Washington State Caucus Results

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:32:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

(larger version here).

The results of the Washington caucuses should be available soon. Here's a thread to discuss them.

< Huckabee Trounces McCain in Kansas | Clinton Demands NBC Change Its Pattern Of Behavior >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Washington State Caucus Results | 86 comments (86 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My precinct (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Sima on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:50:07 PM EST

Had 13 delegates (to the county convention, mind you) and 9 went to Obama, 4 to Clinton.

We actually had 1 delegate for undecided at first, but two of the undecided caucus-goers came to Clinton, 3 or 4 went to Obama, after the speeches.

I've never seen a worse system for deciding than a caucus. Completely unrepresentational.

It will be interesting to see how much the primary vote differs from the caucus result. I have a feeling the difference will be very large.

It was interesting that the speeches the caucus-goes gave had the same characteristics as the candidates themselves. Us Clinton people (several of us former Edwards voters) were all about policy, health care, standing in the international realm, competency. The Obama people were all about inspiration, great rallies, moving forward, coming together...

Oh and the precinct chairperson was a volunteer who had been a registered indepedent until Obama. I asked her if she'd stick to the party if Obama didn't win, or for other elections and she said she didn't think so. That was very disheartening to me.

So Much for Down Ticket Support (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:54:51 PM EST

Parent

Caucuses suck!! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by jen on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:55:44 PM EST

I'm in NV, in a VERY red town. We were swamped with Republicans and Independents registering Dem to participate, mostly for Obama.

One guy was bold enough to state outright that he was there to caucus against Hillary, and would never vote Dem in the GE. We all wondered how many of the other Republicans there were doing the same.

It seems to me that when someone registers a particular party to caucus, they should NOT be allowed to re-register and vote another party in the GE. Why is it beneficial to the Democratic party to allow Republicans to participate in choosing our candidate??

Parent

Wait 'til you see Wisconsin crossover (none / 0) (#9)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:59:41 PM EST

in 10 days, with one of the most wide-open primaries in the country, same-day registration, etc. -- and with the GOP now essentially set for McCain.

The major paper in the state already predicted it on the front-page today -- a conservative paper, and this is one of the ways it's organized/publicized here, where crossover is common as a ploy to pick the opponent to beat.

Parent

Open primaries are TERRIBLE (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:01:53 PM EST

I hate this crap.

Parent

From today's jsonline.com -- (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:30:45 PM EST

the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, conservative paper, front page story, headlined "Advantage for Obama":

"Wisconsin's primary is totally open. There is no registration by party in the state, and voters can choose on the day of the primary between the two party contests.

"In 2004, when there was no GOP contest, self-identified Democrats made up only 62% of the vote in the Democratic primary, according to exit polls. Independents made up 29%, and Republicans made up 9%.

"In the last meaningful primary before that - 1992 - self-identified Democrats accounted for only 53% of the Democratic primary vote. Independents made up 40% of the vote and Republicans 7%.

"In both cases, that's a bigger independent vote than in most primaries this year. . . ."

Just so's you all understand what you see in 10 days in this so-called progressive state. It only was progressive for white men, and a century ago. And it was one of the last holdout states against woman suffrage, one of the worst states for that struggle, as the funding source for the German brewers' antisuffrage campaign. Today, it still is one of the most backward states for women in education, income, reproductive rights, and more. And politically, it was one of the last states to elect a woman to Congress, less than a decade ago -- and to the House. It still never has elected a woman to the Senate or as governor.

But it also is one of the most segregated states, with 97% of its AAs in one city, Milwaukee -- one of the most segregated cities, with almost all AAs in only two neighborhoods. Of course, from what we have seen, the less that whites actually live with AAs, the more likely they are to like Obama.

Parent

Oh, I KNOW! (none / 0) (#11)
by jen on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:01:22 PM EST

Same is true here in NV - they were registering Dem right there at the caucus. :(

Parent

The only reason (none / 0) (#13)
by jen on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:02:18 PM EST

Clinton won here is because of Clark County (Las Vegas) which is the only strong Dem area in the State.

Parent

At least we have to live here for more than (none / 0) (#15)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:10:29 PM EST

three days, all that was required in Iowa. (It really meant that all they had to do was say "I am an Iowan" -- or even "I intend to stay," i.e., "I intend to be an Iowan"!)

