Kansas we expected (but wow, 60% to 24%?), and Louisiana (apparently he stepped up after Katrina), but taking Washington is unexpected. Aren’t Seattle and Portland pretty hip? Maybe the cities haven’t reported yet.
How can you say this guy isn’t hip? Forget Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings. Forget Vampire Weekend. This is the hot track on the streets. I heard he might be available for the BMG fundraiser.
<
p>Something to think about.
<
p>
laurelsays
Our Willard rolling out the Charlie Card with his own hip version of Charlie on the MTA!
While the Dem precincts are almost 100%, WA Repub precincts are only 37%. And Louisiana is still semi-close.
bean-in-the-burbssays
It sounds like they don’t award delegates unless a candidate reaches 50% of the vote. So far, it doesn’t look like either Huckabee or McCain will hit that threshhold.
tbladesays
…pledge 19-ish delegates via primary vote and the rest via caucus. I also heard Dems have a mixed primary/caucus, too, but none of the primary votes count, only caucus.
laurelsays
is that both parties traditionally have only caucused in WA. but this year, the repubs did as you suggest – they chose to apportion 1/2 of the delegates by caucus, the other half by primary vote. this resulted in 2 things happening.
1) forced the state to spend millions of dollars to stage a vote that 2) allows an unscrupulous zealous repub to vote twice.
<
p>the dems have stuck to the caucus-only system. however, it is expected that super delegates will take not of the primary result, since the data will be there so why not. however, they’re actively reminding people that a dem primary vote counts for nothing, so it is questionable what kind of dem turnout there will be. there is nothing else on the ballet that day, so nothing else to draw dem voters to the polls.
Pat Robertson won the 1988 Washington caucus. So the enraged and embarrassed Republican elders of the state threw together a last-second primary to take some of the state’s delegates from him. The Democrats are required to hold a primary but don’t want one, so they don’t count the results for anything. Not a big deal though — as with Oregon, a huge amount of the voting is done by mail.
<
p>Of course, after this cycle why anyone would prefer a caucus to a primary is beyond me.
laurelsays
as for primary v. caucus, a motion to dump the caucus in favor of a primary-only system worked its way through my precinct’s caucus today. it got lots of signatures, including mine. i must say, though, i enjoyed the caucus process.
tbladesays
…and they say they love the community feel, the event, the spectacle of it all, and some really like the second choice aspect. And all that appeals to me, I’d like to experience a presidential caucus someday. But it is prohibitive to democracy in certain ways and I don’t really trust it. Voting seems to indicate, when spread nation wide, voters are breaking 50/50 Clinton/Obama, but in caucus states Obama wins 2:1.
Great deal of vibrant community and democracy…without doing much to represent the community in a democratic manner.
theysays
Perhaps an intimidation factor kicks in at caucuses, suppressing the women’s vote? They are called “cockuses”, after all. Or maybe more young people heading out to them than before, skewing the youth vote?
laurelsays
considering all the misogynistic crap that continues to fly around this campaign season, i find it in poor taste indeed.
theysays
As to why Obama does better in caucus states. Perhaps there are some new demographic numbers out there, but so far it has been women going 60+% for Clinton, and when women come out, Clinton wins big. Maybe women participate less in caucuses (I’ll let you pronounce it in your head).
Caucuses require a will and ability to mill around and be ambulatory for two hours while self-important and disorganized local officials strut.
<
p>Many of Hillary’s supporters (elderly, third-shift workers) can’t give the time for that.
theysays
It’s probably the age divide, not the gender divide.
stomvsays
but folks working tough hours or second jobs have a much tougher time.
laurelsays
i don’t think the answer has anything to do with women generally being more prone to intimidation in caucuses. the assumption behind that supposition is just so sadly misogynistic, even if you don’t intend it to be.
