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

[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.

[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/

[Xing]

Here's an idea, how about we outlaw beauty contests? They're really nothing but a waste of money, and only give us unrepresentative data. I'm saying that as someone who voted in this.

[Xing]

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.

[Xing]

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.

The candidate I supported won all but one caucus in 2008. I still think they should be abolished.

Did you want them abolished back in 2008?

[Xing]

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.

The candidate I supported won all but one caucus in 2008. I still think they should be abolished.

Did you want them abolished back in 2008?

Please, xingkerui, don't contaminate this conservation with polemics.

It's a legitimate question, and I'm asking merely out of curiousity. I think it's a fair assessment that a lot of people's opinions about caucuses and the like are based on how well their candidate of preference does. Does anyone think that Bernie fans who love caucuses would be defending them if he did terribly in them?

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Xing]

Well, Sanders won the contest in Washington that mattered. That's all I care about. These beauty contest don't mean anything beyond bragging rights. It wouldn't have mattered if Clinton won 65-35 or Sanders won 80-20.