Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
Wed May 25, 2016, 05:11 PM May 2016

An Awkward Reality in the Democratic Primary (Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary)

An Awkward Reality in the Democratic Primary
Washington 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 Sanders’s political revolution on Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary, symbolically reversing the outcome of the state’s Democratic caucus in March where Sanders prevailed as the victor. The primary result won’t count for much since delegates have already been awarded based on the caucus. (Sanders won 74 delegates, while Clinton won only 27.) But Clinton’s 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
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An Awkward Reality in the Democratic Primary (Hillary Clinton won the state’s Democratic primary) (Original Post) workinclasszero May 2016 OP
If not for caucuses, I wonder if Sanders would still be in the race. Garrett78 May 2016 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author silvershadow May 2016 #2
Are you trolling, or will you actually be surprised if/when that doesn't happen? N.T. Donald Ian Rankin May 2016 #3
This message was self-deleted by its author silvershadow May 2016 #4
You'll be surprised if Sanders isn't the nominee? Garrett78 May 2016 #5
Have you considered gambling? Donald Ian Rankin May 2016 #29
silvershadow is welcome to email me. I'll give him/her any odds he/she wants. Garrett78 May 2016 #30
Bernie Sanders can't beat Hillary..Why do you leave that out? nt asuhornets May 2016 #18
Actually I believe him to be the true front-runner, truth be told. silvershadow May 2016 #21
It's a grand indicator for what will happen in November Brother Buzz May 2016 #6
Some seem to think losing a state in the primary translates to losing that state in the general. Garrett78 May 2016 #7
This blows Bernie's contrived theory about super R B Garr May 2016 #8
"the caucuses went against the will of the people" workinclasszero May 2016 #10
It's the choice of the Democratic Party in Washington to hold a caucus, they sued the State to Bluenorthwest May 2016 #13
You must be exhausted putting so many words in my mouth. R B Garr May 2016 #16
And yet you sail past the fact that WA has a caucus only because the Democratic Party insisted Bluenorthwest May 2016 #24
My point was about the participation unique to R B Garr May 2016 #25
+1 uponit7771 May 2016 #28
The more people vote the worse he does, especially when they vote free from intimidation. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #9
Except it was a primary in name only. JackRiddler May 2016 #11
This. Nt bunnies May 2016 #19
The Democratic Party of Washington insisted upon the caucus, rejected the primary and that's Bluenorthwest May 2016 #12
Caucuses are un-democratic workinclasszero May 2016 #14
Did I say I support them? I don't. But the Democratic Party insisted upon the Washington Caucus Bluenorthwest May 2016 #22
The primary does not represent an unbiased sample, so you can't draw any conclusions from it. hellofromreddit May 2016 #15
Hillary supporters are right, there is something fishy about the WA primary results. fancypants75 May 2016 #17
There was no contest and no GOTV effort quaker bill May 2016 #20
Show pony won the beauty contest? Vote2016 May 2016 #23
Yet another blow to Teh Revolution Number23 May 2016 #26
Both sides had the same incentive to try to win. onenote May 2016 #27

Response to workinclasszero (Original post)

Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #3)

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
29. Have you considered gambling?
Thu May 26, 2016, 04:49 PM
May 2016

You could get really quite good odds against Sanders being the nominee right now, I suspect.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
30. silvershadow is welcome to email me. I'll give him/her any odds he/she wants.
Thu May 26, 2016, 05:04 PM
May 2016

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.

Brother Buzz

(36,212 posts)
6. It's a grand indicator for what will happen in November
Wed May 25, 2016, 05:59 PM
May 2016

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)
7. Some seem to think losing a state in the primary translates to losing that state in the general.
Wed May 25, 2016, 06:39 PM
May 2016

Which is, of course, not true. Just as people make the mistake of thinking primary turnout translates to general election turnout.

R B Garr

(16,919 posts)
8. This blows Bernie's contrived theory about super
Wed May 25, 2016, 06:57 PM
May 2016

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.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
13. It's the choice of the Democratic Party in Washington to hold a caucus, they sued the State to
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:11 PM
May 2016

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

(16,919 posts)
16. You must be exhausted putting so many words in my mouth.
Wed May 25, 2016, 08:49 PM
May 2016

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)
24. And yet you sail past the fact that WA has a caucus only because the Democratic Party insisted
Wed May 25, 2016, 10:08 PM
May 2016

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

(16,919 posts)
25. My point was about the participation unique to
Wed May 25, 2016, 10:51 PM
May 2016

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.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
11. Except it was a primary in name only.
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:01 PM
May 2016

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.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
12. The Democratic Party of Washington insisted upon the caucus, rejected the primary and that's
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:06 PM
May 2016

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)
14. Caucuses are un-democratic
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:16 PM
May 2016

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)
22. Did I say I support them? I don't. But the Democratic Party insisted upon the Washington Caucus
Wed May 25, 2016, 10:00 PM
May 2016

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)
15. The primary does not represent an unbiased sample, so you can't draw any conclusions from it.
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:17 PM
May 2016

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.

That lopsided reality makes it more difficult for Sanders to argue that his candidacy represents the will of the people.

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)
17. Hillary supporters are right, there is something fishy about the WA primary results.
Wed May 25, 2016, 09:01 PM
May 2016

Hillary should demand an investigation ASAP.

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
20. There was no contest and no GOTV effort
Wed May 25, 2016, 09:24 PM
May 2016

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....

Number23

(24,544 posts)
26. Yet another blow to Teh Revolution
Wed May 25, 2016, 11:39 PM
May 2016
Roughly 230,000 people participated in the Democratic caucus, The Stranger reported in March. In contrast, more than 660,000 Democratic votes had been tallied in the primary as of Tuesday, according to The Seattle Times. That lopsided reality makes it more difficult for Sanders to argue that his candidacy represents the will of the people.


Would be nice to know how the numbers finally came together. How much did she win by?

onenote

(42,373 posts)
27. Both sides had the same incentive to try to win.
Wed May 25, 2016, 11:43 PM
May 2016

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?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»An Awkward Reality in the...