convince others about how great Ron Paul is.

I wasn't there, and I really don't have an idea from experience about how it would work.

Apparently there were 2 major slates? Ron Paul and PLPF?
Everyone got one of 2 sheets of paper with the listing of the slates?
They were advertising either Ron Paul or PLPF basically?

Well, when did we know that there was a PLPF coalition going on, and our opponents weren't going to be campaigning individually?

Whenever we found that out, that's when we should've sprung into action.

A Ron Paul supporter should've put on a Huckabee hat, button, and handed out a Huck slate - with names different from the PLPF slate. Same with Romney, Giuliani, etc.

There could've been any number of special interest coalition slates. ProLifeantifamily, anything.

So, when people are looking to vote, they don't have 2 slates to choose from - Ron Paul and Pro Life Pro Family, they have a dazzling amount of choices.

We can assume that the Ron Paul supporters are going to get the correct names somehow, either beforehand or at the caucus.

However, in Louisiana, there was only one clear choice for those who weren't into Ron Paul yet, and that was Pro Life, Pro Family.

If, however, those undecided not Ron Paul people were faced with a wide variety of choices, it's likely that we'd be able to get people to not support the full plpf slate thereby getting more delegates for RP.

Heck, even printing up a real Huckabee slate, with the real Huckabee delegates and telling people to vote only for the Huckabee delegates would've helped us.

How does this apply to Maine?

1) We don't know what the other campaigns are planning.

2) We know some of the tricks they use.

3) We know some possible counter measures.

4) We can prepare counter measures beforehand.

5) We can decide which counter measure(s) to implement when their strategies become clear.

Since the "real delegates" slates would've helped us in Louisiana, we could print up the real delegates slates. If they pull the coalition stunt, you go with the real delegate slates.

Since the coalition slate helped our opponents, we should be prepared with a solid looking coalition. Take a couple famous seeming people, local political types, put them on the "Pro Maine Coaltion" add other names. Make it look as real as PLPF did in Louisiana.

Obviously, you ID your caucus goers and train them, making sure they have the good Ron Paul slate.

 

[wildflower]

We definitely did not get any delegates in District 3 and 7. All other Districts (five of them) are waiting on provisional ballots to be verified for the final results.

This Pro-Life/Pro-Family group basically bumped us from the top 15 spots in the 7th district by combining other candidates delegates onto one "ticket". So the top fifteen in my district are a hodge podge of delegates for the other candidates. The problem is that ALL delegates are technically "uncommitted" so we cant really determine who is for whom!

PS - it is interesting to note that in vote total order, Ron Paul delegates placed from 16-28 consecutivly and then number 30 and 32.

Thanks for your reply. That seems strange... but then, I'm no expert on this stuff, so I don't know if that is common?

 

[davrobi]

The one sure Guiliani delegate Patrick Lebanc in District 7 got hammered too.

 

[jab2ur]

Amen!

There was no conspiracy. There was no corruption. All the delegates were running uncommitted, and the pro-life slate turned out its people.

Last night, every idiot and his brother was running around claiming we had won every delegate in the state. Ridiculous.

Grow up.

Thank you for saying that. I agree 100%. There were people talking about an S.C. recount with >1% of precincts reporting. It gets annoying. Let's all please remain calm and poised like RP himself

 

[parocks]

Maybe we should have run as the PRO-FREEDOM or PRO-CONSTITUTION or PRO-AMERICAN slate.

If there were undecideds going in to the caucus, if there was a slate, apart from the Ron Paul slate, called the "Pro American slate", which included a mixture of the strongest candidates from the PLPF slate and others, we might've picked up a couple extra delegates. The strongest from the PLPF slate would've won, and those who used the Pro America slate wouldn't have chosen the weakest of the PLPF slate.

Basically, the Pro America slate would exist in order to move votes from the weak PFPL to others. Strong Ron Paul people would then beat weak PLPF.

 

[parocks]

Deceitful? What planet are you on? You don't even know the basics of the caucus rules.

All delegates ran uncommitted. We were just trying to elect our people, and they were trying to elect theirs.

In District 7 -- the delegates I see getting elected are all well known people who have worked in Republican politics for decades. They wanted to be delegates, they turned out their people. They won.

Grow up.

You seem to know this stuff.

Would we have been able to cut down on the votes of PLPF by using a modified PLPF slate, calling it Pro America. Put the 10 famous locals on it, and put 5 others on it?

We lose to the 10 famous locals, but we beat the 5 weakest PLPF, because some people might use the Pro America slate, because it's very similar to the PLPF
slate.

 

[virgil47]

I'm just wondering how the PL/PF candidate is going to do in all the other states. Being as how he, she, it is so new to the race. Or are you folks saying that forming a PAC this late in the game and then disbanding it after it achieves what it set out to do in a single state is a perfectly legal and ethical way to do business?

 

[Redcard]

I'm just wondering how the PL/PF candidate is going to do in all the other states. Being as how he, she, it is so new to the race. Or are you folks saying that forming a PAC this late in the game and then disbanding it after it achieves what it set out to do in a single state is a perfectly legal and ethical way to do business?

Nobody was voting for candidates, per se, in the caucus. Just delegates. Delegates can change their minds, bounce back and forth, or whatever.

