You can't look at the result of a primary that doesn't count for anything and draw any meaningful inference from it.

which represents voters? which is more accurate?

the rules say the caucus decides the delegates, but it doesn't sound like the primary voters feel the same way as the caucus voters.

I was one of 3 in my family who went to a caucus here in WA, 3 of us didn't.
Every one who is a registered voter here in the state got a ballot.
Boxes are at every library or vote by mail.
So everyone had a chance to vote by ballot.
Unlike in March when many didn't have 3 hours to devote to sitting in a hot crowded room, running out of ballots
.
This is the way WA votes and will vote in November. Elections are decided in King county ( and my county Pierce)
the 2 largest. Seattle area usually puts a democrat over the top.
The last GOP governor was John Spellman a more liberal environmentalist.(80-84).
Every Gov has been Democrat since, every election since 84 has been for democrats.
Senators have been democrats since we dumped Slate Gordon in 2000.
Theres your very short history of Wa votes.

I spent four days caucusing for Bernie.

I knew the primary was meaningless. As recently as yesterday I was like "my ballot isn't where I thought it was, fuckit."

Literally the ONLY reason why I bothered to dig it out of the Pile o' Junk Mail this morning is because I knew the clueless punditry would try to puff up the primary to actually have significance, especially if Hillary won (which our craven supers would then point to).

I'm probably not the only Bernie supporter who thought, "Didn't I just do this shit?"

Sanders gets the delegates. It's the math. It's the math.

voted strongly to replace the caucuses with primaries, and the party went to court to retain the caucuses.

Even though they result in a very skewed outcome compared to the much more inclusive primary.

It's the math. It's the math.

Like in Arizona.

But people who are crowing about his WA state victory don't realize how unrepresentative it is.

It's true that in WA the caucus counts; the primary doesn't. I think that's beyond bizarre for many reasons, but there it is. Unlike Sanders, nobody is suing over it. Bernie does love his lawsuits.

but she will combat all this later. Can I interest you in a bridge for sale?

When you repeat the boring, tired old memes, lobbyists, super pacs, etc. You forgot establishment third way Republican Light! Get with the program or people will mock you!

And it's "lobbyists," not "lobbyist's." At least get your spelling right. Also, super pacs.

Very low voter turnout for the primary. Only 28%. Older people vote for Hillary and don't go to caucuses. It makes sense that they would vote in the primary, but the younger people don't bother with the primary because the earlier caucus already decided the delegate distribution.

If you only had a primary, Bernie probably would have won that, but with a smaller percentage.

conducted here, except for the 230K vote caucus and the 660K vote primary.

And the super delegates have made it known that they would be taking the results of the primary seriously -- so any Bernie voters who didn't bother to stick their ballot in the mail made a mistake.

I said, and I believe, based on the numbers, the low voter turnout, and the reality of your double system, that Bernie probably would have won a primary, if that's all you had.

The super delegates will vote the way they want to vote. Neither you nor I can determine how that will happen. But they've pretty much shown whose side they are on.

If it turns out at the brokered convention that Bernie is leading because super delegates switch to him in states where he won the vote but she already had the supers...well the supers usually end up going with the winner. They may not in this case, but it will be a first.

It will be an interesting brokered convention, that's for sure.

But keep your head up pnwmom...Hillary might still win. After all,

with only 75% counted. The turnout in the primary was NOT low.

Oregon primary got 36% turnout (which I still think is low), but we don't have a caucus to screw things up.

Of course the caucus had a much lower turnout. That is to be expected. That does not negate a thing I said.

And when I looked at Washington State.gov and the voting info, when it said 28% turnout, it also said all votes had been counted except for write-ins.

Bernie might still win the majoirty vote!

You don't get 73% on the votes of small counties alone.

And if there was anything exclusive about the way the caucuses were run, that was solely the fault of the party regulars. Bernie and his supporters did nothing to make those caucuses exclusive.

Sanders has won a LOT of primaries this year, and many of the losses he had in primaries were by wafer-thing margins. So it's bogus to claim that only HRC can win primaries.

Sanders won 11/13 caucuses, but Hillary won many more primaries, both open and closed.

HRC is winning this largely because the delegates have been chosen and this primary is meaningless.

Please stop acting as if the Sanders campaign is anti-primary and pro-caucus. We didn't design the caucus structure, and you would be insisting the results of the caucuses were legitimate if your candidate had prevailed in them.

The caucuses are not a Sanders plot somehow imposed on the party.

caucus and primary results here can be very different. Outsider candidates do much better here in caucuses.

and a primary where nothing was at stake.

Face it, Bernie's caucus win in Washington is just as valid as HRC's in Iowa and Nevada.

