home

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! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


(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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    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
    1. Many primary states have been around 15% turnout

    2. 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