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

[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.

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

They don't release individual vote counts, but they do count how many people signed in.

I think the main reason is logistical.  When people caucus, each precinct has a leader (most of whom weren't trained beforehand) who does the paperwork.  They then stuff it in a too-small Manila envelope.  You can imagine how much of mess that is.  Pulling and storing the individual vote totals would just add to an already chaotic, stressful process, so I think they don't bother. 

But the sign-ins should be a reliable estimate of turnout.

[Alcon]

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.

I think that's super reasonable all-around.  I'm not sure about Trump doing amazingly in Pierce and Kitsap, just because they're higher than average in income and education.  But I think he'll do fine, since neither county has enough upscale Republicans to be that fertile for Kasich (especially since so many of Kitsap's rich people are Dems).

bgwah and I came to the same conclusion about Skamania/Klickitat (especially Skamania) and Ferry/Stevens/Pend Oreille.  They're both weird anti-establishment areas, although with different flavors.  It was hilarious to see how well GMO labeling did in some super right-wing areas in the northeast, for instance.  I feel like they will probably be among Trump's best, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were Cruz's best area either.  They're just weird.

I also agree with you on your Cruz picks.  Clark could be good for Trump, but I think there's a big population of upscale religious conservatives there.  Same with the Tri-Cities.  I think a dark horse possibility is Whatcom.  Rally aside, Lynden should be a natural area for Cruz.  I expect Kasich could do well around Lake Whatcom and Chuckanut.  Still, there's plenty of working-class white areas to counteract that.  It's also possible Cruz could do well in those one-town-where-everyone-knows-each-other counties (Columbia, Garfield).

On the Dem side, I'm going to freely admit that I'm a lot more uncertain.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was Oregon-like, with Sanders winning nearly everywhere but landsliding in few places.

[cwt]

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

I don't think that many regular people necessarily know or care that it's a only beauty contest. They just get the ballot in the mail, so they vote.

[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

I don't think that many regular people necessarily know or care that it's a only beauty contest. They just get the ballot in the mail, so they vote.

The people who get the ballot in the mail are disproportionately likely to be Clinton supporters

[NOVA Green]

On the Dem side, I'm going to freely admit that I'm a lot more uncertain.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was Oregon-like, with Sanders winning nearly everywhere but landsliding in few places.

I think Bernie could well lose Adams, Grant and Franklin counties, and possibly Yakima county when you look at similar areas in Eastern Oregon like Malheur and Umatilla counties and a higher Latino proportion of the population.

Also, Snohomish has the potential for a Hillary win when you compare it to Washington, County Oregon demographically, including a higher income level and potential for decreased Bernie supporter turnout without delegates at stake.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Pierce county be only a narrow Bernie win and possible Hillary flip and King county being lower in Bernie margins than Multnomah county in Oregon.

I think metro Seattle-Tacoma will be closer in overall margins than metro Portland

[Ebowed]

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

I don't think that many regular people necessarily know or care that it's a only beauty contest. They just get the ballot in the mail, so they vote.

The people who get the ballot in the mail are disproportionately likely to be Clinton supporters

Lol.  The entire state votes by mail.

[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

I don't think that many regular people necessarily know or care that it's a only beauty contest. They just get the ballot in the mail, so they vote.

The people who get the ballot in the mail are disproportionately likely to be Clinton supporters

Lol.  The entire state votes by mail.

So every single adult washington state resident regardless of party registration gets sent one ballot to their home address giving them an option to vote democrat or republican and mail it back in?

[Ebowed]

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

I don't think that many regular people necessarily know or care that it's a only beauty contest. They just get the ballot in the mail, so they vote.

The people who get the ballot in the mail are disproportionately likely to be Clinton supporters

Lol.  The entire state votes by mail.

So every single adult washington state resident regardless of party registration gets sent one ballot to their home address giving them an option to vote democrat or republican and mail it back in?

Every registered voter gets sent a ballot, yes.  There is no party registration.*

*When I registered in 08 you could write in a party if you wanted to do so, so I put 'Democratic party.'  But when you receive the primary ballot, you declare then and there whether you are voting in the Dem or GOP primary.

[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

I don't think that many regular people necessarily know or care that it's a only beauty contest. They just get the ballot in the mail, so they vote.

The people who get the ballot in the mail are disproportionately likely to be Clinton supporters

Lol.  The entire state votes by mail.

So every single adult washington state resident regardless of party registration gets sent one ballot to their home address giving them an option to vote democrat or republican and mail it back in?

Every registered voter gets sent a ballot, yes.  There is no party registration.*

*When I registered in 08 you could write in a party if you wanted to do so, so I put 'Democratic party.'  But when you receive the primary ballot, you declare then and there whether you are voting in the Dem or GOP primary.

You have to be a registered voter to get sent a ballot without requesting one, though right?, and 80% of Washington state's voters are registered (which btw is pretty impressive), which would favor Hillary, unlike the caucus-system, which has same day registration.