<
p>now participation, as in showing up at all to the caucus – that is another question altogether. i have no idea the sex ratio of caucus goers. however, i can well imagine that mothers in particular have a harder time getting out to caucus than others. but then in the elderly category, there is probably a preponderance of women, as men generally kick off at younger ages then women. lots of old ladies active in politics around here!
laurelsays
but older people have more mobility problems. never mind…
theysays
If there are hundreds of activist kids clamoring around, having a great time meeting up for Obama and “change”, they might drive the old lady liberals home early, or keep them home completely. The vote happens after hours of speechifying, which often borders on intimidation, especially if it’s about “change” and youth. There is a general “everything will be better when all the old people die” vibe that empowers Obama supporters, and though it is directed at old people on the right, it is surely felt by old Democrats, too. Which is why the objectionable pun is apt: caucuses have always had a balls-over-beauty mechanism to them, illustrated in that Norman Rockwell picture, and probably still do.
stomvsays
takes place at a Town Meeting, not a caucus. And really, what’s with the vulgarity from you on this thread? Take it easy, would ya?
chrisosays
then perhaps you need to have a talk with all of those women-only college advocates who argue that women are intimidated from speaking in co-ed classrooms.
stomvsays
when women come out, Clinton wins big.
<
p>I don’t think that conventional wisdom holds up so well. It’s more complex. Consider the following data — all primary states where Obama won by varying degrees, and the M/F ratio was between 44/56 and 39/61.
<
p>Louisiana:
Obama 57
Clinton 36
Men 40
Women 60
<
p>South Carolina:
Obama 55
Clinton 27
Edwards 18
Men 39
Women 61
<
p>Connecticut:
Obama 51
Clinton 47
Men 41
Women 59
<
p>Utah:
Obama 57
Clinton 39
Edwards 3
Men 43
Women 57
<
p>Missouri:
Obama 49
Clinton 48
Edwards 2
Men 44
Women 56
trickle-upsays
I’m hearing from friends who say they’ll be voting “1-1/2 times”–at the D caucuses and the R primary
tbladesays
…and it does seem like he’ll get no delegates from the primary since he did not break that 50% threshold. Form the looks of it, and I’m still confused, but the delegate assignment will be based on the earlier Louisiana GOP caucuses. Or something. The LAGOP state convention will be held Feb 16 and I think it gets sorted out there.
theysays
McCain is pulling ahead in Washington, getting closer in Louisiana. Must be the hip cities starting to report.
laurelsays
i’ve only discussed candidate preference with two republican friends in WA, but the result was interesting. one friend is a paul supporter, and refuses to vote mccain if that is the nominee. the other supports mccain. neither can stand huckabee, mainly because he is a creationist. only a sample size of 2, i know, but amazingly emblematic of the fractured nature of the republican party right now.
bean-in-the-burbssays
Nice that we’re all so friendly and united 😉
laurelsays
i actually do think we are united. at least the atmosphere out here is that we’re going to get behind whoever becomes the nominee. doesn’t mean we don’t have our preferences though, of course… 🙂
A great night for Obama, setting him up nicely for Tuesday. The size of his Wasington victory is very impressive, even if they are caucus results.
<
p>Starting with these four, if Obama gets Maine, Virginia, Maryland, and DC (which I think he will), he’s got pretty much everything he needs heading into Texas and Ohio. He has every right to expect the presidential nomination in return for avoiding a floor fight in Denver.
p>Obama continues to excel in the core groups of the Democratic coalition: African-Americans, well-educated, youth. Hillary gets her strength from swing voters: low-income whites and Latinos.
<
p>Respondents who regard a candidates’ gender as important split evenly between Obama and Hillary. Same among those who regarded race as important.
<
p>As usual, late deciders went for Hillary, albeit not by much.
<
p>On electability, caring about people, and experience, Hillary won. On bringing “change”, Obama won.
<
p>Over half thought campaign ads were “important”, over 1/3 thought them “very important”.
<
p>Two notes of concern:
<
p>35% of the voters “would not be satisfied” if Obama won the nomination, 30% if Hillary won. Unity?
<
p>Obama won every age group in African-Americans going away;
Hillary won every age group in white voters going away. There is a real racial split.
howardjpsays
Texas, Ohio, RI, later Pennsylvania, Indiana, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, WVa, should be good for HRC, and they are primaries! If she were to win those, she should have a sweep of big states, except for Illinois, for obvious reasons, unless I’m missing a state. Obama should be favored in Vt, maybe Mississippi, probably Oregon
<
p>and one of these days, Michigan and Florida (Michigan today allocated 77 delegates to HRC, the rest uncommitted, of course, they don’t count as yet ….)
