So Bernie lost when he wasn't on the field competing and he owes an explanation as to the results?

[Skwmom]

[merrily]

1. Well, when you put it that way.....

How can I possibly disagree?

[hrmjustin]

2. Wa had second thoughts about Sanders.

[morningfog]

3. That's silly. The delegates had already been delegated.

[hrmjustin]

4. Your going to say with a straight face to me that is silly?

660k votes have been counted so far with more to come. 230k voted in Mwrch.

Washington State voters voted in strong numbers and clearly had second thoughts about Sanders.

Sorry if the truth hurts.

[morningfog]

5. Yes. It is absolutely asinine to claim WA has changed its mind.

Total nonsense.

The truth is the delegates in WA were allocated once, based on the caucus results. That is where the campaigns put there efforts. Everything else is silly spin.

[hrmjustin]

6. Then why didn't they vote for him again?

[morningfog]

7. There was no need to. Delegates were already awarded based on the caucus which he won resoundingly.

Your issue seems to be with Washington's irrelevant primary.

[hrmjustin]

9. How come yesterday turnout was 3 times larger than the caucus?

[morningfog]

11. Caucuses are always lower turnout.

Look, I am in favor of ending caucuses altogether. But you can't make silly claims based on the results of non-binding, uncontested, irrelevant primaries held after the delegates had all been awarded.

[hrmjustin]

12. We disagree.

[MadBadger]

8. Fine, 450K Washingtonians were disenfranchised because they couldnt vote in the caucus

So Hillary always had more support in the state.

That a better narrative?

[morningfog]

10. I support ending all caucuses.

But you can't assume that HIllary would have won a contested and binding primary. Those are two separate issues.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. It's like when he didn't compete in any of the Southern states

The delegate deficit can be attributed in large part to that decision.

Oopsy!