Wisconsin requires six months' residency -- and proof, such as a drivers' license (and, of course, fake IDs are a big underground business around campuses) or utility bills with a Wisconsin address.

Parent

Well if (none / 0) (#53)
by IndependantThinker on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST

everybody understands that, and Obama is chosen, it should be publicized as a reason to select Hillary for the nom.

Parent

: Independent Thinker (none / 0) (#80)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:06:18 PM EST

Well said!! If many of the "delegates" Obama is winning are coming from caucuses full of Republicans crossing over but not intending to vote Dem in November, then Obama's "wins" are false wins and his delegate numbers are illusory. He will do the party NO GOOD in November.
Obama is claiming he's bringing Repubs and Independents into the party.
May not be true at all.
It is CLINTON who carries the base.

Parent

will someone please tell andrewwm? (none / 0) (#64)
by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:03 PM EST

Parent

: Tell me what? (none / 0) (#65)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST

If Obama wins 67% across the board, it will be +75 probably.

Parent

Politico.com (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by jen on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST

is a pretty good place to view results.

http://www.politico.com/

Refreshes by itself. Nothing coming in, yet.

LA results (none / 0) (#14)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:08:42 PM EST

Exit polls there showed that 50% of voters were black. So I expect a pretty big Obama victory there tonight. Nebraska caucus reports also are saying something like 3:1 or 4:1 for Obama. He could possibly get +50 delegates from tonight alone.

Parent

I expect Obama to win LA (none / 0) (#16)
by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:11:14 PM EST

So I'm not disputing that at all. But I find pre-weighted exit polls to be completely worthless. Unless Obama really did win Massachusetts, New Jersey and California and I missed the memo.

Again, I totally expect Obama to win, but I'm not basing that on the exit polls.

Parent

Fair enough (none / 0) (#17)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST

We'll see in a couple of hours anyway.

Parent

Low Turnout (none / 0) (#19)
by dissenter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:29:17 PM EST

Only like 15% turnout in LA. That is amazingly bad. If my house got swept away in a flood I would be finding every friend I could to vote.

Obama might win LA but I am wondering by how much. That is really pathetic - especially considering the demographics heavily favor him. I'm not sure what that says.

Guess we will see. Maybe Clinton will do better than people think. I hope so.

And I agree, the caucus system has to go. I went to mine in Colorado and it was absurd how few people can have so much power. Kinda like the electoral system as a whole. Undemocratic for sure.

Parent

Two things (none / 0) (#21)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM EST

Many primary states have been around 15% turnout
A lot of LA hate the federal government and don't care anymore (according to some friends in LA). So it's not surprising they wouldn't turn out for an election.

Parent

: Hum (none / 0) (#25)
by dissenter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:36:06 PM EST

I hear ya but right now I would want someone owing me big time for my vote.
Bill crisscrossed the state. I hope it helps. I still think the turnout in this particular case could favor Clinton.

Parent

Is the delegate count based on population (none / 0) (#22)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:32:58 PM EST

and if so, is it the last decennial census, in 2000 -- or is it updated to a post-Katrina population count?

Parent

It's based on registered democrats (none / 0) (#24)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:34:17 PM EST

More or less based on registered democrats across each state. So it's fairly equitable in that regard I think.

Parent

Thank you! That's useful info (nt) (none / 0) (#26)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:36:56 PM EST

Parent

Delegates (none / 0) (#81)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM EST

But be careful about andrew's definition of delegates on registered Democrats, Cream.

Many of these caucuses have Republicans registering as "Dem for a day" to come in and vote against Hillary, but they have NO INTENTION of voting Democrat in the general.

So.....some of these caucus delegates Obama says he's winning , he won't bring the same voters to the party in the general.

That will be a huge issue at the convention.

Parent

: No (none / 0) (#87)
by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:10:33 AM EST

Delegates aren't recalculated based on new registrations at the polls; it's based on historic registered democrats number. So states that have huge numbers of new democratic voters are going to have the same number of delegates as would be the case if only the party faithful had turned out.
Now who actually votes is a different matter.

Parent

Hmm... (none / 0) (#23)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:33:37 PM EST

Actually, I may have been wrong on +50. If WA and Nebraska results hold up, plus a 60% win in LA (pretty reasonable), he could even be up +100. That may be nearly the end of Clinton - there's no way to catch up from that, with the likely Potomac Primary results added on.