Also, the people likely to be living at their permanent address where the ballot would get sent are more likely to be Hillary supporters.

Not to mention the lack of advertising Sanders did for this and the relative lack of political experience/awareness/regularity of commitment of his young supporters.

[Crumpets]

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

I don't think that many regular people necessarily know or care that it's a only beauty contest. They just get the ballot in the mail, so they vote.

The people who get the ballot in the mail are disproportionately likely to be Clinton supporters

Lol.  The entire state votes by mail.

So every single adult washington state resident regardless of party registration gets sent one ballot to their home address giving them an option to vote democrat or republican and mail it back in?

Every registered voter gets sent a ballot, yes.  There is no party registration.*

*When I registered in 08 you could write in a party if you wanted to do so, so I put 'Democratic party.'  But when you receive the primary ballot, you declare then and there whether you are voting in the Dem or GOP primary.

You have to be a registered voter to get sent a ballot without requesting one, though right?, and 80% of Washington state's voters are registered (which btw is pretty impressive), which would favor Hillary, unlike the caucus-system, which has same day registration.

Also, the people likely to be living at their permanent address where the ballot would get sent are more likely to be Hillary supporters.

Not to mention the lack of advertising Sanders did for this and the relative lack of political experience/awareness/regularity of commitment of his young supporters.

Yes. They send you a ballot with your name on the envelope based on the voter registration records. You then sign the ballot which they match against the signature you submit when you register. And I know from experience that they're system is pretty tight. I've had to resubmit a signature because my sloppy signature on the ballot wasn't close enough to the one I submitted when I was 18.

[Ebowed]

You have to be a registered voter to get sent a ballot without requesting one, though right?, and 80% of Washington state's voters are registered (which btw is pretty impressive), which would favor Hillary, unlike the caucus-system, which has same day registration.

Erm... if you're suggesting that Sanders will do worse in the primary than the caucus, then, sure.  But to say that Clinton is 'favored' among registered voters would suggest that she'll win this primary... and frankly, I'd be shocked.

After all, there are plenty of 'soft' Sanders supporters who didn't make it to the caucus.

[RaphaelDLG]

You have to be a registered voter to get sent a ballot without requesting one, though right?, and 80% of Washington state's voters are registered (which btw is pretty impressive), which would favor Hillary, unlike the caucus-system, which has same day registration.

Erm... if you're suggesting that Sanders will do worse in the primary than the caucus, then, sure.  But to say that Clinton is 'favored' among registered voters would suggest that she'll win this primary... and frankly, I'd be shocked.

After all, there are plenty of 'soft' Sanders supporters who didn't make it to the caucus.

There's no way she'll win, but I'll bet she'll do significantly better because of the different sample of people likely to participate.

[Seriously?]

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.

Even at 70%, Trump won't get all the delegates.

The state allocates 30 of 44 by CD. 10x3 Trump will have to beat 50% in each CD to get all the delegates. If he falls under 50% in some urban district, he will take all 3 unless another candidate clears 20%.

Statewide 14 delegates are allocated proportionally. If you get 20%, you get a delegate. However, if Trump is at 70% and Cruz and Kaisich take 15% each, while they do not get delegates, the other 30% of the delegates will go to the convention unaffiliated.

The rough breakdown is as follows:
Trump roughly between 61% and 68%; Trump 9, unallocated 5
Trump roughly between 68% and 75%; Trump 10, unallocated 4.
Trump roughly between 75% and 82%; Trump 11, unallocated 3.

+/- roughly 7.1% either way to get to 7, 8, 12, 13, etc.

Unless there's something Operation Chaos-ey going on with the Dems crossing over in a meaningless primary for them, you're looking at a Trump delegate range from 39-41 in most likelihood, most probable 39 or 40.

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

Clinton is ahead 51-49 with 13% in.

[RI]

Nothing from any of the major counties in yet. Mostly eastern WA too.

[Holmes]

Sanders will pull ahead as the later ballots get counted, but it's not a good sign. Sanders never once trailed when Oregon was counting.

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

For what it's worth, none of what we have so far is from Olympia, Bellingham, Seattle, or Spokane. Yakima and Vancouver are reporting and TRUMP is not experiencing any weakness in them.

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

Hillary still ahead 51-49 with 30% in. Olympia is now reporting.

[RI]

Hillary well ahead in King County's first dump.

[MasterJedi]

So it seems like this is proof we need to make caucuses illegal, no?

[sportydude]

Clinton, Hillary   Dem   124,865   51%
Sanders, Bernie   Dem   118,877   49%

And I was laughed at for my prediction...

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

TRUMP IS THE PROJECTED WINNER!!! HE'S LEADING CRUZ 78-10 WITH 30% IN.

[Gass3268]

The fact people are caring about a fake primary is laughable.

[MasterJedi]

The fact people are caring about a fake primary is laughable.

Proves we need to get rid of caucuses, undemocratic.

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

Kasich goes into 2nd with 53% in. Parts of Seattle and Spokane are now reporting.