<
p>Maybe the Dems should nominate Mike Bloomberg as a compromise, he can finance his own race, we can all watch from the sidelines without digging into our pockets, and if he wins, we’ll finally have a President from Massachusetts again! (just kidding, I think)
Feeling pessimistic tonight, frankly. It’s a long time until those, and I worry that Hillary would have an air of loser about her by the time we’re done this week. (Expect her to do well in Hawaii as well, with its Asian-American population). Primaries clearly help her out, that much is true.
<
p>As for Michigan and Florida, I love the latest “compromise”, which is to hold caucuses in those states! While there is plenty of blame to go around, I don’t think installing an un-, often anti-democratic exercise is much of a solution to the problem of those states.
<
p>I still believe that neither Obama or Clinton can get to 2,025 on pledged delegates alone, but the goal is always to have the higher amount.
Clinton’s clearly on the ropes – I think it’s now quite clear that Obama has become the popular choice, and will do better in more states in the general election.
<
p>Lord only knows what Bill’s doing to work the superdelegates. Getting jobs for their spouses with Ron Burkle, perhaps.
trickle-upsays
But I don’t think she’s been getting the “momentum” vote for a while now.
If the media gives Obama the frontrunner treatment Hillary received, he’d better have some Kevlar handy.
<
p>But don’t worry, that’s a big if. The media won’t turn on Obama anymore than they would turn on McCain.
hoyapaulsays
Clinton’s clearly on the ropes – I think it’s now quite clear that Obama has become the popular choice
<
p>I’m not sure how WA, LA, and NE change the equation. It’s still a virtual tie.
<
p>And we’ve seen how little “momentum” has mattered in this race to this point. I still don’t see Clinton losing TX on March 4th, and probably not OH either.
mojomansays
FWIW there’s a shakeup at the top of Hillary’s campaign.
Obama. Another caucus, so not surprising. So, who are the demographics that show up to caucus for Obama in large numbers, but not in large enough numbers to give him a win in many regular primaries?
Kansas we expected (but wow, 60% to 24%?), and Louisiana (apparently he stepped up after Katrina), but taking Washington is unexpected. Aren’t Seattle and Portland pretty hip? Maybe the cities haven’t reported yet.
QED.
not to mention Portland is in OR, not WA. Seattle and Olympia are the liberal hot spots in the state. The rest is heavily un-liberal.
Some of them are in WA. Liberal? Dunno.
I was thinking of Maine.
How can you say this guy isn’t hip? Forget Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings. Forget Vampire Weekend. This is the hot track on the streets. I heard he might be available for the BMG fundraiser.
<
p>Something to think about.
<
p>
Our Willard rolling out the Charlie Card with his own hip version of Charlie on the MTA!
voila
While the Dem precincts are almost 100%, WA Repub precincts are only 37%. And Louisiana is still semi-close.
It sounds like they don’t award delegates unless a candidate reaches 50% of the vote. So far, it doesn’t look like either Huckabee or McCain will hit that threshhold.
…pledge 19-ish delegates via primary vote and the rest via caucus. I also heard Dems have a mixed primary/caucus, too, but none of the primary votes count, only caucus.
is that both parties traditionally have only caucused in WA. but this year, the repubs did as you suggest – they chose to apportion 1/2 of the delegates by caucus, the other half by primary vote. this resulted in 2 things happening.
1) forced the state to spend millions of dollars to stage a vote that 2) allows an
unscrupulouszealous repub to vote twice.<
p>the dems have stuck to the caucus-only system. however, it is expected that super delegates will take not of the primary result, since the data will be there so why not. however, they’re actively reminding people that a dem primary vote counts for nothing, so it is questionable what kind of dem turnout there will be. there is nothing else on the ballet that day, so nothing else to draw dem voters to the polls.
Pat Robertson won the 1988 Washington caucus. So the enraged and embarrassed Republican elders of the state threw together a last-second primary to take some of the state’s delegates from him. The Democrats are required to hold a primary but don’t want one, so they don’t count the results for anything. Not a big deal though — as with Oregon, a huge amount of the voting is done by mail.