Parent

Heh (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:39:04 PM EST

That is a funny post.

As I understand it, you are predicting that TONIGHT Obama will gains 100 delegates.

Now math is not my strong suit but 78 + 56 + 24 = 158.

For Obama to gain 100 delegates he will have to win 129 to Clinton's 29.

That is more than 4-1. Even IF Obama won 4 -1 on votes, congressional allocations make that almost impossible.

But Obamamaniacs were always terrible at setting expectations.

Parent

Can I quote you on this? (none / 0) (#28)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST

I bet Obama will be up at least +75 after tonight. Any takers?

Parent

Okay, now 75 -- what's your next (none / 0) (#29)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST

lowered expectation? Can we just get to the last guess and move along? :-)

Parent

:-P (none / 0) (#30)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:48:33 PM EST

I said he could be up +100, I'm willing to bet on at least +75. :)

Parent

: How would we know who won? (none / 0) (#38)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:06:56 PM EST

Since everyone has different counts for delegates.

Parent

This would mean (none / 0) (#31)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:51:52 PM EST

That Obama takes 74% of the vote in all 4 caucuses. Do you realize that?

Parent

: Well (none / 0) (#49)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:21:36 PM EST

looks like it will be close to that. LA will be the decider. Probably WA and KS will be nearly 70%, and VI will probably go 2-1 Obama.

Parent

You hedging already? (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST

You said +100.

I have no idea what it will be.

YOU SAID +100.

Parent

I said COULD BE (none / 0) (#55)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:34:28 PM EST

I said I would bet on +75

Parent

: How do we know who won? (none / 0) (#56)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:36:03 PM EST

Parent

gee, I read him saying 50 (none / 0) (#78)
by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:49:31 PM EST

then 100, then splitting the difference.

Parent

Thanks for the great link, Jen (none / 0) (#71)
by carolyn13 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:26:34 PM EST

Parent

ya know if these caucuses really (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:01:50 PM EST

reflected the peoples choice, I would whole heartedly support Sen. Obama...However, since they do not and in fact help promote voter suppression, I cannot...Also this continuous propaganda is terrible..We are allowing the media to chose our candidate and I for one am really incensed about it....This entire election with the caucus states is a total sham...Thank you very much Democratic Party....I have never recognized Bush as a legit president and I guess I have to say the same about Obama unless he truly wins in popular vote....which unless they include Michigan and Florida is just more suppression...

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:03:30 PM EST

Caucuses embrace intimidation and voter disenfranchisement. It's just wrong.

: Teresa (none / 0) (#82)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:13:25 PM EST

Not to mention the fact that if the caucuses are open, lotta REpublicans come in as one-day Democrats, vote for Obama, and then re-register as Republicans for the general.
And NONE of the caucuses in red states will mean SQUAT in November.

Parent

My caucus in WA (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:42:04 PM EST

delegates to county convention results:

Obama .......14
Clinton...... 3
Uncommitted...1

We had 33 people show up for Clinton...didn't gete the final number for Obama...may have been 155...Undecided 11.

I spoke for Hillary (allowed one minute!) Picked off a few of the undecideds but some stuck with undecided/uncommitted.

Huge turnout for Kucinich...yup...go figure...it's a cult.

Two folks stuck with Edwards...believers to the end. No delegates.

One snotty Larouche-style nut who spoke for the undecideds...went around advertising himself as a primary challenger to Rep. Norm Dicks (our congressman). Good luck with THAT one! Norm is a superdel who endorsed Clinton along with both of our Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and ex-governor Gary Locke. Current gov Gregoire endorsed Obama this week...saw the handwriting on the wall and no doubt calculated she needed them for her reelection campaign this year...since she only won by a contested 129 votes last time.

Current super count in WA is 6 for Clinton, 3 for Obama and 8 or so undecided.

Five big precincts at my location. Big by historic standards but nowhere near as big as 4 years ago (I had 350 people who had to stand OUTDOORS for two hours with NO microphone!) when they came out as anti-Bush people and more candidates to divide their votes...only 2 in the running this time...lower turnout but big for our small town of 8500.

