Footnote to the caucus results post below:
Mike Huckabee's campaign is disputing yesterday's results (more here). Given the circumstances it's not a stunning turn of events. Indeed, I have my own question about how the results were reported that I'm still trying to get resolved (and will report on if it's not).
The tone of the campaign's statement, however, is telling. It essentially amounts to a scorched earth policy of throwing bare-knuckle punches at a state party and a state party chair. This is not a wise tactic for a relatively young candidate (as far as Presidential aspirants go) who by all accounts is a) not going to win this nomination and b) has likely ambitions for a continued life in politics. Picking ugly fights on the way out the door of this election cycle isn't prudent.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 10, 2008 02:30 PM | Email ThisBut hey, I'm sure if you guys work hard enough, you can blame Dean Logan being corrupt for this mess. Apparently using incompetence as a preferred explanation to corruption is another cases of IOKIYAR.
Posted by: eponymous coward on February 10, 2008 02:40 PMDino had planned on running an entire gubernatorial campaign based on the premise that he was cheated in 2004. Now, every time he brings it up, the whole state GOP can be indicted by the way they handled this primary. All the Democrats have to say is "If Dino is so concerned about getting votes counted, why did he sit there silently when his own party gave the nomination to McCain before it had counted 1 in 8 votes cast in the primary?"
Here that sound? It is the air running out of Dino's political prospects. His own party just destroyed the whole rationale of his campaign.
Nice work, idiots.
Posted by: alpha dog on February 10, 2008 02:46 PM
That's awesome.
Posted by: thehim on February 10, 2008 03:06 PMSo, Huckabee is just full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. He needs to get over it.
Posted by: Mike S on February 10, 2008 03:08 PMDoes Luke Esser think he's BOSS TWEED??
If we can't count on the WSRP to AT LEAST run a fair caucus, why bother to vote in November.
This type of backroom behavior make me ill.
Posted by: Cyndy Salzmann on February 10, 2008 03:31 PMThat's the only way we can assure Republican voters that their votes aren't being stolen by appointed bureaucratic henchmen.
I nominate Dean Logan.
Posted by: Jeff "Bulldog" Guckert on February 10, 2008 04:09 PMDie by the hysterical cry for a recount.
Posted by: I.P. "Scooter" Freely on February 10, 2008 04:12 PMThis is, as I pointed out yesterday, a matter of WSRP incompetence. Esser should have kept his mouth shut until the entire vote was counted.
Now, doubt will linger over the accuracy of the count, and the WSRP making the outcome meet their statement... regardless of the real numbers.
What a moron.
Posted by: Hinton on February 10, 2008 04:22 PMI am not a strong supporter of Huckabee, but he has a point, he got screwed by the local yokels running this. The same batch of you local yokels that couldn't imagine a Democrat winning a fairly run election, just ran out and made sure a Republican election was crooked.
Good luck figuring out how to blame this one on Christine Gregoire.
Ed Rollins had better watch his fat mouth or my boy Eric will deeeeestroy him!
I'm serious. He could do it!
Posted by: Eeek! It's the dreaded Eric Earling! on February 10, 2008 05:05 PMalpha dog's claim is nonsense: "the whole state GOP can be indicted by the way they handled this primary." Um, this wasn't a primary. The state GOP has nothing to do with the primary.
Mike S. has it right: the "results" Esser gave last night are literally meaningless. No one is bound by them, and even if they were, they couldn't tell us how things will go at county and state. They cannot tell us who will actually win the most delegates.
And CK follows up with: "Why even have people vote if they're votes won't be counted?" NO ONE VOTED FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AT THE CAUCUSES. That is not how our caucuses work. We vote for individual delegates, not for candidates for President. You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of how the caucuses work. "Bulldog" makes the same logical error, as does "Scooter": they have no clue what actually happens at our caucuses.
Cyndy adds: "Does Luke Esser think he's BOSS TWEED??" No, because Esser has NO OWER OR AUTHORITY here. Nothing Esser said actually matters.
Unkl Witz responds: "I'm sure Sharky and the building industry will be all over this with an in depth investigation (lawsuit to follow). It's not who wins or loses, it's the principle of the matter." Except that McCain DID NOT WIN, and there is nothing to sue over, because no rules or laws were violated. We won't know whether McCain won until the end of May.
Hinton: the accuracy of the count doesn't matter, because no matter how accurate it is, it can't tell us who will get the most delegates.
shawnkempsbartender: there was no election for Presidential candidates. There is absolutely zero evidence of any "election fraud." You're ignorant.
Again: what Esser said DOES NOT MATTER. His declaring a winner doesn't make anyone the winner; and even if it did, he would only be the winner of a contest that doesn't matter, since none of the stated preferences by the delegates are binding, and we can't know which ones will get elected to the state convention, and for which congressional districts.
I'll have you know I boxed welterweight and won my share of knockouts back in the day. And I can still take on the likes of a punk like Eric Earling.
If I weren't so busy winning elections I might have more time to teach punks like you, Eric, the lesson in respect you so obviously deserve. As it is I'll only have time to fly in and lay you down in the first ten seconds after the bell.
Are you ready?
