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

[Xing]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

[Xing]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Or maybe some Bernie supporters who have seen the writing on the wall and are ready to unite turned out to send a signal to their delusional candidate that the primary is over and that they are ready for her to begin her attacks on Trump.

[/]

what lol

[Xing]

Or maybe some Bernie supporters who have seen the writing on the wall and are ready to unite turned out to send a signal to their delusional candidate that the primary is over and that they are ready for her to begin her attacks on Trump.

Even if that's the case, I don't think voting for Clinton in a beauty contest is the way to do that. Anyway, I'd fall into the category of Bernie supporters who have seen the writing on the wall, and yet I voted for Sanders (again, not like it really matters that much.)

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

[Xing]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

But not bigger than that between a 43-point win and an 8-point loss.

[Xing]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

But not bigger than that between a 43-point win and an 8-point loss.

Thus why I said that the age divide is larger this time around.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

But not bigger than that between a 43-point win and an 8-point loss.

Thus why I said that the age divide is larger this time around.

I don't see how that explains the huge discrepancy. Sanders' young voters were motivated enough to attend caucus state conventions.

[Xing]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

But not bigger than that between a 43-point win and an 8-point loss.

Thus why I said that the age divide is larger this time around.

I don't see how that explains the huge discrepancy. Sanders' young voters were motivated enough to attend caucus state conventions.

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

Again, that's a pretty poor excuse. They were sent a ballot and all they had to do is mail it.
And I don't see why they were less motivated to do it than Clinton supporters.

[Xing]

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

Again, that's a pretty poor excuse. They were sent a ballot and all they had to do is mail it.
And I don't see why they were less motivated to do it than Clinton supporters.

I'm not saying they chose well or excusing their actions, I'm simply offering an explanation for at least some of the difference between the results. Also, for those who change addresses a lot, it's not quite that simple. I explained a bit more about that above.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

Again, that's a pretty poor excuse. They were sent a ballot and all they had to do is mail it.
And I don't see why they were less motivated to do it than Clinton supporters.

I'm not saying they chose well or excusing their actions, I'm simply offering an explanation for at least some of the difference between the results. Also, for those who change addresses a lot, it's not quite that simple. I explained a bit more about that above.

How many people fall in that subcategory? A thousand? Two thousand?
The fact is that proof that caucuses are a mockery of democracy has reached critical mass.
Thankfully two states have already abolished them (Maine, Minnesota) and let's hope that by 2020 any state that still employs them will be punished accordingly.   

[IceSpear]

Wow, these results were crazy. Trump did much better than expected, Cruz and Kasich barely cracked double digits, and Hillary WON?! Was it actually safe to call the Dem side? The late ballots in Oregon were extremely pro-Sanders. Even if she stays ahead this could potentially narrow to 51-49 or something.

Anyway, I'd like to thank the people of Nebraska and Washington for giving Hillary all the ammunition she needs to push hard for abolishing caucuses at the DNC. It's true that beauty contests are not representative either, but it still puts a magnifying glass on just how unrepresentative caucuses actually are.

[IceSpear]

I wonder how many anti-caucus folks would still be making their case of Hillary did better in caucuses than primaries. Anyway, yeah, caucuses are problematic, but so are these pointless votes. A contested primary (which would have to be open, in this state) would probably be a 15-20% Bernie win.

I made it very clear I wanted them gone even when she had a 2-0 record in caucuses and a 0-1 record in primaries.

[RaphaelDLG]

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

Again, that's a pretty poor excuse. They were sent a ballot and all they had to do is mail it.
And I don't see why they were less motivated to do it than Clinton supporters.

I'm not saying they chose well or excusing their actions, I'm simply offering an explanation for at least some of the difference between the results. Also, for those who change addresses a lot, it's not quite that simple. I explained a bit more about that above.

How many people fall in that subcategory? A thousand? Two thousand?
The fact is that proof that caucuses are a mockery of democracy has reached critical mass.
Thankfully two states have already abolished them (Maine, Minnesota) and let's hope that by 2020 any state that still employs them will be punished accordingly.   

His explanation as to why (the shifting addresses, the lack of residence at permanent addresses) an age gap exists made sense - but of course, you weren't listening.

To that I'd add that a LOT more of Sanders' voters are first-time/unregistered voters.

Yes, 130,000+ of them were already registered from the caucus, but remember because of time constraints caucus:binding primary ratio of participation is typically 1:4.

