With almost 50% of precincts reporting, Obama has 67% of the delegates to Clinton’s 32%. Perhaps the final percentages will shift as the remaining precincts report in, but Obama has clearly won the Washington caucus.
WA was a good bet for Obama, since he seems to do well in caucuses and purple states. WA is so purple that the Dem governor, Christine Gregoir, won by less than 300 votes!
This was my first caucus experience, and I found it a rewarding one. I’m not sure anyone changed their vote as a result of the “pitch for your candidate” session, but I enjoyed hearing all the viewpoints expressed and accepted so respectfully.
My precinct is sending 4 Obama and 1 Clinton delegates to the county convention. Surprisingly, I was chosen as the Clinton delegate. It was surprising because I am not an ardent fan. However, I was a) available to go to the convention, and b) asked to carry forward the message that our candidates need to unequivocally support full civil rights for LGBT Americans. More on how that all came about here for thems what want to read up.
Sure that you will do the “tribe” proud as civil rights spokesperson.
She’s an idiot. Another D would have won by a big margin.
Well, by dems at least. She has done well in her first term, and is reasonably progressive. Just which D do you think would have been superior at that time? WA is almost 50:50 D:R, with a really heavy libertarian streak. Seattle & Olympia are heavily D, but otherwise Rs are found in large numbers.
You have an unclosed a-tag (<a>) after reporting that causes your text to underline and turn blue on mouse-overs.
<
p>Laurels to you Laurel on your being chosen.
i kind of liked the effect.
Another ex-patriot from Mass living out of state, would never have guessed. Congrats on the selection.
I take it that you are now domeciled in Washington State.
<
p>I have no idea if you have been able to travel the state, especially around the native American/tribal areas, but if you have, would you post on your observations on how the “casinos” have affected the quality of life for the Native Americans, Washingtonians, and the general atmosphere/consinsus in WA regarding casinos.
<
p>I am now biased. From my own observations after several trips to WA a few years back I was appalled by what I saw. I also am of the opinion that WA is perhaps more “progressive” than MA.
<
p>Your thoughts if you would be so kind.
which really isn’t much i’m afraid. since i wasn’t here before the advent of casinos (only been here a few years), i can’t tell you how they may have changed the communities they are in. i have not had any casino conversations with friends who are washington natives (of whatever ancestry). my impression is that if they are a contentious issue, it is more on a localized level at this point. there are no casinos in my city, so i suppose out of sight, out of mind for most people.
<
p>what i have observed in the northwestern quadrant of the state (the only part i’ve been in), is that casinos tend to be smaller and more frequent rather than huge and rare. perhaps there are foxwoods-type monsters somewhere, but i have not seen them. usually it is a single smallish building, often with a hotel beside it and makeshift cigarette/fireworks stands not far away (in rural areas only).
<
p>south of tacoma (iirc) there is a whole seedy strip of small casinos and related businesses (check cashing shops, porn places, car and motorcycle dealerships).
<
p>what effect the casinos have had on the native american community (or the state budget) i also cannot say. btw, one thing that is very different about native americans here (and that i believe has nothing to do with casinos one way or the other) is that they are much more integrated into the rest of society than anywhere else i’ve lived (midwest, new england, cali). there is not as much of the reservation/white country divide here, although of course there are reservations, and the economic divide is painfully obvious.
<
p>i am still woefully ignorant of local history, but i think that although whites tried to “civilize” local native americnas, they never outright slaughtered or routed them as happened in so much of the rest of the country. native american events are part of regional life, and attended by all sorts of people. also, regional government seems to make some efforts to accomodate the needs of remnant native american culture. for example, the city of seattle owns several huge forested watersheds which are closed to the public because they are the city’s drinking water source. however, the land is made available to the local bands for elk hunts and other culturally important events. i would guess that from the native american point of view, such measures are welcome but can never be enough. still, it is far more respect for these cultures than i’ve seen anywhere else i’ve lived. i have the impression that these efforts towards respect are newish, and haven’t always been a part of seattle peoples thinking.
<
p>one final observation. when the huge immigrant worker rallies were forming and happening last year, native americans took part in several rallies i observed. they were not numerous, but they made the effort to provide their perspective: that all we “legal americans” are decendents of people who overran this continent uninvited by its residents. the message was interesting, since it wasn’t one of “we wish you’d all go away”, but more of “remember where you came from, and welcome others as we continue to welcome you”.
Does this mean that despite being personally undecided, you are obligated to vote for Clinton at the count convention? Or does this mean that the Clinton people were willing to send an undecided person (who might not vote Clinton) on to the county convention because they wanted to send your message?
i was undecided until i walked into the room, although i’d been leaning clinton. so, i am committed to voting for her at the county to-do. sorry if i was unclear above. this is why i found it so ironic that i ended up being the delegate for her, because i was as non-gung ho as one can get. and there were some extremely gung ho clinton supporters there.
<
p>as for undecideds, it was interesting because i think there were enough edwards+undecideds to get a delegate if the edwards people would have agreed to change their votes to undecided. but they didn’t, and so those people have no say at the next level. i find that interesting. wish i’d had the opportunity to ask them why they preferred to drop out this way.