Fine. Let's make it tomorrow night, 7pm at Ring Sports Unlimited in Bellevue. You'll need 14oz gloves and someone to drive you home afterward.
Don't be late, I'll have a flight to catch.
Posted by: Ed Rollins on February 10, 2008 05:15 PMI mean for crying out loud, no counts were even reported until the Louisana GOP had counted something like 60% of their vote....in their PRIMARY! How is it that only 87% of a small caucus vote takes some 8 hours to count? The GOP in this state has acted borderline shaddy before and this debacle has given yet another appearance of gross incompetence and/or impropriety.
And what should we expect on the 19th? Two weeks to count maybe 150K votes? Fortunately, I believe the SoS has that count under it's watch...which isn' comforting but sad to say, more comforting than what I saw from the GOP last night.
Last night was ridiculous, and you can't fault the Huckabee campaign for raising an eyebrow at what looks to be a very strange outcome that was handled very ineptly at best and fraudulent at worst.
Posted by: Brad on February 10, 2008 05:37 PMNow I am questioning my support again.
On a related note, I am hearing the numbers being reported are all caucus participants preference, not the delegates preference. I understand the Paul campaign actually had a much higher percentage of delegates than they did caucus participants.
In other words it looks like Paul won. I wonder if this has something to do with the state GOP deciding to botch the election? Or am I just being a conspiracy nut? :)
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 05:41 PMOne more thing. I think you grossly overstate the relevance and importance of the Washington GOP. It's not like we are any kind of big player on the national scene. It's not as if, say, Mike is going to be terribly damaged by picking a fight with a state party that hasn't delivered electoral votes to a Republican Presidential candidate in roughly 20 years and has about a 1 in 10,000 shot at doing so this November - no matter who the nominee turns out to be. And should Mike decide to run again in 2012, I think he could live without 40 or so delegates should he win states that really matter to the nomination. And should Mike run for a senate seat in AR, the significance of even a heated scrape is even less. I hope you see the obvious point here.
Posted by: Brad on February 10, 2008 05:56 PMRon Paul might also want a recount, but it will likely show that he finished 3rd. There is a vote on Feb. 19th that goes into the mix also. This seems to be much ado about nothing.
Posted by: KS on February 10, 2008 06:02 PMYou wrote this response to my posting:
And CK follows up with: "Why even have people vote if they're votes won't be counted?" NO ONE VOTED FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AT THE CAUCUSES. That is not how our caucuses work. We vote for individual delegates, not for candidates for President.
---
SO, PUDGE, YOU ADMIT THAT AT THE CAUCUSES A VOTE TAKES PLACE! My questions is still the same - why have a vote at all if the vote is not completely counted! Who cares what we are voting for and how it doesn't really matter. Because it matters for the positive psychological momentum, if anything. And it matters, because it is showing McCain is not getting the support he wants! These type of events this weekend are showing this.
I am very disenchanted with this whole process. I feel like us commoners are simply being humored while the elites such as PUDGE are discounting what we want or feel.
Posted by: CK on February 10, 2008 06:09 PMIf his ambitions are limited to Arkansas then obviously you are correct. However, if he has further national ambitions it isn't wise. The issue isn't just the WSRP itself. That sort of handling of a situation reverberates in other national circles if it gets ugly. Thus, it's an issue of his reputation in the future.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 10, 2008 06:43 PMI have no problem at all if it takes someone from Hope Arkansas to come here and realize that we have state party leaders that are truly incompetent or maybe on some sort of take, I'm guessing we should be grateful if anything.
Posted by: Doug on February 10, 2008 08:33 PMThey were completely counted, at the precinct caucuses. Do you have any reason to believe otherwise? If votes were not completely counted, this is the first I've heard of it.
I feel like us commoners are simply being humored while the elites such as PUDGE are discounting what we want or feel
Nope. Just the opposite: I am standing up for the right of every caucus-goer to have their voice represented throughout the process, instead of trying to diminish it by distilling it down to simplistic non-binding presidential preferences that may not have even mattered to the caucus participants during their caucus.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 11:03 PMWhat I questioned was the idea of calling a race with a less than 2% gap separating the principles with 13% of the reports remaining to be counted.
Had Esser a brain in his head, instead of jumping thru his former bosses hoop (how long ago did McKenna endorse McCain?) he would have said NOTHING more than "this race is far too close to call; will let you know when we have all the reports."
Simple, really. Had he just used common sense, no one would have questioned the outcome. As it is now, we've weakened our ability to question other election results when we can't even properly deal with our own.
And for that, there is no excuse. That failure, deliberately done at McKenna's behest, I believe, has caused a HUGE blow to WSRP cred on the election legality issue when we can't even handle something as simple as this.
Esser should, I believe, offer his resignation... and the E Board should take it.
If the WSRP cannot even offer basic competence on an issue as simple as this... then it's time for Esser to go.
Posted by: Hinton on February 10, 2008 11:18 PMRight, but MY point is that there IS NO RACE TO BE CALLED. Whatever Esser says has no bearing on the actual election of delegates.
