Hard to say given the events of the last 5 days. At this point I still think both will be viable in a lot of precincts. But as I've written before, I think the general tendency will be towards an Anyone but Clinton alliance.

I agree with you about the inherent unfairness fo the caucus rules esp with respect to the "no show, out of luck" aspect.

However, the upside of the caucus, esp for us here in NV, is that for the first time, large #s of volunteers/ activists are learning what precincts are and getting to know other activists in their precincts. Even as the grassroots engagement has grown over the past few cycles, most volunteers were simply sent to phone bank or canvass wherever the field director needed them.

I had some pretty heated arguments in 04 and 06 with party field staffers about this, as the election approached they wanted me to go canvass elsewhere and basically give up the local knowledge I and some terrific neighborhood volunteers had developed of our own precincts. In each cycle, we found field staff who got it.

I think after this is over, there will be many, many people who know their own turf for the first time, and this would not have happened with a straight primary.

This is the sort of gamesmanship you and I were discussing in your last diary.  As a matter of "game theory," the rules should try to avoid creating a situation where you can come out ahead in the big picture by giving away voters to someone else.

I think the Iowa rules are set up with the assumption that people show up with a "preference" rather than an actual choice.  In reality, I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who take the time to caucus and then get legitimately talked out of their first choice once they show up, which would be the only reason to let supporters of viable candidates change their mind.

What percentage of the people who show up to caucus do you think are actually amenable to being persuaded into a different first choice?  I bet the answer is pretty low.

Not entirely, since anyone can reallign prior to the end of the first 15 minute interval. Given that we expect fewer people at most of our precinct caucuses, and that there will be fewer candidates represented next Saturday, it would be relatively easy for a shrewd precinct captain to count up the supporters in each corner and move people during the first reallignment to have the same effect.

I expect that because of the fewer candidates and lower turnout, many precincts won't have a 2nd reallignment.

compared to trying to explain to Nevadans how a caucus works.  No tradition, no media attention, extremely limited potential caucus-goer engagement in the process.

I think too many campaign volunteers/staff get tripped up and confuse people by trying to explain the math and strategy of the caucus instead of just saying: you come to the caucus location, sign in, go to your candidate group and listen to your precinct captain. If you want to know more, let me know and I will tell you.

Yes, That's it.  My problem with this is that you can be undecided in the first round.  BUT, If the undecideds reach the viability threshold, poof you don't get to realign to your second choice.  A lot of people don't get that nuance.  

You should go and try one; I thought it was terrific.

Didn't they get to decide?  I am not convinced that a presidential primary is any better than a caucus.

Of course, you could contact the DNC and see if they would change their rules for nominating a presidential candidate.

Before caucuses and primaries, the party establishment would get together at a national convention and just pick someone to run.