<
p>Of course, after this cycle why anyone would prefer a caucus to a primary is beyond me.
as for primary v. caucus, a motion to dump the caucus in favor of a primary-only system worked its way through my precinct’s caucus today. it got lots of signatures, including mine. i must say, though, i enjoyed the caucus process.
…and they say they love the community feel, the event, the spectacle of it all, and some really like the second choice aspect. And all that appeals to me, I’d like to experience a presidential caucus someday. But it is prohibitive to democracy in certain ways and I don’t really trust it. Voting seems to indicate, when spread nation wide, voters are breaking 50/50 Clinton/Obama, but in caucus states Obama wins 2:1.
<
p>What weird systems we have.
Great deal of vibrant community and democracy…without doing much to represent the community in a democratic manner.
Perhaps an intimidation factor kicks in at caucuses, suppressing the women’s vote? They are called “cockuses”, after all. Or maybe more young people heading out to them than before, skewing the youth vote?
considering all the misogynistic crap that continues to fly around this campaign season, i find it in poor taste indeed.
As to why Obama does better in caucus states. Perhaps there are some new demographic numbers out there, but so far it has been women going 60+% for Clinton, and when women come out, Clinton wins big. Maybe women participate less in caucuses (I’ll let you pronounce it in your head).
Caucuses require a will and ability to mill around and be ambulatory for two hours while self-important and disorganized local officials strut.
<
p>Many of Hillary’s supporters (elderly, third-shift workers) can’t give the time for that.
It’s probably the age divide, not the gender divide.
but folks working tough hours or second jobs have a much tougher time.
i don’t think the answer has anything to do with women generally being more prone to intimidation in caucuses. the assumption behind that supposition is just so sadly misogynistic, even if you don’t intend it to be.
<
p>now participation, as in showing up at all to the caucus – that is another question altogether. i have no idea the sex ratio of caucus goers. however, i can well imagine that mothers in particular have a harder time getting out to caucus than others. but then in the elderly category, there is probably a preponderance of women, as men generally kick off at younger ages then women. lots of old ladies active in politics around here!
but older people have more mobility problems. never mind…
If there are hundreds of activist kids clamoring around, having a great time meeting up for Obama and “change”, they might drive the old lady liberals home early, or keep them home completely. The vote happens after hours of speechifying, which often borders on intimidation, especially if it’s about “change” and youth. There is a general “everything will be better when all the old people die” vibe that empowers Obama supporters, and though it is directed at old people on the right, it is surely felt by old Democrats, too. Which is why the objectionable pun is apt: caucuses have always had a balls-over-beauty mechanism to them, illustrated in that Norman Rockwell picture, and probably still do.
takes place at a Town Meeting, not a caucus. And really, what’s with the vulgarity from you on this thread? Take it easy, would ya?
then perhaps you need to have a talk with all of those women-only college advocates who argue that women are intimidated from speaking in co-ed classrooms.
<
p>I don’t think that conventional wisdom holds up so well. It’s more complex. Consider the following data — all primary states where Obama won by varying degrees, and the M/F ratio was between 44/56 and 39/61.
<
p>Louisiana:
Obama 57
Clinton 36
Men 40
Women 60
<
p>South Carolina:
Obama 55
Clinton 27
Edwards 18
Men 39
Women 61
<
p>Connecticut:
Obama 51
Clinton 47
Men 41
Women 59
<
p>Utah:
Obama 57
Clinton 39
Edwards 3
Men 43
Women 57
<
p>Missouri:
Obama 49
Clinton 48
Edwards 2
Men 44
Women 56
I’m hearing from friends who say they’ll be voting “1-1/2 times”–at the D caucuses and the R primary
…and it does seem like he’ll get no delegates from the primary since he did not break that 50% threshold. Form the looks of it, and I’m still confused, but the delegate assignment will be based on the earlier Louisiana GOP caucuses. Or something. The LAGOP state convention will be held Feb 16 and I think it gets sorted out there.
