2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAn Awkward Reality in the Democratic Primary (Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary)
An Awkward Reality in the Democratic PrimaryWashington voters handed Hillary Clinton a primary win, symbolically reversing the result of the state caucus where Bernie Sanders prevailed.
CLARE FORAN 12:43 PM ET
Washington voters delivered a bit of bad news for Bernie Sanderss political revolution on Tuesday.
Hillary Clinton won the states Democratic primary, symbolically reversing the outcome of the states Democratic caucus in March where Sanders prevailed as the victor. The primary result wont count for much since delegates have already been awarded based on the caucus. (Sanders won 74 delegates, while Clinton won only 27.) But Clintons victory nevertheless puts Sanders in an awkward position.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/1857/11/washington-primary-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/484313/?preview=Sr5dG80pNO20P61h4ABEZNMQwGo&utm_source=atlfb
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I have my doubts.
Response to workinclasszero (Original post)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #3)
silvershadow This message was self-deleted by its author.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)C'mon, really?!?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)You could get really quite good odds against Sanders being the nominee right now, I suspect.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And for any amount. It doesn't even matter if I actually have the amount. $1000? $1,000,000? I'm game.
I'm not actually a betting man, but I'd be a fool to pass this up. My wife and I could really use the money.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,422 posts)And not unlike California in 2008. California had an EARLY primary (05 Feb) that Clinton won, but after the dust settled, the state rallied behind Obama in the general. The West Coast is solidly blue.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Which is, of course, not true. Just as people make the mistake of thinking primary turnout translates to general election turnout.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)delegates out of the water. It was obviously the caucuses that went against the will of the people. He has not earned a majority except a few low population, white states. His super delegate coercion dreams just evaporated.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)They sure did.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)be allowed to do so. You carry on as if they have a caucus because Bernie wanted one, but it was the Democratic Party which sued the State when the legislature established a mail in primary to be allowed to allot delegates by caucus. Is it your contention that the Democratic Party rigged it? Or what?
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)The obvious part to me is that the caucus structure and process inhibits participation for whatever reasons, although most of them are obvious and have been discussed here many times. There have been posts here by someone in Washington saying she knew people in Washington who would not participate in a caucus for those reasons that have also been posted here many times. Obviously those people had no problem with the primary.
--It never occurred to me that Bernie was responsible for the Washington caucus because Bernie "wanted one".
--It never occurred to me that the Democratic party "rigged it".
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)upon one and litigated to be allowed one. I don't support caucuses. The Democratic Party in many States very much does. In Washington they sure do. Not the voters. The Party establishment which on most days Hillary supporters claim to be loyal to.
Supporters of both candidates have offered up a series of complaints about the conduct of the various primaries and caucuses. As in this case, many of those complaints are about the Democratic Party. If you don't care for caucuses, you should be letting Party officials know that.
My State has a mail in election system, closed primary and Bernie won it big.
But if it is obvious that caucuses are not good for participation, all of us should ask why the Party supports them with such vehemence.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)this election in particular. I'm not talking about the Democratic party in Washington in a general sense.
Watching on Rachel Maddow, there were about 26,000 caucus participants, but almost 700,000 in the primary. As a clip from a Washington station said, obviously many more people prefer to mail in a ballot rather than going to a caucus.
I don't like caucuses either. I would not want to listen to ramblings and hostility from strangers just to vote.
But Hillary won the high turnout primary which means Bernie's huge delegate net doesn't give him the moral high road to claim the same super delegate ratio. Hillary's win with over 300,000-something means she actually won the majority.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Was it a secret that this poll does not actually decide anything?
Was any campaign bothering with appearances or calls or spending to contest this "primary"? Was there GOTV?
It's a stupid set up and stupid rules, to have a caucus that counts and then weeks later to hold a "primary" that does not. But that's how the WA party set it up long in advance, independently of anything else.
Any complaints belong with the WA Democratic Party.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)why the delegates are awarded via caucus. The Party sued for the right to caucus. According to the Party, the Primary is moot. Don't you support the Party? Are you saying the Party rigged the system?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Maybe the only positive thing that will come out of Sander's failed campaign is the abolishment of all caucuses in favor of regular primaries.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and litigated to hold such caucuses in spite of the will of the people of the State. This is what I said. Hillary did poorly in caucuses in 08 as well, still some States cling to them. Nevada established theirs in 2008, Hillary has won every contested Democratic Primary they have ever held. Harry Reid pushed to change from Primary to Caucus.
You carry on as if Bernie invented the Caucus. Washington delegates are awarded by caucus because the Democratic Party fought hard to do so. Your complaint is with the Party Establishment. They are the ones who put that caucus in place. The elected legislature of Washington established a Primary, the Democratic Party rejected it.
You should take these issues up with the Party. Seriously, you should. But remember Nevada, when Hillary folks said 'Them's the rules' and 'We are loyal to the Party'? How does that apply in Washington? You tell me. Or just yammer like you do.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)WA should straighten this mess out and choose one or the other and do away with having the formality/expense/waste of a vote that literally doesn't count. But plenty of voters know that it doesn't count and so chose to ignore it as a result.
It makes it hard to argue that any candidate represents the will of the WA people since their process is such a mess. It isn't any more awkward for Sanders than it is for Clinton. After all, she lost the caucuses.
fancypants75
(54 posts)Hillary should demand an investigation ASAP.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)because there were no delegates at stake. The primary victory is precisely pointless and not at all representative of an actual contest, as it was not contested.
So Hillary can win WA if Bernie does not try....
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Would be nice to know how the numbers finally came together. How much did she win by?
onenote
(42,700 posts)If it was meaningless, then why did Clinton voters come out in greater numbers than Sanders supporters?
The usual explanation here is that Clinton supporters had an incentive to come out in order to discredit Sanders' caucus win. But assuming that was the case, then Bernie's supporters had an incentive to make sure that didn't happen.
So why didn't the Sanders supporters come out?
Heck, just last week Sanders supporters were posting Shaun King's diatribe about the popular vote which criticized the reported numbers because it didn't reflect the results of the primary caucus. But if the popular vote was so important, why didn't Sanders' voters show up?