Rs: caucus to "elect delegates to the County Convention or Legislative District Caucuses The County Conventions will, in turn, choose delegates to the State Convention."; The primary apportions the delegates. Ds: caucus to apportion delegates; primary is meaningless.
Post by mominatrix on Mar 30, 2016 13:00:34 GMT -5
I've been chewed out for actually raising this.
Like, "people DIED for the RIGHT TO VOTE!!!11!!! And you're bitching about having to lose a Saturday morning. GET OVAH YOURSELF!!!!11!!" level of chewed out.
No matter that my diverse neighborhood (according to the Census, my zip code is 12% AfAm, 20% Asian, 15% Latino) was represented in caucus by a bunch of White people. That's NBD.
5.8% might be the lowest turnout I have ever heard of.
So Bernie won 72% of just nearly 6% of the Democrats in Washington?
So if he won 72% of 6%, that is 4.32% of the Dems, and according to Pew about 48% of people are democrats or lean democrats (as independents), so then that is really 4.32% of 48% of the population, or adjust up to 51% in WA since they are a split Senate/House and a Dem gov, and you're still at only 2.2% of the electorate's choices. Wow, we really are not good at turnout, are we? That's terrible and a good reason as to why even a 20+% turnout for a primary is way better than a 6-10% turnout of a caucus!
Down with caucuses and up with more participation in general!
I keep seeing these shares all over my facebook feed. they make me incredibly uncomfortable.
a line has been crossed.
...and mentioned over beers in my town. Even my coworker wanted to know who the Superdelegates were in our state and who they were pledged to already. I showed him where to look and luckily for us, I don't think a single of our 6-8 superdelegates are pledged yet or I'm sure they would be getting the same Berner emails.
Has Bernie said anything? I feel like his campaign could send out a strong message on Facebook about being sickened by the threats being made and saying that he in no way condones this, nor does he want to win through intimidation.
Because Mr. Stands up for what is right!! sure is keeping quiet. He's about 3 rungs below Trump's actual incitement of violence.
I would not be surprised to find out that this idea was planted during some strategy call.
Someone on CNN yesterday or the day before asked a campaign rep about reports of superdelegates getting nasty messages from Bernie supporters and the response was "well, we didn't tell them to do that. We can't control what they do."
Has Bernie said anything? I feel like his campaign could send out a strong message on Facebook about being sickened by the threats being made and saying that he in no way condones this, nor does he want to win through intimidation.
Because Mr. Stands up for what is right!! sure is keeping quiet. He's about 3 rungs below Trump's actual incitement of violence.
I would not be surprised to find out that this idea was planted during some strategy call.
Someone on CNN yesterday or the day before asked a campaign rep about reports of superdelegates getting nasty messages from Bernie supporters and the response was "well, we didn't tell them to do that. We can't control what they do."
sorry for all the gif's. but, honestly, all I can muster right now is incoherent rage
Like, "people DIED for the RIGHT TO VOTE!!!11!!! And you're bitching about having to lose a Saturday morning. GET OVAH YOURSELF!!!!11!!" level of chewed out.
No matter that my diverse neighborhood (according to the Census, my zip code is 12% AfAm, 20% Asian, 15% Latino) was represented in caucus by a bunch of White people. That's NBD.
And yet somehow we find it important in all other areas of voting to make it accessible, easy and private. But in this case somehow it's totes OK for it to be completely inconvenient, public and subject to OVERTLY coercive practices that border on intimidating? How are caucuses even a thing? You cant post a sign outside of a polling place but part of caucusing is being required to listen to why your candidate sucks? No thanks.
i just googled "caucus turnout" and the first results were all stories saying that the Washington caucus had unusually high turnout and broke the state record.
In Utah a total of 280,000 people caucused--in both the D and R caucus combined.
Unusually high turnout as compared to other WA caucuses or as compared to other caucuses in other states?
Like, "people DIED for the RIGHT TO VOTE!!!11!!! And you're bitching about having to lose a Saturday morning. GET OVAH YOURSELF!!!!11!!" level of chewed out.
No matter that my diverse neighborhood (according to the Census, my zip code is 12% AfAm, 20% Asian, 15% Latino) was represented in caucus by a bunch of White people. That's NBD.