State reports coming in now say 2-1 for Obama...about what we expected since it's a caucus and all the kool kids and the 'believer people' come out like they're going to a one-time rock concert or a chautauqua. Full of anger and hostility and spouting Repub. talking points, well propagandized, they come to caucus every four years to tell us who we should pick for our candidate and then we never hear from them again until....4 years later when they tell us again!

And they ... (none / 0) (#68)
by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM EST

hate us "boomers", don't they?

Parent

: Not hate. Disdain. (none / 0) (#73)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:38:12 PM EST

Very smug and quite sure they are right about everything since the "boomers" have 'screwed up the world' and they see themselves as the saviors to rescue the world from their incompetent parents/neighbors.
It's a combination of rebellion and righteousness.
Sigh...no news here!
Marginally informed and heavily propagandized and anti-Clinton, anti-Hillary...many "I'm not a libber" types...My Hillary speech was booed by a few charmers.

Parent

'Repub talking points' (none / 0) (#70)
by Sima on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:17:22 PM EST

That's what really got me about my precinct. The Obama precinct captain basically told us she wasn't going to ever vote for Hillary because Bill got a Bj in the Oval Office.

I wanted to say, 'But he won't be sitting in the Oval Office this time'. But I kept it civil.

My mother's caucus went much better, but once again it was all the cool kids, or cool retirees or whatever. I didn't see one person I know with a job in the community at my caucus; no waitresses, noone who works at the local hardware or grocery stores, none of the lawyers I know. It was very strange.

I wonder if the primary vote is going to be different than the caucus results. If so, I wonder how the caucus results can be justified?

Parent

Obama will justify caucus (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:45:27 PM EST

results vs. primary votes in WA if they are radically different (if Hillary wins big) by pointing to turnout in the primary if it isn't high...and say the un-Hillary folks caucused and DID NOT vote in the primary.

Should be interesting, alright.

In WA...these delegates only go to the county and congressional district next-step conventions...who shows up THERE at two more delegate meetings...will determine who goes to the state convention and THOSE will decide how the WA delegates are apportioned.

It may look like 2-1 now but I wouldn't count on it staying that way by the time we get through the state process...Hillary may gain some delegates because WE stick it out and follow through. The kool kids et al don't. They come once...to the caucus. After today, their numbers dwindle with every subsequent level. That's our state history, anyhow. As I recall, only 68 and 72 broke that pattern because of the Vietnam War and the draft.

Parent

Perspective: (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by Sima on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:13:51 AM EST

Glad to have the perspective, Oldpro. I was 6 in 68, so wasn't voting then. And you are right about going all the way through to the state caucus. It was interesting, we had an overflow of volunteers for delegates for Hillary, more than we needed to fill the slots we got. It seemed the other side was having trouble filling their slots, but they did it.

The precinct chair didn't know what she was doing, so didn't get the delegate tickets handed out to the Clinton delegates before they left. She told me she'd call them. I sure hope that happens, or I'm going to be PISSED.

Parent

: Call your county chair and report (none / 0) (#86)
by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:53:35 AM EST

this. The Clinton delegates cannot be seated without the tickets signed by the caucus chair.
And thanks for the response!

Parent

this is for BTD and may be deleted (none / 0) (#1)
by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:33:14 PM EST

for being off-topic, but here are email conversations between Shuster and the campaign where Shuster again and again defends himself and refuses to apologize about the pimp comment. The fact that he still did not think he was wrong when he made his first apology is even more evident to me now.

To be on topic, I am hearing all over the place that WA will be a monster win for Obama. Of course, it's anecdotal, but still.

I've been seeing this too (none / 0) (#2)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:39:07 PM EST

In another forum with a lot of WA residents, results like 3:1 and 4:1 are being reported. It could be a rough night for Clinton.

Parent

One post I read where results were 4-1 Obama (none / 0) (#3)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:41:29 PM EST

and this participant said the people count was 17 for Obama and 6 for Hillary. 23 people for 5 delegates? If true, that's too lame.

Parent

: Yeah, that can't be correct. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jen on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:50:41 PM EST

I'm in NV, and our precinct had 75 people which gave us 4 delegates. I can't imagine that many delegates for that few people.
I also was reading that diary at kos (why I go there, I do not know) and it sounds like Hillary's getting soundly whooped.
OTOH, a friend lives in Northeastern WA At her caucus, Hillary won her precinct 2-0, and also won the other 3 precincts she saw the results for.