Complain all you want, but this is much ado about literally nothing of consequence. If you don't like Esser or want him gone, fine, but let's not pretend this has any effect on the actual process.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 12:30 AMIt will be guaranteed to evolve and votes will change.
Posted by: Matty on February 11, 2008 02:10 AMEsser could have put forth bogus numbers showing that Fred Thompson took 40% and declared him the winner, would that also have been much ado about nothing? It seems in your world it would have been because it doesn't matter they still have to vote later.
It may have nothing to do with the eventual outcome of who gets the delegates in this state (Which I would argue with immensely) but the end result is that it could effect the relative strenght of McCain later on, by showing more weakness if he would have loss - and eventually losing other states, which in turn could cause our delegates to coalesce around someone else later.
The WSRP screwed up the election fiasco in 2004 and now it's clear to see why, they really had no idea on what is the proper way to count votes.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 07:33 AMThat's only part of it. EVEN IF the preferences hold, we don't know how different results will carry over into the LD caucuses at county convention, or how those will carry over to CD caucuses at state.
Esser could have put forth bogus numbers showing that Fred Thompson took 40% and declared him the winner, would that also have been much ado about nothing?
Correct. What Esser says has nothing to do with who the actual winner of delegates to national convention will be.
It may have nothing to do with the eventual outcome of who gets the delegates in this state (Which I would argue with immensely)
You'd be incorrect.
but the end result is that it could effect the relative strenght of McCain later on, by showing more weakness if he would have loss - and eventually losing other states, which in turn could cause our delegates to coalesce around someone else later.
Yes, as I have stated several times, I am saying "meaningles" in the context of "predictor of who will actually get the delegates to national convention." Obviously, in regard to press and spin and P.R. and perception, it can have meaning. But that is specifically NOT what I am referring to.
The WSRP screwed up the election fiasco in 2004 and now it's clear to see why, they really had no idea on what is the proper way to count votes.
You are mistaken: there WERE NO VOTES to count. The presidential preferences of elected delegates from the caucuses do not constitute a "vote" of any kind.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 08:08 AMWhat I was saying is that the remaining 13% of [votes, preferences, or whatever it is Luke Esser is reporting] apparently don't count since the caucus was called for John McCain. [by Luke Esser]
So - as far as I'm concernced - if the remaining 13% {I believe it's less now) are not talled, counted, whatever then you might as well tell those remaining 13% of people their opinions, effort, don't count!
By the way - I now understand better what you are saying. Sorry for mistaking you for one of the enlightened elite. Peace.
Posted by: CK on February 11, 2008 09:36 AMAdditionally, by Esser coming out and saying McCain won (instead of saying we won't know who won until May, or instead of saying McCain failed to get enough precinct delegates to ensure he would end up with the state's delegates) he has also effected the P.R. in the national media to an extent that it could mean more delegates to McCain, maybe even enough to ensure that McCain is guaranteed the nomination before the convention.
You assert that there is no legal problem with this and I may agree - unless, of course, Esser colluded with another in an attempt to affect the P.R. and hence assure the nomination of McCain. If Esser was just incompetent, we can all have a laugh and fix this mess, but if this was done for a more nefarious reason that is a very serious matter.
And of course, the media was demanding "results" at that point - for the 11 o'clock news, right?
Huckabee's grandstanding about counting every vote depends on a belief that the 13% not-yet-counted will go against the trend Esser observed. I see no point to his legal nonsense except an effort to drag his party into his own self-destruction.
Huck hasn't analyzed as well as the King County Democrats/Logan did in 2004. In 2004, the percentage trends for Gregoire/Rossi in King County after the first count was such that, all one had to do was add something like 600 more ballots with the same percentage trends to overcome Rossi's lead. They got halfway there on the second count, and made sure they added enough ballots to finish the job for the final count. It's all about manipulating statistical noise.
Posted by: Suburban Mom on February 11, 2008 01:33 PMWhat's the vote count?
These are simple questions the state party should be able to answer - and should answer.
So, given the closeness of the election, how can the R's declare a winner when 51% of the delegates will be based on the ELECTION which has not occurred yet? The Election isn't until February 19th!!
I heard the Republican Party Chair on the radio this morning encouraging R's to participate in both the caucuses and the primary. Does dual primary election and caucus violate "one man one vote"?
Does that discriminate against people who cannot attend the caucuses? RCW 29A.56.010(1) states that
The current presidential nominating caucus system in Washington state is unnecessarily restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm, women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in our democratic system of government.
Does the fact the state runs the primary election - which requires party disclosure - violate the state constitutional right to "absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot" Washington Constitution Art. VI, sec. 6 ?
The Washington State Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 6 unequivocally states: All elections shall be by ballot. The legislature shall provide for such method of voting as will secure to every elector absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing his ballot.
Why then have a primary if it is not binding? And why should taxpayers pay for the expenses of a process that is not only constitutionally suspect but controlled by the parties?
Even though the party's can restrict participation in the partisan primaries to party members [to protect their freedom of association], doesn't the caucus system [where you announce you support among the candidates running in your party] violate your state constitutional right to absolute secrecy in preparing and depositing your ballot? Isn't that a violation of your constitutional rights?