McCain is pulling ahead in Washington, getting closer in Louisiana. Must be the hip cities starting to report.
i’ve only discussed candidate preference with two republican friends in WA, but the result was interesting. one friend is a paul supporter, and refuses to vote mccain if that is the nominee. the other supports mccain. neither can stand huckabee, mainly because he is a creationist. only a sample size of 2, i know, but amazingly emblematic of the fractured nature of the republican party right now.
Nice that we’re all so friendly and united 😉
i actually do think we are united. at least the atmosphere out here is that we’re going to get behind whoever becomes the nominee. doesn’t mean we don’t have our preferences though, of course… 🙂
A great night for Obama, setting him up nicely for Tuesday. The size of his Wasington victory is very impressive, even if they are caucus results.
<
p>Starting with these four, if Obama gets Maine, Virginia, Maryland, and DC (which I think he will), he’s got pretty much everything he needs heading into Texas and Ohio. He has every right to expect the presidential nomination in return for avoiding a floor fight in Denver.
<
p>Interesting tidbits from the Louisiana exit polls:
<
p>Obama continues to excel in the core groups of the Democratic coalition: African-Americans, well-educated, youth. Hillary gets her strength from swing voters: low-income whites and Latinos.
<
p>Respondents who regard a candidates’ gender as important split evenly between Obama and Hillary. Same among those who regarded race as important.
<
p>As usual, late deciders went for Hillary, albeit not by much.
<
p>On electability, caring about people, and experience, Hillary won. On bringing “change”, Obama won.
<
p>Over half thought campaign ads were “important”, over 1/3 thought them “very important”.
<
p>Two notes of concern:
<
p>35% of the voters “would not be satisfied” if Obama won the nomination, 30% if Hillary won. Unity?
<
p>Obama won every age group in African-Americans going away;
Hillary won every age group in white voters going away. There is a real racial split.
Texas, Ohio, RI, later Pennsylvania, Indiana, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, WVa, should be good for HRC, and they are primaries! If she were to win those, she should have a sweep of big states, except for Illinois, for obvious reasons, unless I’m missing a state. Obama should be favored in Vt, maybe Mississippi, probably Oregon
<
p>and one of these days, Michigan and Florida (Michigan today allocated 77 delegates to HRC, the rest uncommitted, of course, they don’t count as yet ….)
<
p>Maybe the Dems should nominate Mike Bloomberg as a compromise, he can finance his own race, we can all watch from the sidelines without digging into our pockets, and if he wins, we’ll finally have a President from Massachusetts again! (just kidding, I think)
Feeling pessimistic tonight, frankly. It’s a long time until those, and I worry that Hillary would have an air of loser about her by the time we’re done this week. (Expect her to do well in Hawaii as well, with its Asian-American population). Primaries clearly help her out, that much is true.
<
p>As for Michigan and Florida, I love the latest “compromise”, which is to hold caucuses in those states! While there is plenty of blame to go around, I don’t think installing an un-, often anti-democratic exercise is much of a solution to the problem of those states.
<
p>I still believe that neither Obama or Clinton can get to 2,025 on pledged delegates alone, but the goal is always to have the higher amount.
Clinton’s clearly on the ropes – I think it’s now quite clear that Obama has become the popular choice, and will do better in more states in the general election.
<
p>Lord only knows what Bill’s doing to work the superdelegates. Getting jobs for their spouses with Ron Burkle, perhaps.
But I don’t think she’s been getting the “momentum” vote for a while now.
If the media gives Obama the frontrunner treatment Hillary received, he’d better have some Kevlar handy.
<
p>But don’t worry, that’s a big if. The media won’t turn on Obama anymore than they would turn on McCain.
<
p>I’m not sure how WA, LA, and NE change the equation. It’s still a virtual tie.
<
p>And we’ve seen how little “momentum” has mattered in this race to this point. I still don’t see Clinton losing TX on March 4th, and probably not OH either.
FWIW there’s a shakeup at the top of Hillary’s campaign.
<
p>Patty Solis Doyle replaced as campaign manager.
<
p>Hat tip TPM
<
p>Spin it if you can.
Obama. Another caucus, so not surprising. So, who are the demographics that show up to caucus for Obama in large numbers, but not in large enough numbers to give him a win in many regular primaries?