Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET)

[Mr. Morden]

As I understand it, while the election is done by mail, the votes are supposed to be in by 8pm local time, which is 11pm ET.

AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_state/WA_Page_0524.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS
CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/wa/Rep
NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/washington
official site: http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/

[Mr. Morden]

If you guys know of a place that reports the Democratic primary results, let me know.  CNN and NYT just give the caucus results on the Dem. side, since the primary awards no delegates.

[RaphaelDLG]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You can find the dem. results here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_state/WA_Page_0524.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

As I understand it, the rule is that ballots must be postmarked by 8 pm, not received by the county at 8 pm. Yes, that means some ballots are counted days later but it doesn't matter as Sanders and TRUMP will win easily. What would be hilarious though is if Kasich or Cruz ends up at 20.00001% on election night and we're waiting days for the last ballots to reveal whether they get delegates or not.

[Xing]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

Not really. While the "caucus sample" was definitely skewed somewhat toward Bernie, these results will be skewed toward Hillary, and not really accurately reflect the whole electorate. That said, I'll be shocked if she wins.

[Mr. Morden]

You can find the dem. results here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_state/WA_Page_0524.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

Thanks.  Added it to the OP.

[RaphaelDLG]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

Not really. While the "caucus sample" was definitely skewed somewhat toward Bernie, these results will be skewed toward Hillary, and not really accurately reflect the whole electorate. That said, I'll be shocked if she wins.

That was supposed to be sarcasm

[Xing]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

Not really. While the "caucus sample" was definitely skewed somewhat toward Bernie, these results will be skewed toward Hillary, and not really accurately reflect the whole electorate. That said, I'll be shocked if she wins.

That was supposed to be sarcasm

Sorry, I'm not the best at picking it up through text. Anyway, here's another link for the Democratic results, which will presumably have results by county: http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/

[136or142]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

No it would not.  There is no reason for Bernie Sanders supporters to turn out to vote.  If this was in concert with the other primaries in Washington State then it would, but it isn't, so it's not.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Part of me hopes that Hillary wins this primary just so we can nix the caucus system.

[dax00]

I like the caucus system. You know that the people are informed instead of just sheeple. One of the major flaws of the caucus is relative lack of accessibility. I propose that people should be able to tele-caucus on iPads or something. That'd kill two birds with one stone, nearly eliminating the need for absentee and early ballots.

I predict a Bernie 55-41 win, although I don't care much altogether.
Trump over 70.

[jman123]

question is how much kasich and cruz will get

[RI]

Trump over 70.

Considering Oregon, that seems unlikely.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Trump over 70.

Considering Oregon, that seems unlikely.

FWIW, some OR votes were cast before Kasich/Cruz dropped out. That isn't the case here.

[mds32]

True but I don't see King or Pierce counties giving Trump over 60%.

[Holmes]

Oh yeah, this is today.

[Santander]

I propose that people should be able to tele-caucus on iPads or something. That'd kill two birds with one stone, nearly eliminating the need for absentee and early ballots.

Yes, and leave the old and poor out in the cold because they don't have iPads... I don't believe in absentee voting without cause, but replacing it with iPad caucusing is just ridiculous.

[Alcon]

FYI: The votes will start being reported at 8 PM local time, but Washington (unlike Oregon) requires the ballot be postmarked by today, not necessarily received.  It's conceivable some valid votes from overseas won't come in for over a week.  Most counties do only one report on Election Night, released sometime between about 8:10 and 8:45.  Depending on last-minute turnout, around 60% of votes are usually counted on Election Night.  In this election, which early indicators suggest might have a lower-than-average proportion of last-minute ballots, that figure could be a bit higher.

True but I don't see King or Pierce counties giving Trump over 60%.

Pierce County is the odds-on favorite to be Trump's best county in the urban Puget Sound.  It's not an upscale place, and even many of its higher-income Republican areas aren't college-educated.  I expect Snohomish to be more trouble for him.

[ElectionsGuy]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

Or that she wins with low turnout inconsequential elections?

[Alcon]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

Or that she wins with low turnout inconsequential elections?

Washington 2008 Democratic caucus turnout: 246,000
Washington 2008 Democratic beauty contest primary turnout: 700,000

A primary that did absolutely nothing had 285% of the turnout of the most-attended caucus in state history.  That will happen again this year.

[Hnv1]

If Hillary wins this, it proves conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was robbed by a deeply undemocratic caucus system

Or that she wins with low turnout inconsequential elections?

Washington 2008 Democratic caucus turnout: 246,000
Washington 2008 Democratic beauty contest primary turnout: 700,000

A primary that did absolutely nothing had 285% of the turnout of the most-attended caucus in state history.  That will happen again this year.

Where's that data from? I thought WA only release caucus votes?

[RI]

My (somewhat) naïve prior would be that Trump should do best in counties like Pacific, Grays Harbor, Cowlitz, Lewis, Mason, Pierce, and maybe Kitsap. I could also see Trump doing well in the Ferry/Stevens/Pend Oreille trio and Skamania/Klickitat, though I could just as easily see Cruz doing relatively well there. Kasich should do his best in King, Island, Jefferson, Thurston, Whitman, San Juan, Snohomish, etc. Spokane, Whatcom County, the Tri-Cities, and Vancouver seem relatively Cruz-friendly, though Kasich did fairly well in the Portland area.

[RaphaelDLG]

My comment was sarcastic.

Clearly beauty contest primaries are a larger but substantively different and therefore invalid sample from caucuses.

Typically, binding primaries see about 4x the turnout of caucuses.
However, meaningless beauty contest primaries like this only see around 2x the turnout of caucuses.

The people voting in beauty contest primaries are voting not for the beauty contest but to vote in other local primary races.  We all know, unfortunately, the younger Sanders crowd is less likely to vote in those races and are therefore underrepresented despite the turnout being higher.

[RI]

The people voting in beauty contest primaries are voting not for the beauty contest but to vote in other local primary races.  We all know, unfortunately, the younger Sanders crowd is less likely to vote in those races and are therefore underrepresented despite the turnout being higher.

AFAIK, there aren't any local primary races today. Given the nature of how the ballot is set up, I don't see how there could be any.

[RaphaelDLG]

The people voting in beauty contest primaries are voting not for the beauty contest but to vote in other local primary races.  We all know, unfortunately, the younger Sanders crowd is less likely to vote in those races and are therefore underrepresented despite the turnout being higher.

AFAIK, there aren't any local primary races today. Given the nature of how the ballot is set up, I don't see how there could be any.

Ah, that's right.  That wasn't the case in Nebraska, and I maintain that 1) what I said is generally correct for beauty contests and 2) the sample is still obviously unrepresentative and though bigger undersamples sanders supporters