And if you don't like caucuses(most Sanders supporters don't actually like them, either), blame the party regulars. The Sanders campaign didn't impose caucuses on the party against its will.

And I do blame the party regulars. You're right about that.

He's been running close to HRC in the national preference polls since this began.

You have no reason to treat his campaign as illegitimate. Nothing bad has come of Bernie pushing the party to actually be progressive.

I think he should acknowledge that the caucus system has heavily benefited him. And it is "rigged" against average voters who don't have the time or inclination to spend hours in caucuses.

This result happened because the Sanders campaign is putting more effort into contests where delegates are being chosen than in a meaningless, non-binding contest.

Probably just as many young Sanders people were excluded from caucus participation because they had to watch their kids or go to work or had classes that day(there are a lot of Saturday classes at universities in Washington state).

And probably a lot of union people(most of whom are pro-Sanders)were also excluded for the same reason.

There's no reason to hold a non-binding primary after the delegates have already been chosen.

But he only won by less than 6%, compared to winning by 36% in the caucuses.

general this fall lol

Your side is largely winning in WA tonight because the Sanders people are working in states where delegates are at stake.

If delegates had been in play in this primary, the Sanders campaign would have been far more active.

There really isn't any reason to have a caucus AND a preference primary in the same state. It should be on or the other.

What happened in WA tonight does not delegitimize the caucus results at all.

when the delegates have already been chosen.

If more actually preferred HRC, that would have shown up in the polling at caucus time. None of the polls taken in WA at that point showed HRC even close to Bernie...and there was no way for the Sanders campaign to rig the opinion polls.

Sad that you are so spiteful towards the ONLY progressive candidate in the race. What did Bernie ever do to you?

non-representative caucuses.

Where were those WA state polls you are talking about? They're not listed anywhere that i've been able to find. It's rare to have political polls conducted here because the caucus system makes it so hard to predict and we're a relatively small state, population-wise.

538 doesn't list any WA state polls.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/california-democratic/

And the caucus result in Washington is just as legitimate as the caucus result in Iowa.

It's silly to play the "our wins count, yours don't" game.

switched to primaries long ago.

The difference in margins is stunning. Clinton really should petition for more delegates from Washington.

Maybe you can get them to make that brilliant move. They love to do stupid things.

It's called being democratic.

is equal to what the party chose. Remember it's the party, isn't that the mantra? Or did that change again this week?

Sanders supporters always are petitioning for rules changes. I realize the the caucus rules allocate the delegates and that can't be changed, but it's still a poor system.

And after tens of thousands of them joined the wrong party?

Yeah, that was pretty stupid.

And there's no reason to see Washington's caucus result as rigged but argue that Iowa's wasn't.

that people would be unhappy with the caucus system, once they saw it in action.

All caucuses are "rigged" to be less representative and inclusive, with more power for the state party.

Your argument here is with the party, not us.

The Washington caucus result is just as legitimate as the Iowa caucus result.

We've had caucuses for decades.

All that happened this year is that they went for the progressive candidate against the status quo candidate you prefer. That's all that occurred.

way of choosing delegates, and I don't think ANY of the caucuses should be retained. They are a remnant of the "smoke-filled rooms" we used to have before most of the country switched to primaries.

to attend our first caucus. I couldn't persuade my husband to ever try another one, till this year.

And then when they had the nerve to pass out the envelopes to get us to help pay for it . . . .

No more messes like this.

Nothing would be better for anyone but the rich if HRC had faced no opposition.

Can't have both at the same time.

How about we just skip the primary process altogether and go back to pre-68, where the party apparatchiks could just pick who they wanted to run? That'd suit you and yours just fine, I think.

Rigged against anyone who is working when they're going on, rigged against anyone who doesn't have transportation to get to them, etc, etc.

is that the progressive candidate did better than the status quo candidate in most of them.

If it weren't for that, virtually none of the people who are denouncing caucuses in this cycle would be doing to.

The hypocrisy on this issue is what bothers me.

I fully agree that we shouldn't have caucuses. But I think we'd have had essentially the same results in each state if we hadn't.

in 1989. This has nothing to do with the fact that Bernie did well in them.

downticket candidates are in play. Anyone got info on that? That would motivate me - not re-voting for a winner.

set up a primary years ago. So now our taxes are still paying for the primary we wanted (which the Rethugs are using), but we're still stuck with caucuses.

So we vote to show the primary should go forward.

And others vote in the primary because it's much harder to vote in the caucuses, and they can have the feeling of participation by voting in the primary -- even if no delegates are assigned.

And some are newcomers to the state who don't understand that the primary here is a "beauty contest."