And yet somehow we find it important in all other areas of voting to make it accessible, easy and private. But in this case somehow it's totes OK for it to be completely inconvenient, public and subject to OVERTLY coercive practices that border on intimidating? How are caucuses even a thing? You cant post a sign outside of a polling place but part of caucusing is being required to listen to why your candidate sucks? No thanks.
And everybody's surprised SHOCKED that Bernie does so well in Caucus states.
5.8% might be the lowest turnout I have ever heard of.
Eh, check other caucuses. I don't think this is unique.
WA caucuses allow early voting (eta: proxy voting?) from what I remember people saying here. So it's should have been better than the caucus system we have here where you have to be present to participate.
But whatever. It's far from the "will of the people."
I'm going to go poke the bear (post on my Berner Washington resident cousin's page.)
i just googled "caucus turnout" and the first results were all stories saying that the Washington caucus had unusually high turnout and broke the state record.
In Utah a total of 280,000 people caucused--in both the D and R caucus combined.
Unusually high turnout as compared to other WA caucuses or as compared to other caucuses in other states?
I think as compared to other WA caucuses.
then when you actually read the articles you learn (a) the caucuses 8 years ago were better attended; and (b) attendance has been going down SINCE THE 80's.
Eh, check other caucuses. I don't think this is unique.
WA caucuses allow early voting from what I remember people saying here. So it's should have been better than the caucus system we have here where you have to be present to participate.
You had to submit the form a week (maybe two, don't remember) in advance. and the only acceptable reasons were illness or working. so, as the PP said, having a disabled kid who couldn't caucus, no excuse. having to work but being scheduled last minute, no excuse. having other shit to do all saturday morning, no excuse.
there's a huge outcry over people having to wait in 2-3 hour lines to vote, but having to attend a caucus for that number of hours, and be subjected to (what would be illegal in other places) electioneering that whole time is, apparently DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!
Even if 5.8% is a standard percentage for a caucus, it's an embarassing number for a man who's entire agenda rests on a people's uprising and who was heavily campaigning in incrediably favorable territory.
Has Bernie said anything? I feel like his campaign could send out a strong message on Facebook about being sickened by the threats being made and saying that he in no way condones this, nor does he want to win through intimidation.
Because Mr. Stands up for what is right!! sure is keeping quiet. He's about 3 rungs below Trump's actual incitement of violence.
I would not be surprised to find out that this idea was planted during some strategy call.
Someone on CNN yesterday or the day before asked a campaign rep about reports of superdelegates getting nasty messages from Bernie supporters and the response was "well, we didn't tell them to do that. We can't control what they do."
That's also the exact argument the Trump campaign has made about their violent supporters.
And just like Trump, Bernie is tacitly encouraging this kind of behavior from his supporters by arguing that superdelegates should change their votes to reflect who won their states.
So don't claim "we didn't do it" when you actually WANT them to take those actions.
WA caucuses allow early voting from what I remember people saying here. So it's should have been better than the caucus system we have here where you have to be present to participate.
You had to submit the form a week (maybe two, don't remember) in advance. and the only acceptable reasons were illness or working. so, as the PP said, having a disabled kid who couldn't caucus, no excuse. having to work but being scheduled last minute, no excuse. having other shit to do all saturday morning, no excuse.
there's a huge outcry over people having to wait in 2-3 hour lines to vote, but having to attend a caucus for that number of hours, and be subjected to (what would be illegal in other places) electioneering that whole time is, apparently DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!
I saw the correction in this thread after I posted.
Looks like WA is having a primary too but Dems decided to use the caucus to decide delegates vs the primary that is happening in May? WTF??
And what percentage of the electorate actually voted in the elected officials who are superdelegates?
Oooo... I looked it up. Gov. Inslee was elected in 2012 and here are the WA stats:
Year:2012
Estimated Voting Age Population Registered : 5,221,125
Percentage of Voting Age Population Registered: 74.79%
Votes Cast: 3,172,930
Percent of Registered Voters Voting: 81.25%
So doing the math, that's 81.25% of registered voters or 61% of eligible people. Being conservative, just over ten times the amount that turned out in the WA caucuses.