Technically, you could have made a slate for people who love Key Lime Pie and handed it out.

 

[Doriath]

Technically, you could have made a slate for people who love Key Lime Pie and handed it out.

Now there's an idea. We should form the Pro-Pie ticket. Everybody likes pie!

 

[Carole]

I disagree with you on this because in a primary, the choice is allegedly up to real voters who may choose for whom they wish to vote "individually". Even if a group such as evangelicals decide to vote as a block, there are others who can cancel out that vote. And they have to vote for one of candidates A-G.

In this sham caucus, they band together as a "group" (here again the collectivist mentality).
take candidates A-F to make one candidate leaving candidate G (Ron Paul) so that there are only two candidates for whom to vote. This is a huge difference!!

Sham indeed and a banana republic we are. This caucus with its spider web of rules definitely is one of the tricks designed by the ruling machine to hold their power and is hardly representative of the voting public.

Then with the help of the voting machines, on the straw primary day when voters cast votes (again now for several candidates A-G), it is just pretend democracy (yes, I know we are a republic) occurring. The one who counts the votes can easily ensure 51% for the "right" candidate who then gets the delegates.

 

[nathaniel]

I think people are misunderstanding what the Louisiana Republican caucus was about. The actual primary election is on Feb. 9th - last night was a caucus to determine who gets to go to the National Convention. It is really a "status thing" to be elected as a delegate, meaning you are influential and well known by the people in your precinct, church, etc... It is about the political equivalent of being elected to the "homecoming court." It is a masquerade ball and beauty pageant for locals to parade themselves about and feel important in their area.

What happens is delegates and alternates are supposed to be "uncommitted." Of course, they certainly are not. They form pre-caucus coalitions ahead of time and pass around sample ballots so everybody knows who to vote for. It basically works the way that neocons claim that we network to spam online polls. Before the caucus, everyone tries to stack it in their favor with people they know are sympathetic to one candidate ... all while maintaining the facade of being"uncommitted" until the convention.

Of course we (the local Ron Paul meetup groups) did what we could. In district 6, we got three of our people as delegates, and eight as alternates.

Is it a shady way to caucus ? Of course, it is Louisiana where the politics are as dirty as the Mississippi river. The old boy network was just a little bit more organized than we were with their Pro-life/Pro-Family pushcards.

Yes, they had more folks - but not by much - and we still have time to convince the others to come over to our side. This is crucial since after Super Tuesday, and probably Florida, the Republican field is going to thin even more. And if these people really are seriously single issue pro-life/pro-family types and not just stealth Huckabee voters couching themselves in a red herring - Dr. Paul's record makes him the obvious choice for them.

 

[Carole]

As I explained, this tactic, were it the norm, could subvert the democratic favorite every time. Then, we're not living in a democracy, we're living in a back room power broker country. You're fervent SUPPORT of our disenfranchisement is SUSPICIOUS.

I totally agree with you and furthermore, find the use of the words "tricks" and "tactics" contradictory to a fair and valid voting process as well as contraindicative to a free republic.

It is more that a fraud is being perpetrated upon the public, no better, only different, than fraudulent voting machine counts.

It seems clear that a caucus which on the surface appears more open, is, in fact, more manipulative even than a primary and it is that way by design in order to "openly" control the voting process right under the noses of the public. To pass it off as a fair procedure is disingenuous and no better than a neocon bit of trickery. It is power at any cost.

We should take the election process, not as a game, but as a serious duty, even in our banana republic.

 

[Carole]

Then we have no chance to win 51% in the straw primary when it occurs and we needed that in order to get the first ballot committed votes for Ron Paul.

So what is the best case and worst case scenario for Louisiana?

 

[nathaniel]

The election was for delegates to the state convention, who are responsible for doing other things besides electing delegates to the national convention.

The other side, consisting of mostly long-time activists and elected officials, banded together to support each other's campaigns to be elected as delegates. They formed a slate to accomplish this objective. They support a variety of presidential candidates.

Our side, consisting of mostly people new to political action, banded together to support a specific presidential candidate. Being elected delegate was a means to an end, not the end itself. We formed a slate to accomplish this objective.

For us, the presidential choice is most important. For them, being a delegate and making party decisions is most important. I suspect that if one candidate was running away with the nomination, they would have all been for that candidate. For them, it was all about getting themselves elected. And technically, they are correct. The election was to elect delegates, not endorse a presidential candidate.

Fantastic summary of how the Louisiana caucus works and what last night's vote was about - it was individuals trying to get themselves to the State's convention. For many of them, the presidential race is an after-thought as they are more concerned with upcoming local races, ballot initiatives, referendums, and having a say in the State's party platform.

 

[Carole]

We either learn how to work within the system, ...

We have to know what to expect. We have to learn, ask questions, talk to older people who HAVE gone to caucuses. We need to volunteer to be LEADERS. We have to go to meet ups!


jmho
.

That is fine. My question is why did we not know to expect these tricks? Was there not someone available to us to warn us of the possiblity of such a trick?

We know now and must get the word out to all other states so they can provide "innocent" delegates to infiltrate the other candidates' groups.

What a despicable representation of an honest election process!

 

[hueylong]

They weren't tricks. As long as we keep thinking somebody cheated, we're not going to learn the lesson of this caucus.