Not necessarily you, but others, is that your claim? Sounds like taking your ball and going home. Heard that somewhere before.

and don't want to have to debate politics with their neighbors (or husbands, or employers). And the party makes it very hard to vote by affidavit.

For example, not having childcare isn't a valid reason for voting by affidavit. Neither is being an out-of-state college student. Neither is living hours away from your county caucus location.

By contrast, the primary uses a simple, mail-in ballot. And many more people participate.

And the party regulars in WA are staunchly anti-Bernie, so it's not as though they were colluding with us.

Most of us, whoever we support, would prefer primaries to caucuses.

And Bernie would have run strongly in an all-primary process too. None of his victories are illegitimate.

But, since he got most of his wins in caucus states, why do you think he would have done as well in an all-primary system?

Hillary won most of the primaries, including all but 4 of the open primaries.

Is that the state dem party? Who lets them continue against the will of the people? That sounds really sucky for you guys. What a waste of tax money.

How do you change that? Looks like you've done lots already with the referendum, and they aren't cheap either.

and persuaded a judge to overrule it, arguing that the party was a private organization and could use whatever method it wanted to assign its delegates.

So now we're stuck paying for the state primary (that only the Rethugs use) but having it be only a "beauty contest."

I don't know what else we can do except continue to put pressure on the state party. When they passed out the envelopes to help defray the costs of the caucuses, I sure let them know what I thought of that.

senate seats? This is truly fucked if the caucus thing was voted down in a referendum just so - I still don't get what this has to do with the republicans and their primaries if it is a democratic state party decision.
What's up with that?

This was held by law. The party decided they wanted an earlier date and the DNC agreed. They held a caucus in March.

and make sure our ballots were included.

with time on their hands -- because participation in a caucus requires at least a few hours of time, unless you're someone chosen to go to the next level (in which you could find your participation turning into days. )

It is not a representative group of voters.

Did you vote today or did you mail it in?

My partner mailed hers in but I can procrastinate a bit!

Congratulations on the win!

Even though it isn't binding.

What does that tell you about those voters?

I would not have bothered in a beauty contest

But they will be targeted for the GE

MANY people had circumstances that prevented their voting in the caucuses, and it's very difficult to vote by affadavit here. For example, if you live in a rural area a few hours away from your caucus -- tough. No absentee voting allowed. Or if you want a secret ballot. Or if you're an out of state college student. Or if you don't have childcare and don't want to bring your children with you for a few hours of caucusing.

The hundreds of thousands of Clinton supporters who voted?

Or the hundreds of thousands of Sanders supporters who voted?

so I do guess people did get the memo

It is confusing as hell. But it is what it is. For the record I prefer primaries

and that showing up to vote for her tonight would somehow help her.

If HRC had won the caucuses(as she did narrowly in Iowa and Nevada)her supporters would all be shouting "the people have spoken".

You can't question one caucus result without questioning them all.

replace the antiquated, messy, unrepresentative caucuses with a primary system. But the party went to court and got a judge to rule it could continue to assign delegates through the caucuses.

Then, to add insult to injury? We have to pay for the primary with our taxes -- but in the caucuses they pass out envelopes and ask for donations to defray the costs of the caucuses that we voted to END.

IMO, caucuses reflect active voters who are informed. Bless caucus activists.

They didn't do polls in WA so the only information we have is that the primary with almost 3 times as many participants yielded a different result.

So the super delegates are free to decide which of the contests they think better represents the will of the voters. And they will be on solid ground if they choose the primary.

Imagine how many people didn't vote by paper and stamp. I didn't. Many I hang with didn't. Why should we?

and it is likely other supers felt that way, too, anyone who cared about the outcome of the 17 super delegate votes should have voted in the primary.

The primary is less meaningful than spending a half hour at dinnertime with a telephone pollster.

that they were waiting for the outcome of the primary to make final decisions on who they would vote for in the convention.

And since three times as many Dems voted in the primary as in the caucuses, those results are a much better reflection of the views of WA state voters.

they would decide after the primary.

Only 3 in March. This is the way to vote.

It's positively archaic that they still exist. If Sanders is soooo concerned about voter suppression, he should call for the elimination of caucuses. They are undemocratic.

Here's more proof why caucuses disenfranchise far too many people.

Her vote very slim given the delegate race over in WA. But think about all the so-called blue leaders we have that are going Clinton anyway. Too bad Sawant isn't an SD.

Still don't have a problem with caucus, even though I didn't get to be a delegate this time.

I voted Sanders during the caucus so I didn't return my primary ballot since it's meaningless.

I have no doubt that the party apparatchiks will change the system next time 'round to guarantee that the voters support the person that the superdelegates have chosen.

before making their final decisions on who to vote for.

And those primary voters will be listened to.