You had to submit the form a week (maybe two, don't remember) in advance. and the only acceptable reasons were illness or working. so, as the PP said, having a disabled kid who couldn't caucus, no excuse. having to work but being scheduled last minute, no excuse. having other shit to do all saturday morning, no excuse.
there's a huge outcry over people having to wait in 2-3 hour lines to vote, but having to attend a caucus for that number of hours, and be subjected to (what would be illegal in other places) electioneering that whole time is, apparently DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!
I saw the correction in this thread after I posted.
Looks like WA is having a primary too but Dems decided to use the caucus to decide delegates vs the primary that is happening in May? WTF??
no I think the repubs had a caucus and will have a primary as well. The article says their caucus was only to elect delegates. The republican primary in May is when the delegates will be assigned to the candidates. The dems just have the caucus
You had to submit the form a week (maybe two, don't remember) in advance. and the only acceptable reasons were illness or working. so, as the PP said, having a disabled kid who couldn't caucus, no excuse. having to work but being scheduled last minute, no excuse. having other shit to do all saturday morning, no excuse.
there's a huge outcry over people having to wait in 2-3 hour lines to vote, but having to attend a caucus for that number of hours, and be subjected to (what would be illegal in other places) electioneering that whole time is, apparently DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!
I saw the correction in this thread after I posted.
Looks like WA is having a primary too but Dems decided to use the caucus to decide delegates vs the primary that is happening in May? WTF??
Why is the next primary not for another week? The crazies need another election to flail about because I am so tired over hearing about superdelegates in WA.
Also, I bet the Bernie Bros won't eat crow if WA's primary results in May completely contradict the caucus results. Fuck is this election over already?
Even if 5.8% is a standard percentage for a caucus, it's an embarassing number for a man who's entire agenda rests on a people's uprising and who was heavily campaigning in incrediably favorable territory.
Even Gaston had more of the people on his side.
LOL, but I think that still sends you to the corner ---------------------------------->
no I think the repubs had a caucus and will have a primary as well. The article says their caucus was only to elect delegates. The republican primary in May is when the delegates will be assigned to the candidates. The dems just have the caucus
there's a dem primary in May that doesn't count at all.
Look we can have a statistical debate on whether 5.8% is low or not. But this is irrelevant.
Bernie's people are making a "will of the people" argument as to why they are entitled to superdelegates and Bernie is campaigning on a "will of the people" political agenda. Both of which are undercut by such a paltry turnout in WA (and really turn out has been low for Ds across the primary/caucus spectrum this year as compare to 2008).
no I think the repubs had a caucus and will have a primary as well. The article says their caucus was only to elect delegates. The republican primary in May is when the delegates will be assigned to the candidates. The dems just have the caucus
there's a dem primary in May that doesn't count at all.
And what percentage of the electorate actually voted in the elected officials who are superdelegates?
Oooo... I looked it up. Gov. Inslee was elected in 2012 and here are the WA stats:
Year:2012
Estimated Voting Age Population Registered : 5,221,125
Percentage of Voting Age Population Registered: 74.79%
Votes Cast: 3,172,930
Percent of Registered Voters Voting: 81.25%
So doing the math, that's 81.25% of registered voters or 61% of eligible people. Being conservative, just over ten times the amount that turned out in the WA caucuses.
And what percentage of the electorate actually voted in the elected officials who are superdelegates?
This is a good point so I had to look it up.
As of January 31, 2016 there were 3,973,623 registered voters in Washington State (both republican and democrat). I only looked at Governor Inslee, Senator Murray, and Senator Cantwell since they are the super delegates that were elected in a statewide election (numbers easier to find). The number of registered voters were slightly lower when they were elected, but I just used the 2016 number to make it easy and be conservative.
Governer Inslee was elected by 39.8% of the registered voters (or 1,582,802 votes). Senator Murray was elected by 33.1% of the registered voters (or 1,314,930 votes). Senator Cantwell was elected by 41.7% of the registered voters (or 1,657,952 votes).
Meanwhile, 4.21% of the registered voters caucused for Sanders (or 167,210 people).