Parent
: That's precinct delegates (none / 0) (#4)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 05:42:37 PM EST

It's not delegates for the entire state, just to clarify.

Parent

interesting item (none / 0) (#18)
by delandjim on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:22:59 PM EST

This isn't Wa. but it's interesting. Saw this a KOS, Puerto Rico is winner take all! Votes June 7 and has 55 delegates available. That might be good ground for Clinton.

earlier on CNN (none / 0) (#32)
by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:55:31 PM EST

Donna Brazille said if the SuperDelegates decide the election, she will resign from her position in the party.

Wow. That's some nasty talk. It's hard to feel unity when one of our party honchos says something like this. I guess she's in the Michelle Obama camp of "having to think about it."

Egregiously wrong.

And here I thought rules were rules... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by archimedes on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:03:11 PM EST

Why is it that when it comes to deciding whether to count delegates from Florida and Michigan, we have to stick with the rules we started with, but when it comes to counting superdelegates we have to change the rules?

I'm SO happy that Obama partisans have brought us this "new style of politics"

Parent

Who is changing the rules? (none / 0) (#39)
by independent voter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:08:16 PM EST

This is 1 superdelegate expressing her thoughts. And tell me how this has anything to do with Obama? Are you assuming he will win the popular vote or the pledged delegates. Donna Brazil did not qualify that she would only remove herself if Hilary won, or only remove herself if Barack won.

Parent

: I'm sorry, I assumed it was obvious (none / 0) (#59)
by archimedes on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST

This is the same argument you hear over and over again from Obama supporters.

Parent

She's against our elected Dem officials -- (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM EST

our governors, lieutenant governors, members of Congress, mayors, and others who are super-delegates? And isn't Brazille one of the DNC leaders who made the rules?

The only upside of this is maybe she'll be persona non grata with a lot of these govs and others for this comment. So many of her comments have been so rankling, but this one takes the cake. Bye, Ms. B.

Parent

She just doesn't want (none / 0) (#33)
by independent voter on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 06:59:58 PM EST

the supers to override the popular vote, or most pledged delegates...something that might indicate that candidate has the most support from regular voters

Parent

Blackmail or warning? (none / 0) (#43)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:12:32 PM EST

I'd be worried too if the supers override Obama if he leads in delegates and in popular vote...both.

That could split the Democratic Party with AAs for this cycle at least...if not longer...much longer. Not to mention...umm...Watts? Newark? Detroit? The Rs would do all they could to suggest that Hillary had stolen the nomination from a black man....

...makes me shudder...this is a nightmare. I'm just back from my caucus in WA....sigh...ugly. Report below.

Parent

Whichever. LBJ did the right thing with (none / 0) (#44)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM EST

civil rights in 1964 and handed the South to the Republicans up to present. I guess we shouldn't expect today's Democrats to have courage?

Parent

I keep posing this scenario (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Kathy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:19:30 PM EST

What if Hillary wins the popular vote and Obama wins the delegates?

Then what happens? We have to choose between making aa's feel disenfranchised or making women, Asians and Latinos feel disenfranchised.

My guess is that the women will lose. Not many in power seem overwhelmingly concerned when we get left out of the process. We are the Florida and Michigan of the democratic party.

Parent

: I suspect you're right about (none / 0) (#51)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM EST

what will happen. I've asked that question and got no real answer either.
I think that so long as the party believes there is no big price to be paid for leaving out women, it will never stop. This cycle might be a good time to make them pay for it.
After all, there would be a Democratic Congress to be a brake on President McCain so maybe it wouldn't be too bad. Of course, that assumes the Democrats in Congress wouldn't just roll over. Although if they do roll over, they're worthless anyway.

Parent

By the way (none / 0) (#45)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:17:35 PM EST

super-delegates are NOT going to override any election where the candidates leads in delegates and the popular vote. That would be ridiculous.

Parent

No. It wouldn't. (none / 0) (#63)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM EST

Depends on how close both those numbers are, what the dynamic is nationally at the time they have to decide and who has made what promises to whom.

This is politics and it's for the big prize.

Do NOT think it couldn't happen.

Parent

It would be ridiculous but could happen (none / 0) (#69)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:16:36 PM EST

I just think if they did that, it would be almost the only way to assure themselves of defeat. But they still could do it.

