we had our Wa. state caucus today... and then the primary on the 19th. i dont get the point of that.
We have that too, and don't be surprised if the results of the Democrat presidential primary in Nebraska the second week of May vary greatly from the caucus results.
It's all very silly; in fact, caucuses are downright stupid, really stupid.
During the 1920s, Wisconsin and Nebraska devised partisan primaries, to take the power away from the bosses, and to let the general public decide things.
About 40 years later, beginning with Iowa, the bosses wanted that power back, and formed the caucus system to replace the primary system. The bosses by then being the professional "political activists," people who get paid very well for their "volunteer" "political activity."
Caucuses are power-grabs by the bosses.
The biggest defect in caucuses is that they reflect the opinions of political activists, which many times, if not most of the time, differ greatly from general public opinion (which is what I mean by suggesting Messalina Agrippina will carry the Nebraska Democrats in the primary, even though the Obamanation won the caucuses here)--and since the general public tends to vote in November, participating only a little bit or not at all in "caucuses," caucuses are a great way to select a.....loser.
Think George McGovern.....enormously popular among the bosses, er, political "activists," and how that worked out for the Democrats in 1972, for example, when the general public had its say.
Power to the people. Let the people decide.