Yet you didn't have 520,000+ people vote for Sanders in this beauty contest.  Even if we assume his supporters are over-represented in caucuses, I still think he would have gotten significantly more of his people to come out in a binding primary where he ran a campaign/voter drive, and I don't really think that's debatable.

[Landslide Lyndon]

His explanation as to why (the shifting addresses, the lack of residence at permanent addresses) an age gap exists made sense - but of course, you weren't listening.

An age gap would make sense for a 20-30 point discrepancy, not a 50 points one.

[Xing]

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

Again, that's a pretty poor excuse. They were sent a ballot and all they had to do is mail it.
And I don't see why they were less motivated to do it than Clinton supporters.

I'm not saying they chose well or excusing their actions, I'm simply offering an explanation for at least some of the difference between the results. Also, for those who change addresses a lot, it's not quite that simple. I explained a bit more about that above.

How many people fall in that subcategory? A thousand? Two thousand?
The fact is that proof that caucuses are a mockery of democracy has reached critical mass.
Thankfully two states have already abolished them (Maine, Minnesota) and let's hope that by 2020 any state that still employs them will be punished accordingly.   

I couldn't give you an exact number, but it's certainly more than a couple thousand. The number of 20-30 somethings who have to move a lot is easily a five-digit number. And as I've said, the caucus results were definitely skewed toward Sanders. A contested primary where there was a massive GOTV effort would've probably been a 15-20 point win for Sanders, which is similar to the gap you just mentioned.

[Alcon]

So far, of the populous places (100+ votes) with precinct results (doesn't include King County and many others), the best showings are:

Trump - Moxee, 89.2%
Subdivision boomtown in the middle of Mexican farming country

Kasich - Bainbridge Island, 27.8%
Wealthy, educated Seattle commuter suburb

Cruz - Sumas, 18.2% (DuPont close behind)
Farming town in the middle of Dutch Calvinist country.  DuPont is a commuter suburb of Olympia and Tacoma.

Carson - College Place, 12.8%
Seventh Day Adventist college town.

[Low for Trump was DuPont, 60.8%...kind of odd.]

Sanders - Everson, 66.7% [Close behind: Cheney @ 64.9%]
Everson is a farming town in Dutch Calvinist country...yeah, no idea there.  Cheney is Eastern Washington University.  Bellingham [Western Washington University] wasn't far behind.

Clinton - Woodway, 72.9%
Wealthy bedroom community of Seattle.

Fun fact: The Air Force doesn't seem to like Trump much.  He lost both McChord AFB (in Pierce County) and Fairchild AFB (in Spokane County) to Cruz.  These are the only precincts of any actual size Trump lost so far.

[dax00]

From the WA prediction thread:

Trump 76%
Cruz 12%
Kasich 10%
Result: Trump 41, Uncommitted 3

(I don't care about political beauty contests.)

Not bad.

And, smartly, nobody took my bet (in the Election Betting Thread) that exactly 3 of the WA RNC delegates would go uncommitted lol.

[BundouYMB]

Can anyone please give me one good reason the DNC shouldn't (ahead of the 2020 primaries, obviously) announce they won't seat delegates from any state that holds a caucus instead of a primary?

President Clinton will be up for reelection and shouldn't have a major challenger so the elimination of caucuses could be done easily and without any accusations of bias in favor of a particular candidate.

[Mehmentum]

Can anyone please give me one good reason the DNC shouldn't (ahead of the 2020 primaries, obviously) announce they won't seat delegates from any state that holds a caucus instead of a primary?

President Clinton will be up for reelection and shouldn't have a major challenger so the elimination of caucuses could be done easily and without any accusations of bias in favor of a particular candidate.

Iowa would throw a fit.  It'd have to be a 'no caucuses on or after Super Tuesday' rule.

[BundouYMB]

Can anyone please give me one good reason the DNC shouldn't (ahead of the 2020 primaries, obviously) announce they won't seat delegates from any state that holds a caucus instead of a primary?

President Clinton will be up for reelection and shouldn't have a major challenger so the elimination of caucuses could be done easily and without any accusations of bias in favor of a particular candidate.

Iowa would throw a fit.  It'd have to be a 'no caucuses on or after Super Tuesday' rule.

If Iowa throws a fit just threaten to not seat their delegates in the 2024 primary as well & give another state permission to go before them if they don't cooperate. Seriously, the DNC should have more power than the Iowa Democratic Party.