Parent

: Mondale vs. Hart. (none / 0) (#77)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:48:22 PM EST

It already happened.
http://www.newsreview.com/reno/Content?oid=618510

Parent

She also said they would have to do (none / 0) (#48)
by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:20:51 PM EST

something to make sure the people in MI and FL have their votes counted. She didn't say how though.

Parent

We will know who wins when the counting is over (none / 0) (#40)
by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:11:22 PM EST

It's ironic for people to preach the rules when it's convenient or they assume it's convenient for them.
I am new to this blog. I am a registered republican who has voted for the democratic candidate in 2004 and plans to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. It's a matter of what is better for the country.

Live results are here (none / 0) (#42)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:12:13 PM EST

Obama is up 65% with 24% reported so far.

link

Nebraska results (none / 0) (#47)
by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:19:33 PM EST

link

Currently:

Current results:
Obama: 69.1%
Clinton: 30.8%

Projected delegates:
Obama: 313
Clinton: 152
Uncommittedd: 1

That's about 75% of the numbers in (none / 0) (#50)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:27:13 PM EST

and NBC just called Nebraska for Obama. (Yes, I'm only listening to MSNBC because, before this, they ran the great Clinton bio. Now I gotta switch to CNN for, y'know, actual news coverage.)

Not a surprise, btw. I have family in Nebraska and . . . well, it's another state that won't go blue.

Parent

: Nebraska (none / 0) (#83)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:25:29 PM EST

Of COURSE Nebraska won't go blue.
Andrew and Tano believe that Obama will ride into the White House based on wins in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, North Dakota, Nebraska, Utah, and South Carolina. LOL
The superdelegates will make sure that the larger Dem base states are given fair representation in the final decision.
That's what they have ALWAYS been for: making the best decision for the party's success in the general election.
Obama knew the rules going in. He won't be allowed to game the system based on small wins in predominantly red states.
Not gonna happen.

Parent

who knew (none / 0) (#52)
by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:28:24 PM EST

that there were so many young, latte-drinking, brie-eating African-American males
in Nebraska!

Parent

Tano (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:39:04 PM EST

I don't have a clue how old u are, but you will be singing a very different tune in the general election...and if you manage to pull off a win in the GE, look out for the investigations and the rumor mills and the various dirty tricks that they will paint Obama with...which is what they did to Clinton...Dont ever think you are immune...because you arent....

Parent

well, I'll wager (none / 0) (#79)
by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:56:23 PM EST

that I am a lot older than you.
And given that you refer to an obama win in the GE as "if YOU pull of a win", I will assume you are not a Dem, so, at least in the context of this type of a discussion, who cares what you think?

Parent

: Tano (none / 0) (#84)
by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:28:19 PM EST

It appears he IS a Dem, Tano, just not an Obama Dem. And you BETTER care what he thinks.....you and Obama will need ALL the votes you can get, after the rightwing hate machine starts in on Obama and his family.
You and Michelle Obama aren't too hot at reflecting very well on your chosen candidate.

Parent

Yes, caucuses are so representative... (none / 0) (#57)
by archimedes on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:37:54 PM EST

With 35,000 people voting compared to 350,000+ registered Democrats in the state, I'm not especially impressed.

Parent

It's because there are few AAs there (none / 0) (#60)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST

as was seen in some other states. The contest comes more, just as with Latinos/as, where some whites can't handle multiculturalism. It's so sad -- but it's so much like the lead-up to the Civil War.

Parent

I don't want to think that's true. (none / 0) (#62)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM EST

Parent

: I don't either, but there was an analysis (none / 0) (#67)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:10:21 PM EST

on pollster.com, saying it a bit more subtly. I'll see if I can find it back a ways there.
Btw, there also was no gender conflict among the Amazons. There 'tis.

Parent
: dont worry (none / 0) (#74)
by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:38:59 PM EST

some people around here will just say anything...

Parent

BHO sure can win the caucuses... (none / 0) (#66)
by magisterludi on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:09:46 PM EST

I wonder why?

Parent

: gee, maybe (none / 0) (#75)
by Tano on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:39:44 PM EST

because people would like to see him become president?

Parent

Flyerhawk FYI... (none / 0) (#72)
by oldpro on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST

Found it!

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/Content?oid=618510

Superdelegates gave the nomination to Walter Mondale over Gary Hart.

Washington State Caucus Results | 86 comments (86 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment