Nothing.
People from all over the media, from Josh Marshall to Tim Russert, and Mike Huckabee, are talking about the party declaring a winner, whether it was too soon, and so on. But what the party said about the results literally means nothing at all.
This is clear if you understand the process. The results were released just so that the party could make some news. They have no meaning.
The first thing to understand is that people do not always vote by presidential preference. In my caucus, and in many others in my pooled caucus, presidential preference never even came up. Only two people wanted the two delegate spots, so we nominated them and elected them.
At the precinct caucus next to ours, there were far more participants than delegates, but a similar story: they all knew each other and just said, "well, who wants to go?," and they picked two to nominate and that was it. Presidential preference never even entered into the equation.
Other caucuses were different: a few active Republicans at a precinct caucus a few tables away didn't get elected, because they were outnumbered by Huckabee supporters.
So to portray this as an election for presidential candidates is a complete misunderstanding, worsened by the fact that your stated presidential preference isn't even binding. You could have written down "McCain" on the sign-in sheet (the only record we have) and then changed your mind and said "Romney" in the caucus, and you'd be marked down for McCain.
Or you could have stuck with McCain, but then changed your mind before the county convention. And that's assuming you even GO to county convention: many people won't bother, they are just delegates because no one else wanted to do it. And at county convention, we will split up into legislative districts, and for all we know, McCain supporters could all be from a handful of legislative districts, and then be totally outnumbered at state convention.
For Huckabee to be talking about legal challenges to a completely meaningless result shows that either he has no idea what the results actually mean (nothing), or he is just doing this for show.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 10, 2008 05:30 PM | Email ThisChris Vance: yes, it is absolutely maddening!
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 06:04 PMWhat I am curious is why the state GOP decided to report the more meaningless of the two numbers they could have reported, why they decided to call the results before finishing the count, and why they still have not finished.
Perhaps it is all just incompetance, but I can not help but feel it is somewhat related to them trying to show McCain has momentum and support than he really has. Either way... it is does not reflect well on the state GOP.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 06:15 PMAs reported by the Washington State Republican Party. http://www.wsrp.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=7042
Posted by: Don Ward on February 10, 2008 06:22 PMWell, I wouldn't call it a "very good" indicator. It is somewhat of an indicator, but many factors play into how good of an indicator it is. I'd say that for Ron Paul supporters, it is probably a better indicator than most, since I'd guess that RP supporters would be more motivated to show up at county, to want to go to state, to not change their minds, and so on. Of course, this is no indicator either way on whether RP may get any delegates at all to national.
Perhaps it is all just incompetance, but I can not help but feel it is somewhat related to them trying to show McCain has momentum and support than he really has. Either way... it is does not reflect well on the state GOP.
My best guess is that they wanted to make the news, so they went for it. That simple. There was no other reason to release ANY "results" in the first place. I can't think this is about trying to make McCain look better, since I see no reason to think that McCain wouldn't hold the same basic numbers for the last N percent.
And heck the what: Joe Fuiten just noted on the news that no one won or lost anything in the caucus ... and that there will be an investigation and that he will be looking over their shoulder to make sure it is investigated properly. But there is nothing to investigate, as he just admitted!
Grrrrrr.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 06:24 PMWe are possibly the only state where the culture of our party is this unique.
We elect delegates from the caucuses based on the credibility and the qualifications of the DELEGATES, not the candidates they support. We do the same thing when we elect our delegates to the State and National Convention.
I'm not sure how much discussion you guys had at your caucuses about the Prez nomination, but ours was pretty much "what do you think about these guys?" We had one Romney and the rest uncommitted.
When we elected delegates we didn't even dicuss the Presidential campaign.
I'm fairly certain that's the norm around the state. We just have a different party culture than other states, which is why it's so hard for other folks in the US of A to understand.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 10, 2008 06:26 PMThen he raised money. and it was, "well paul may have money but it is not showing in the polls"
Then he started rising in the polls. So then it was, "well polls are meanless, the only thing that matters is getting delegates." Now he is well on his way to getting delegates and we are being told that is meaningless?
More important than Pauls national campaign, these delegates are not going to leave the state platform alone. I predict that next year at this time we will have a much limited government platform than we do now that will attract ever more 'Paul bearers'. By 2010 we will have won over new voters and current Democrats (who will be sick of clinton/obamas war in Iraq). We will then start electing Washingtons versions of Ron Paul to congress!
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 06:37 PMI thought the WSRP press release was fine. I think it might have been more accurately described as the "straw poll" or something to that effect, but it was fine. It might also have been titled "Washington Caucus Results" but if I was the McCain campaign I would be upset at that headline if I had won. So I think they probably did the right thing. What could they have done better?
The one thing that I would like to point out is that we've never before mattered here in Washington State. At least now we are on the national news as they report our results.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 10, 2008 06:41 PMAnd none of the quotes you are giving came from me, so please, no straw men.
And frankly, let's be honest: the only people for specific candidates who had a lot of motivation to show up yesterday are RP and Huck delegates. Romney and McCain delegates had much less reason to bother.
I suspect RP won't get a single delegate to national, from the caucus results, and that McCain will get much more than half.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 06:43 PMAs to what they could have done better: they could have simply done as initially planned, and not released any results. Of course that wasn't going to happen. But they could have made absolutely clear in the results that these results are no real indication of who the delegates will be out of state and how they will vote at national, and they could have waited for 100 percent, or at least explained WHY they didn't have 100 percent.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 06:46 PMI preferred Thompson at the caucus, myself, but I will absolutely vote for McCain should he win the nomination. I'll decide who I'll support at county/state later. I am not even sure who I'll vote for in the primary ... probably Thompson.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 06:53 PMIndeed an embarrasement for Huckabee to make so much of results that are meaningless. I love the "we'll have lawyers on the ground" comment from his campaign. Sort of confirms what I've believed about Huckabee all along.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 07:12 PMAlso, tell me: if I decide to declare that I am a "member" of the party and then cast a vote in the coming primary election, will that, too, have nothing to do with the selection of a candidate?
Be good with your explanations. Make yourselves appear to be an organized political party consisting of people who want to make a choice based on the number of "members" who favor that choice.
Otherwise, I will no longer have any doubt that I could not declare myself to be a "member" of such a party.
Posted by: Micajah on February 10, 2008 07:15 PMI do think Paul has more delegates than McCain and Huckabee. His supporters were more willing to go to the next phase than the other candidates and thus is represented by delegates in a higher proportion than his percentage of caucus goers. Considering how close he was in raw number of caucus goers it is not unreasonable to assume that he will have more delegates.
As for whether it is a min or a max, well I think we all agree he is not going to lose supporters, his being the most devoted. So right there it makes it a minimum. I think it will grow is based more on a anecodetal basis, but from what I saw at my pooled caucus, most all the other caucus goers agreed with what Paul has platformed on and all but the pro mccain folks were very interested in sending a very anti mccain message. Many of the non paul non mccain delegates seemed to be very intrested in learning more of paul and I suspect some will switch over, especially as Romney becomes more and more of a memory.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 07:23 PMI disagree completly. The caucus is the most democratic thing we have in this nation. interacting with your neighbors and actually discussing issues and canidates is far better than just filling in a couple ovals and stuffing your ballot in a mailbox.
There are problems that I do not like (such as the state GOP counting the wrong thing, reporting winners before they finish counting, and not being able to finish counting in 24 hours, and active military and other groups being excluded) but these are things to be fixed, not excuses to throw out the whole system.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 07:30 PMOther than the fact that it was nice to chat with a lot of fellow conservatives, I've been wondering the same thing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 10, 2008 07:30 PMThis presupposes that there would even be multiple candidates still in the race at the convention. If McCain gets to the magic number of 1,191 then he'll be the only one still in the race because the rest will drop out. But that's what Ron Paul and Huckabee's strategy is at this point; keep McCain from getting 1,191. Then it goes to the convention and it gets interesting.
McCain has a HUGE lead in the delegate count, but he has not won. Don't forget about Romney's delegates. If Huckabee and Romney's votes were added together (they probably wouldn't be, but assume for a moment they were) then McCain is only a couple hundred ahead of Huckabee and it's a horse race.
Nobody needs to holler at me about how much of an uphill battle this is...I know it is.
I'm just saying we'll all look really dumb if we say "he's won" when he hasn't. Well, you guys will, I'll look smart. :)
All of us probably said Billary was a lock for the Democrat nomination this time last year. And didn't we count McCain out a few short months ago? It's a fascinating and exciting year to watch in both parties and if this process has taught us anything it's that prevailing wisdom doesn't always prevail.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 10, 2008 07:42 PMthe "raw delegate totals" may technically mean nothing but the state party still made a huge mistake by declaring McCain the winner without counting all the delegates. the delegate margin difference was and still is around 200.
the well-deserved stigma that already surrounds washington's voting/nominating/caucusing process should have served as a clear warning to those in GOP leadership who would make inaccurate public statements without substantiating evidence to reinforce their claims.
hey vance, remember this quote...
�If the books don�t balance and you can�t figure out why, you have to assume fraud took place.�
well this wasn't a technical vote and i don't think intentional fraud took place but when individuals take time out of their days to engage in the already convoluted process of caucusing then they deserve to have their voice heard and recognized without irresponsible, premature conjecture from party officials.
congratulations WA state on another embarrassing political year filled with blunders.
Well, blame the people, who instituted it via initiative. At least the GOP tries to play along with the choice of the people to have a primary. Although one could make the argument that if the GOP ignored it, we might not have it at all, as was the case in 2004, when we canceled it because it was meaningless for both parties.
Micajah @ 17: So, tell me: if the selection of delegates during the caucus has absolutely no relationship to the stated intentions of those who are selected, why go to a caucus at all? Why not just tell everyone they can come to a bull session if they want -- and see how many come?
It is not that there is no relationship, it is that there is no NECESSARY relationship.
The point of the caucus is to select the people who will select the people who will determine who our national delegates are. Some people will elect delegates based on presidential preference, especially in a very tight contest. Our contest is no longer very tight, which means it is less of an indicator.
Further, these delegates will select the county (and, for state delegates, state) platforms, so that is another reason to caucus.
Also, tell me: if I decide to declare that I am a "member" of the party and then cast a vote in the coming primary election, will that, too, have nothing to do with the selection of a candidate?
No, the primary counts for 51 percent of the delegates to national convention, just as caucus counts for 49 percent. The difference is that we will know who will get the 51 percent sometime shortly after Feb. 19; we won't know who will get the 49 percent until the end of May.
Lysander @ 18: I do think Paul has more delegates than McCain and Huckabee.
Oh, you mean you think he has more delegates who will REMAIN his. Eh, maybe Huckabee, but McCain will easily win more caucus delegates at state convention, IMO. We shall see.
whycaucus @ 22: the state party still made a huge mistake by declaring McCain the winner without counting all the delegates
But there IS no winner ANYWAY. So I don't see how it really matters.
well this wasn't a technical vote and i don't think intentional fraud took place but when individuals take time out of their days to engage in the already convoluted process of caucusing then they deserve to have their voice heard and recognized without irresponsible, premature conjecture from party officials.
whycaucus: you still aren't getting it. There is no voice to be heard. There is no "fraud" of any kind. There is no winner to be announced, even with 100% counted. There wasn't even an election, except for individual delegates, who may or may not have even told anyone their preference in their caucus, even if they had one they wrote down. Any voice to be heard will be at the county conventions.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 08:18 PMI see 100% excuses.... what's your relationship to the chair? Why did any of you even show up?
You speak of credibility, there are a bunch of people looking at this and thinking, "Is this a political party or a freaking social club"?
Posted by: Spank That Donkey on February 10, 2008 08:27 PMLuke Esser, should have just said that clearly nobody won, that there isn't enough information from the results to show that any one candidate will be able to receive the delegates when the state convention comes, we'll just have to wait.
I think Huckabee was trying to get a sweep heading into Tuesday where he's weak in those states, hoping to get a bump. I do agree that Esser should not have declared McCain the winner in Washington, because as so many have clearly pointed out, there really is no way that we'll know the actual winner of these delegates for quite some time.
Posted by: Doug on February 10, 2008 08:28 PMCould Ron Paul have maybe, possibly won the most delegates?
I mean, look at those Clark County numbers...McCain had awful delegate retention (worse than Romney!), Paul did great, and Huckabee did "all right."
Extrapolating the Clark County situation statewide, mightn't Ron Paul have won? If I were the WAGOP, I'd be "delaying" results too. ;)
I doubt that's what's going on, but that's a political junkie dream, there.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 10, 2008 08:40 PMIn other words he lost the popular vote but won the electoral college if you will. I expect this will continue to be the case in each phase of the WA caucus system.
I also expect it to be underreported throughout the process in the media.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 08:56 PMYou don't understand.
There is nothing to excuse. What was being counted is meaningless. Literally.
Doug @ 25: The end result could be that Ron Paul wins 18 delegates at the state convention
Won't happen.
Luke Esser, should have just said that clearly nobody won, that there isn't enough information from the results to show that any one candidate will be able to receive the delegates when the state convention comes, we'll just have to wait.
Agreed.
Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson @ 26: Not to be a massive conspiracy theorist, but, assuming these are sign-in counts (they are, right?) and not delegate totals...
Actually, I think it is some of both, depending on county. I looked over the state caucus rules and found no guidance here.
Could Ron Paul have maybe, possibly won the most delegates?
Possible. I highly doubt it.
Richard @ 27: What about the concept of one person has one vote, and before Iowa and New Hampshire thins the pack for us? I can see the rationale of the caucuses and primaries in the horse & buggy days & no communication, but it doesn't make sense for 21st century.
You misunderstand the purpose of the caucus. It's not about communication. It's about the active party members making choices. This is "one person, one vote:" Each person who chooses to participate gets one vote for delegate.
I am not saying you have to like the system, but the rationale behind it makes perfect sense. It depends on what your priorities and principles are, and there's no right or wrong answer.
Lysander @ 28: I am saying he had more coming out of the caucus yesterday.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting that claim. You may believe it, but you have no actual evidence to cause you to do so.
As the SSLLLLOOOWWW count from the state GOP showed us, the three candidates had roughly the same percentage of supporters coming in.
No, they didn't. Paul needed a huge number compared to the other two to catch up to first place.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 09:07 PMyou aren't getting it.
take some time and visit wsrp.org and read the headline under "wsrp news". it says "sen. mccain WINS republican precinct caucuses"
so your assertion that "there is no WINNER to be announced" is wrong. the wsrp announced a winner even if you didn't read about it.
i understand that the caucus is not an election, that point has already been beat to death by bloggers like yourself. so thanks for the unneeded clarification. moreover, i never said that the delegate count was fraudulent, i don't believe it was.
however, encouraging people to caucus and then not recognizing their voice is inherently counter-intuitive in regards to the democratic process. this cannot be good.
i find it intriguing that party officials are so interested in hyping the caucus process and encouraging people to participate at a local level, yet when questions are raised regarding the allocation of delegates people like yourself and others want to tell voters that their participation "means nothing."
i am a delegate and i understand that the county convention and state convention will ultimately decide the delegate allocation. but the preliminary local caucus, although confusing, is still an important avenue for individuals to voice their opinions, concerns and preferences in regards to the presidential primary. this process does mean something to the people who participated and your attempts to minimize and marginalize the intent of caucus goers is both disturbing and unbecoming of a political blogger.
And nothing else matters.
If McCain wins the most of the 49 percent of delegates, it will only be because more properly elected delegates from state voted for them, which would only be because more properly elected delegates from county voted for THEM, which would only be because more properly elected delegates from the precincts voted for THEM.
So unless there is some evidence that precinct delegates were improperly elected, then there is no evidence of anything wrong, and while you can dislike the process, any implication of wrongdoing is invented out of thin air.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 09:13 PMThen at the magical hour of 1:00 we start the "election" of our delegates. Ours went something like this:
"First, who will be in town on April 12th"?
That eliminated 4 people at our table
"Okay, now. Who wants to be a delegate? You? You? You? Okay, great! All in favor say 'aye'. Opposed?" Great! you three are the delegates"
"What do we do now?"
"Fill out the form under 1st Delegate, then alternates"
"Where do I put down our preference for President"
"That was on the sign in form"
"You mean as delegate we don't have to agree on our candidate"
"No, not yet. All you are doing is representing your district at the King County Convention"
"You mean I can walk out of here as a delegate supporting Bruce Willis for President?"
"Yeah, I guess"
"Hmmm..okay"
Next we figured out our PCO didn't show up, and the reason is that he is moving out of state.
"Oh, okay. Anyone want to be PCO? You? Okay, great. But the PCO is also automagically a delegate. Do we need more delegates?"
"No, not really"
"Okay. So, are we done? Great! "Hey, wow! Look at all those people with Ron Paul buttons. What dopes. Have a great afternoon everyone!"
Do have that about right? Whatever people wrote down as their choice for President on the sign in form means nothing? I mean, I'm guessing a lot of those people didn't end up being elected delegates"
So,what the press is reporting is basically the equivalent of the results of a grade school election for class president?
Posted by: Dave on February 10, 2008 09:26 PMActually, I think it is some of both, depending on county. I looked over the state caucus rules and found no guidance here.
Wait, what? Different counties are using raw votes, and others delegates? That doesn't make sense to me. There are going to be many fewer delegates than raw votes. Assuming about a 1:50 ratio, that could make King County count for less than Whitman County. I doubt the WAGOP would allow that.
So far, the state GOP has told us:
1. John McCain is receiving a low plurality of some sort of caucus-related vote.
2. John McCain has won, somehow.
I'm very confused as to why they can't just come out and say, "this is the number of delegates," preferably "and this is where they're from." That would make all of this Huckabee business moot and would stop idiots like me from suggesting that Ron Paul may have one.
Which, by all means, if this is straw-poll, he probably did.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 10, 2008 09:32 PM1. About 20,000 voters statewide participated in the Republican caucuses. Well over 200,000 voters statewide participated in the Democratic caucuses -- a ratio of better than ten-to-one.
2. At least 1,300 precinct delegate positions in King County went to candidate "NO SHOW". These positions were not filled simply because either no one attended, or not enough people attended, in hundreds of precincts to fill the available precinct delegate positions. Candidate "NO SHOW" basically tied with John McCain in King County -- who won 1,321 precinct delegates.
3. It has been over 24 hours since the precinct caucuses were completed, and L.Esser still cannot provide any meaningful or credible numbers as to the results. L.Esser simply proclaims that "93.3%" of precincts are reporting, and that McCain has "won" with "25.4%" (of something). L.Esser refuses to release a county-by-county or other detailed breakdown, provide the absolute numbers of precinct delegates (or caucus attendees) favoring each candidate, or even reveal any information about the actual number of voters attending the precinct caucuses.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 10, 2008 09:49 PMUnless someone corrects me regarding my experience yesterday, whatever is reported,even if it was 100%, means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the candidates at this point. All it indicates is taht of the people that showed up at the caucuses, signed in AND put down a presidential preference, McCain's name was written down by 20 some percentage of the people that signed in. Huckabee was written down by 20some percentage of the people. Not everyone that signed in was elected as a delegate and NO delegate is committed to vote for ANY candidate at this point. Like I said, if this had been well planned, Esser could have asked everyone to write down Alan Keyes and really messed with people's heads. It wouldn't have mattered!!!!
Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: Dave on February 10, 2008 10:00 PMIf Huckabee had swept WA along with KS and LA, it would have been a huge embarrassment for McCain and shown him as a very weak candidate.
Posted by: Jason on February 10, 2008 10:27 PMAs I understand it from the explanation, and the affirmation from the past State-party Chair...there's no way to extrapolate from the process any meaningful results.
And yet...the WSRP declared that John McCain won to the National Media. That, as it appears from reading these comments, is a misrepresentation of what occurred, and if so, were I one of the other candidates, I'd be very upset and wonder if there was something actionable here. You've represented that a candidate won when there's no basis upon which to do so. I wonder, then, what the motivation was? And this all from the Party who can't get over the 2004 election?
Finally, were there declarations read at the caucuses, yesterday, telling participants that their participation was meaningless as is now being declared here?
This is a morass and is growing deeper and deeper the more you all try to explain it.
Posted by: Timothy on February 10, 2008 10:28 PMNo, it is not. I know the state party announced a "winner," but in fact, there can be no declared winner, since there was actually no contest taking place to win. It's only the first phase. The winner will be discovered only in May at the state convention. Calling anyone the "winner of the precinct caucuses" is kinda like declaring a team the "winner of the first quarter." All that matters, as far as WA is concerned, is who gets elected as a delegate to the national covention, and these numbers do not well-inform us as to who that might be.
however, encouraging people to caucus and then not recognizing their voice is inherently counter-intuitive in regards to the democratic process. this cannot be good.
OK: doing something that didn't happen is counter-intuitive and not-good. Let's stick to what DID happen, shall we?
... when questions are raised regarding the allocation of delegates ...
Perhaps this is the root of your problem: THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF DELEGATES. None. Zip. You are mistaken. We elected the delegates, and they are who they are, and we cannot know within a significant degree of certitude who they support, because that is not how they were chosen. Some of them may have been, sure, but not all of them, certainly. Maybe not even most.
people like yourself and others want to tell voters that their participation "means nothing."
I never said any such thing. You are, again, entirely mistaken.
this process does mean something to the people who participated and your attempts to minimize and marginalize the intent of caucus goers is both disturbing and unbecoming of a political blogger.
I assume you are not referring to me, because a. I never said a single thing to either minimize or marginalize the intent of caucus goers, and b. I am not a "blogger."
The two women who were elected delegates in my caucus were there primarily because of issues, including giving tribal police authority of general law enforcement officers. I have no idea who they support for President, because it never came up, and by trying to make it all about that, you're the one who is minimizing and marginalizing their voice and intent. I am sticking to the facts, and not jumping to conclusions, and letting their voices be heard properly through the democratic process, which will continue in March and April at the county conventions.
Dave @ 33: "Oh, okay. Anyone want to be PCO? You? Okay, great. But the PCO is also automagically a delegate. Do we need more delegates?"
No, the PCO is only automatically a delegate if they were a PCO before January (I forget the exact date). So Dave, your caucus may have messed this up. I hope not. :/
As to the rest, regarding counting people who just show up and sign in being counted, please see below.
Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson: Wait, what? Different counties are using raw votes, and others delegates?
Not "votes," no, of course: just stated preferences of participants, as there was no such vote. And yes, this appears to have happened, and it will apparently be worked out, and a revised count will be provided later. Not that the count means anything anywyay.
That doesn't make sense to me. There are going to be many fewer delegates than raw votes. Assuming about a 1:50 ratio, that could make King County count for less than Whitman County. I doubt the WAGOP would allow that.
Again, it doesn't matter, since there are no "votes" and no county could count more than any other county because none of the counts count for anything in the first place! (Though again, they are going to get it worked out, so all the counties will have provided the same results, based on actual delegates. So the numbers, as meaningless as they are, will be accurate and correct.)
Richard Pope: no one cares.
Jason: no, Luke Esser was desperate for the media to report anything at all about the GOP caucuses. McCain was ahead, they got all the votes in they could for the night, so they called it for McCain.
What happened is lame enough without inventing ulterior motives.
Timothy: As I understand it from the explanation, and the affirmation from the past State-party Chair...there's no way to extrapolate from the process any meaningful results.
Correct.
And yet...the WSRP declared that John McCain won to the National Media. That, as it appears from reading these comments, is a misrepresentation of what occurred, and if so, were I one of the other candidates, I'd be very upset and wonder if there was something actionable here.
I believe it is a misrepresentation in a sense ... in portraying the results as meaningful. To me, it is just standard P.R. nonsense, not anything more or less.
But actionable? Nonsense. There's nothing remotely actionable here. You're just looking for something that isn't there because you're bitter.
And this all from the Party who can't get over the 2004 election?
To compare a election of delegates with non-binding preferences for candidates to an actual election is ridiculous.
Finally, were there declarations read at the caucuses, yesterday, telling participants that their participation was meaningless as is now being declared here?
You're making things up. No one is saying that their participation is meaningless.
This is a morass and is growing deeper and deeper the more you all try to explain it.
Only because you are understanding it less and less.
I do not have evidence in hand, but I do know there is evidence that Paul has more delagates from saturdays caucus than any other candidate.
The state GOP has the evidence as well but is sitting on it for some reason.
And common sense tells you the same as well. Pauls campaign did an excellant job training all Paul supporters before the caucus. We knew what needed to be done and despite slighlty less supporters, we got elected as delegates which is what was needed. Do you think us Paul supporters would throw money at him (more than any other GOP candidate in the state) but not bother to figure out how to get him delegates?
Travis
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 11:04 PM
Lysander: I do know there is evidence that Paul has more delagates from saturdays caucus than any other candidate.
No, you do not know that. You are making it up. If you have it, tell me what it is. Otherwise I will continue to assume you are making it up. It is not "common sense." It would only be "common sense" if I had reason to think that Paul had enough participants per precinct to give him more delegates than anyone else, and I have no reason to think that, and neither do you.
Seriously, until you can provide actual evidence, just stop. You're looking entirely unhinged.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 11:17 PMIf the WA GOP represented to the Nation that one candidate won, but that there's no basis in that representation, then I think the WA GOP is open for litigation.
The announced results have ramifications nation-wide on the election. If you were in a competing campaign, and a State party told the national media that one candidate won when there's no basis for them to state such, that's improper.
Posted by: Timothy on February 10, 2008 11:28 PMThere is absolutely nothing remotely actionable here. You don't know what you're talking about. I presume you either are not a lawyer, or you're an ambulance-chasing one. This would be an entirely frivolous lawsuit.
You're saying that there was no basis for the State Party to announce a "winner." And yet, the State party did. And while it is true that I am not a lawyer (never claimed I was) I don't think my quick judgement is too far off the mark. But, we'll see...
Thanks for your explanations of what happened. It puts Esser into some pretty hot water if any of the other campaigns or media outlets or any other interested parties in this Primary season care enough to make an issue of it.
Is his representation accurate?
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 12:05 AMYes.
There have been posters on this thread who understood their participation to be other than what you've explained it was.
I don't recall any participant who said that. But if so, well, then that is unfortunate that they misunderstood and erroneously thought that they were voting specifically for a Presidential candidate.
I just read the story from tomorrow's Seattle Times, and Esser continues to represent this as a contest between candidates, with a clear winner & loser.
Is his representation accurate?
Accurate? Maybe. Meaningful? No.
Technically speaking, you can declare a candidate the winner of the precinct caucuses, by virtue of getting the most delegates to county convention who have stated that candidate as their preference. But those stated preferences are in many cases not meaningful (as they are subject to change, and in probably a majority of cases LIKELY to change), and even if they could be presumed static, it would not tell us who will actually get the most delegates to national convention. So even if it is TRUE that someone can be declared a winner of having the most delegates elected from the precinct caucuses, it isn't MEANINGFUL, in that it has no predictive value for who will "win" the actual delegates to the national convention.
I would not characterize anyone as "winning" but I don't think I could call it inaccurate. Misleading, perhaps, in that it implies importance and meaning that doesn't exist. But gosh, isn't that what most of politics is about?
Boonie: my claim in the post -- which is my unsubstantiated, but educated, belief -- is that they wanted the press attention that comes with announcing results.
I am not intending to beat up on the WSRP here -- I have nothing against them, other than the fact that they keep calling me for money via annoying telemarketers who won't take no for an answer so I have to hang up on them which I don't want to do because I do want to support the party -- just trying to lay out how it all works. And the way it works is that we vote for delegates, not presidential candidates, and the presidential preferences of those delegates are entirely subject to change, and if the preference is not "McCain" or "Paul," then, chances are, before the county and state conventions, those preferences WILL change.
Not to argue with you, my good buddy...but what makes you think the "winner" of the caucuses got the most delegates elected? I visted caucuses and witnessed about 20 precincts (in the district we mutually share) and they ALL counted every single preference that people wrote down. Not a single precinct that I saw only counted the preference of the delegates.
This goes to your point that the straw poll is unimportant because it counted the preferences of the meaningless attendees who are not delegates.
Had they counted only the preferences of the elected delegates the poll might have more meaning. Not a lot more meaning...but it would be more of an indicator of what might possibly happen at the County Conventions.
Another point is that some of the Counties might have had disproportionately larger turnouts than others. So while Ron Paul might have had a HUGE turnout and five hundred votes in Whitman County, they only get six total delegates to the State Convention. That's another reason the straw poll is amazingly meaningless.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 11, 2008 12:56 AMI didn't say the caucus or primary means nothing. I said the results of which presidential candidate "won" the precinct caucus mean nothing.
And we have both because the voters passed an initiative to require a primary 20 years ago.
Timothy @ 58: 58. Pudge...did the selection of delegates have any relation to the preference of candidate? Or, is that a secondary metric?
Just like with any election for a candidate for office, people vote for them for different reasons. I imagine many Ron Paul supporters, for example, only voted for other Ron Paul delegates. Many other caucus participants, such as myself, didn't take presidential preference into consideration at all.
Chad @ 59: I know, we did it that way too, and as I understand it, we are the only county that did it that way. And I think we may have to go over the delegate forms and match them to the sign-in sheets and re-submit our results. I have no idea if our results are included in the currently reported count, or if ours are maybe the ones that are NOT.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 01:12 AMThanks for the information. I think this is a major story, and I've written an analysis of this and placed it on my web site. You can read it here:
http://www.moreperfect.org/wiki/index.php?title=Blog_Perfect
Any feedback is appreciated.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 03:12 AMPierce County has about 1,000 registered voters per precinct, while King County has only about 400 registered voters per precinct.
State convention delegates are actually apportioned between the counties based on Republican voting strength -- which can vary, but does have a strong relationship to the number of registered voters, of course.
The state GOP requires that counties allocate precinct delegates, based on an average of at least two delegates per precinct -- with strong GOP voting precincts getting more, and weak GOP precincts getting less.
So the statewide figures are somewhat like comparing apples and oranges, and may bear little relationship to how state convention delegates are determined. McCain wins lots of delegates in King County, but these have less influence on state convention delegates, simply because King County has fewer GOP voters per precinct.
There would need to be some sort of weighted average, adjusted by the average GOP voting strength per precinct in each county. Only then could a reasonable estimate of the statewide "winner" be made.
Not to mention counting the remaining missing precincts ...
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 11, 2008 03:42 AMWSRP Luke Esser is claiming that John McCain "won" the Feb. 9th caucuses. To make that claim, he's counting the stated preferences of elected delegates. But, delegates were not apportioned according to any metric based on their Presidential preferences.
Pierce Counties results, as outlined in my analysis linked above, shows that the Caucus attendees preferred Mike Huckabee, but somehow, John McCain ended up with a greater number of delegates. By counting delegate preferences, Mr. Esser is using a random number and then declaring a "victory" for John McCain that is based on nothing.
This seems to be a major discrepancy.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 03:50 AMIf he has to depend on you lot to get him elected, he is going down hard.
As I understand it, the state requested one thing, and we gave another. Draw your own conclusions about "should." :-)
Are you sure the other counties didn't do that too?
I am not entirely sure of any of it. This is just my best understanding.
Timothy: I think this is a major story
I think it is almost completely a non-story, insofar as actual delegate counts are concerned. It's an interesting story in regards to how the press and private organizations interoperate, but that isn't what I am concerned with here.
Stan: if you have a comment on anything specific I've said, fine. But to call the stating of fact "spin" makes you look like a fool.
Duffman: If we here in our own State get confused about this, do you think for a second the MSM and/or the rest of the Nation is going to dig below the headlines and study this? Heck NO!
No, I don't think they will; but I think the mainstream press SHOULD. No one here is paid to understand it, but the press is.
Cyndy: The fault is with the WSRP press release declaring McCain the winner if the results are indeed "meaningless." Seems to be that the officials are acting a little too "Boss Tweed" to be credible. I'm glad Huckabee brought this up -- because it needs to be fixed.
There is nothing substantive to fix. Nothing in our official procedures is broken: they all worked exactly as they are supposed to. But there IS no official procedure for relaying results of any statewide "winner," since there is no actual prize to win at this stage. This is a P.R. thing that the state decided to throw together.
So the only "broken" thing is the P.R. machine, not any actual meaningful thing having to do with electing delegates.
Daniel K: Don't you think you guys should have figured out the rules before the caucus?
We followed all the rules that have anything actually to do with electing delegates and allocating them to presidential candidates. What happened here is separate from any rules, because it's only about P.R.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 08:04 AMObviously he's responsible for this republican caucus debacle. It couldn't possibly be anything else.
Dean Logan -- It's his fault!
ps...sub-blame goes to all the democrats on the king county council..since all elections here are fraudulent and it's always the democrats fault...even for those that are 100% run by republicans.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 11, 2008 08:05 AMBut, I'm not surprised given the overwhelming temptation for certain parties to show 'momentum' for a frontrunner candidate.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 11, 2008 08:23 AMMore accurately, Ron Paul had a few dozen supporters and received 19 delegates.
Most of Paul's supporters were WSU students who were from precincts that are largely made up of student housing. Theoretically, Paul could have received a few more delegates, but the delegates are apportioned based on the Republican vote in the last statewide election, which as you can imagine, is not high in majority student precincts here in Pullman
Posted by: Tom Forbes on February 11, 2008 08:34 AMThat DID NOT HAPPEN. Not statewide, certainly. I am a PCO and I wrote down Thompson. I know many other PCOs who wrote down Romney, Huckabee, and uncommitted.
Further, the party has NO AUTHORITY to tell a PCO to vote that way. None whatsoever. If anyone from the party did say it -- which I don't believe, and I am absolutely sure it was not said to us in Snohomish County -- it would still be the choice of the PCO.
So none of this has any basis in reality, from what I can tell.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 08:37 AMSure. That is why I said I disagreed with how Esser handled it, and it is part of why I took great pains to try to explain it. :-)
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 08:44 AMPudge is right. No conspiracy. Just bad PR. This is Esser and his staff's first presidential primary. I don't think they were quite ready for prime time.
Posted by: Tom Forbes on February 11, 2008 08:53 AMGee- if only republicans were in charge the busses would run on time - but only to republican headquarters. Long live the party apparatchiks! Great leader will win because of the support he has among the party faithful!
Posted by: correctnotright on February 11, 2008 08:55 AMThe second half is true, the first half is false. The party ALWAYS chooses the nominee it wants, and does so THROUGH the election of delegates. Nothing has changed from past years.
I can't wait for the governors race to hear Rossi complain about voter fraud - and leave out the real voter fraud in the republican party.
Except, of course, there is no voter fraud. The only votes that took place in the caucus were for delegates, and those were conducted properly and in accordance with longstanding party rules.
So I ask you: are you stupid, or a dishonest troll? One of those has to be true. My guess: both.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 09:09 AMPlain and simple.
Course you could never admit it. Because it's the republicans doing it.
I'm sorry you are having such trouble with this. It must be tough going through life having so many people use so many words that you don't understand.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 09:23 AMPosted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 09:35 AM
I have to disagree with Pudge on one thing: I think reporting these numbers as "caucus results" is an out-and-out lie.
Posted by: ScottM on February 11, 2008 09:40 AMI have no particular dog in this fight, since I'm best described as "undecided" at this point.
But simplistic answers, like the caucuses "literally means nothing at all" avail us nothing at this point, and serve to give an incompetent party cover for that incompetence.
Many of us here dig into the meanings. I believe anyone reading this thread would get the technical aspects of what the caucuses accomplished
For those who want to know why we're suffering through a taxpayer financed, $7.5 million dollar "beauty contest" the purpose is the same reason the parties have gone after requiring party registration so rabidly for the past 10 years or so.
They want a "list."
The parties will gleefully go through the idiocy of having BOTH caucuses AND a primary, tho the democrats, in their typically "democracy developing" way, will be ignoring the results of said primary.
Except, internally, they won't be "ignoring" them... both parties are going to input every vote in to their data bases, so you become an "identified voter."
So, the reason we're getting stiffed for the tab for this purely party exercise should be clear off the top. Now, "clear" in this instance, doesn't equate to "right," in the sense that these purely party functions ought to be paid for by the parties standing to gain from them, but no one in government seems to have the testicular fortitude necessary to stand up to our party hacks (on both sides) to tell them, "look, you want to do this? Fine... pull out your checkbooks and pay up front. Otherwise, go wiz up a rope."
That said, the PERCEPTION here geometrically exceeds the reality in value.
Both Chris and Pudge tell us these results "literally means nothing at all."
Yet, in the area of perception, Esser calling the race for McCain gives these "means nothing at all" results the greatest POSSIBLE meaning.
And Esser, who I've known from the leg for many years now, is not a stupid guy. He knew damned well what those impacts would be, and he knew precisely what he was doing.
Clearly, what Esser and those behind his decision (I don't believe for one second that he did this all by himself) (Who has he worked for these past several years? And who endorsed McCain a LONG time ago?) couldn't comprehend is the fall out of their short-sightedness.
The state democrat party apparently has every statistic known to man available for review, including THEIR sexual preference statistics.
Republicans, correspondingly, don't even appear to know what day it is, relative to that.
Democrats were reporting at a far faster rate than R's were, even though they had many, many, many more people to account for.
Watching national results, democrats had 57% of theirs reported before Republicans had one. Update times for Republicans were missed in every instance (It's simple, really: if, for example, you SAY you're going to update at 7:00 pm, THEN UPDATE AT 7:00 PM! How hard can this be?)
However, the one fact, indisputable on its face, is this: Had Esser just kept his mouth shut, stayed there and counted until ALL of, or at least 99% of the results had been tabulated, then none of this would have happened, and the party, once again, wouldn't look like a collection of morons.
This entire episode would not be happening. And we wouldn't even be discussing it.
Instead, the party is damaged by the one person who's oath SHOULD include the phrase, "First, do no harm."
THIS type of damage is viral. And the only way to make all of this go away is for the one responsible to resign.
Posted by: Hinton on February 11, 2008 09:44 AMWhile I appreciate your replies here, can you give us a shadow of an indication of why the WAGOP doesn't just come out and report delegate totals?
I cannot understand why the Republicans would report it in this way. Every other state reports delegate returns, because by most standards that's what decides who "wins" an election. Reporting meaningless results when evreyone else reports the meaningful one, is beyond a weird strategy.
I mean, I haven't read up thoroughly on the GOP system, but the selected delegates will eventually determine the state delegates, no? So it can't be entirely meaningless. Correct me if I misunderstand.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 11, 2008 09:48 AMPudge...I'm not arguing with your assertion that the results are meaningless. I agree. Luke Esser manufactured a "result" that represents nothing substantive.
Again, you can read my analysis of why this is a big story on my web site at:
http://www.moreperfect.org/wiki/index.php?title=Blog_Perfect
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 09:53 AMFirst, if they reported delegate totals, it still would have no meaning. Just reading updates readers on this site posted here, it shows clearly that some areas were very strong for McCain or strong for Ron Paul or strong for Huckabee. If their strength of delegate counts were concentrated in specific counties then the result could mean less support for them at the state convention.
The most accurate count would have been, the expected preference of state convention delegates. They would have had to use the preferences of the precinct delegates, then figured out mathmatically what that would translate to in their county delegation, then after adjusting for how many delegates the county actually had, alter it to show what the state count would be.
They could have done this - but then again with as close as the count is, by the time the county caucuses show up, the numbers would be all different. Some people would stay home and alternates (which usually have different preferences) would take their place.
The precinct delegates needed to be pledged to the winner of the precinct, as well as the alternates pledges - at least through the county caucus - that would have helped it be at least a little bit more predictive.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 09:59 AMStop feeing the trolls. The media has decided that this is the narrative they are going with. It doesn't matter how the caucus system works, or what the intent is, this is a stolen election narrative that wants to make the WA GOP look bad. Huckaboom will do whatever it takes to disrupt. He's a Democrat in with the MSM. Go back and look at all of the "Huckabee" human intrerest stories over the past five years in all kinds of non-politics related MSM press. Runner's World, etc. The guy is loved by the MSM. And the MSM knows that they can milk him for damage to the GOP. Huckabee is not a credible candidate, and he never was. He preyed on the pro-life social conservatives, as a means to a disruptive end.
So just stop responding to the trolls, because they've got their narrative and they are going to run with it no matter what.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 11, 2008 10:02 AMJeff, you got the reward for the first person in this post to personally attack a candidate rather than discuss the caucus process.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 10:07 AM"...can you give us a shadow of an indication of why the WAGOP doesn't just come out and report delegate totals?"
I can: Precinct delegates are not pledged to candidates, they are selected as individuals. No one's saying that delegate selection at the caucuses is meaningless. Those delegates will select the county's delegates to the state convention as well as adopting the county party's platform. That's not nothing. But precinct delegates are not delegates "for" any particular candidate, so there really are no delegate totals to report.
"I cannot understand why the Republicans would report it in this way. Every other state reports delegate returns, because by most standards that's what decides who "wins" an election. Reporting meaningless results when evreyone else reports the meaningful one, is beyond a weird strategy."
I think they reported a meaningless result because they desperately wanted to report something, and a meaningless result was all they had. No candidate has "won" anything in Washington State yet.
Posted by: ScottM on February 11, 2008 10:08 AMThis story runs deeper than the fact that "No candidate has 'won' anything in Washington State yet." The process that the WA GOP put into place is not adequate to represent the will of those who attended the WA GOP caucuses. Additionally, Luke Esser has now poisoned the water by declaring that McCain won something that he didn't win. But, it also shows that the delegates were unfairly apportioned to favor McCain, even though we have no way of knowing if that represents the will of those who attended the caucuses.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 10:12 AMNot all of us are trolls. Thanks.
Scott,
I don't understand how that's possible, since Clark County is reporting both sign-in totals and pledged delegate totals. Clearly the latter number is available in some form, and if it is, it should be reported instead.
If they are assigned to a candidate, that should be the reported results. Not sign-in sheets. Even if they aren't concretely pledged, that is the number most likely to be the state convention result, no? So that should be reported, not sign-in sheet totals.
And now the Times is referring to these returns as "delegate results," so I'm just plain all-around confused.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 11, 2008 10:12 AMWe had real caucus rules.
require the precinct delegates to vote their pledge at the county caucus
So you want to take away rights from the delegates?
Hinton: But simplistic answers, like the caucuses "literally means nothing at all" avail us nothing at this point
Please do not misrepresent what I said. I said the "results" as reported by the state party are meaningless. Not the caucuses themselves, or the delegates elected there.
For those who want to know why we're suffering through a taxpayer financed, $7.5 million dollar "beauty contest" the purpose is the same reason the parties have gone after requiring party registration so rabidly for the past 10 years or so.
They want a "list."
Not true, Hinton. It is done because the TAXPAYERS passed it via initiative. Let's not have taxpayers complain because the taxpayers got precisely what they asked for.
Both Chris and Pudge tell us these results "literally means nothing at all."
Yet, in the area of perception, Esser calling the race for McCain gives these "means nothing at all" results the greatest POSSIBLE meaning.
Yes, I have explained several times, the lack of meaning I am referring to is that it does not inform us, at all, who will end up getting the caucus delegates. Doesn't even come close. Of course there is a meaning in perception, and that is why I bothered to write all this, and why I said Esser botched it all.
Democrats were reporting at a far faster rate than R's were, even though they had many, many, many more people to account for.
Part of that is because they are counting two completely different things. The result of each Dem precinct caucus IS the preference of the delegates. The result of the GOP precinct caucus is the delegate, which then has to be matched up to their preference. So when the voting for delegate is done for the Dems, that's it, they can report it. The GOP had to then go and do additional work to get the numbers.
However, the one fact, indisputable on its face, is this: Had Esser just kept his mouth shut, stayed there and counted until ALL of, or at least 99% of the results had been tabulated, then none of this would have happened, and the party, once again, wouldn't look like a collection of morons.
Yep.
THIS type of damage is viral. And the only way to make all of this go away is for the one responsible to resign.
Shrug. Complain to your state committeeman/woman and county chair.
Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson: While I appreciate your replies here, can you give us a shadow of an indication of why the WAGOP doesn't just come out and report delegate totals?
Presumably because they didn't have them entirely. There could be many reasons for this, the most obvious being that because there was no actual statewide contest, there were no set rules on how to report the results, and some counties did it differently (for example, some counted only delegates' preferences, others the preferences of all participants; this is a housekeeping matter that will be resolved).
Timothy: To all...this is a major story. Any attempts to casually wave this away are misguided.
I stand by my claim: this isn't a major story.
But then, I also say anything that happens to Britney Spears is not a major story. That doesn't mean people won't talk about it incessantly as though it has significant meaning and purpose. It just means they are foolish to do so.
The delegates preferences are:
McCain 192
Huckabee 186
Romney 143
Paul 142
Uncommitted 51
1946 people signed in and their preferences were:
Huckabee 609
McCain 571
Romney 304
Paul 303
Uncommitted 167
So, Mike Huckabee received the largest support from those who attended those caucuses, and yet, McCain received the most delegates.
Why?
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 10:18 AMPresumably because they didn't have them entirely. There could be many reasons for this, the most obvious being that because there was no actual statewide contest, there were no set rules on how to report the results, and some counties did it differently (for example, some counted only delegates' preferences, others the preferences of all participants; this is a housekeeping matter that will be resolved).
How could they have possibly counted delegates in some places, and sign-in sheets in others, while remaining remotely fair?
Did they project delegates based on sign-in sheets? If so, as we've seen in Clark County, that's not representative of delegates, which is - as far as I am familiar with the system - what counts. Maybe they forgot to provide a sheet where delegates were able to list their candidate preference. That seems like a realistic clerical error, and also would explain this mess.
Either way, there is no reason that this should not have been regulated statewide. And someone certainly should have realized the importance of knowing the preferences of the delegates in respect to reporting results. It seems to me that the GOP has failed here, either as a matter of public relations clarity or in infrastructure.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on February 11, 2008 10:21 AM"So you want to take away rights from the delegates?"
No, requiring them to pledge to vote their precincts' voters requirments doesn't take rights away from delegates, it ensures the rights of the actual Republican precinct caucus goers are preserved.
So, delegate one tells his precinct that I will support McCain - and his precinct being all McCain supporters says, okay you are elected. delegate one then laughs under his breath because he really is a Ron Paul supporter and now has secretly infiltrated the county caucus (you can reverse names if you wish).
That is the point, if precinct caucus goers prefer a particular candidate and select a delegate who prefers that candidate, then they should be able to reasonable expect that their delegate will represent their views. If not, then those caucus goers might as well stay home.
My suggestion protects the rights of the precinct caucus goers. If you can't see that then it is obvious that you are a political insider who doesn't give a crap about the initial voters.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 10:24 AMThe "pledged delegate" totals are presumably merely the sign-up sheet tallies with those who were elected delegates broken out.
Just like at the caucuses, county convention delegates may select state convention delegates based on factors other than presidential preference. In any case, delegates are free to change their minds. To report them as "McCain delegates," "Huckabee delegates," etc., would not be accurate, and would be particularly misleading since people would think it meant "national convention delegates."
As I said above, I think it would have been fine to report these totals as the results of a non-binding straw poll and let people draw their own conclusions about what it actually meant for Washington's national convention delegation.
"How could they have possibly counted delegates in some places, and sign-in sheets in others, while remaining remotely fair?"
Fair? These numbers don't mean anything. How can it be fair or unfair? I think the reason it was handled so clumsily is that no one expected the state GOP to release these numbers on caucus night and claim that they were "the caucus results," so there was no system in place to ensure a quick and accurate statewide count of these meaningless numbers.
Posted by: ScottM on February 11, 2008 10:35 AMThat misinformation has had a direct impact on the overall race. Huckabee had a narrative emerging on Saturday night that he was sweeping the day. But, that narrative was derailed when the WA GOP declared that McCain was the winner.
McCain wasn't the winner of anything, and it was dishonest of the WA GOP to declare as such.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 10:45 AM"That is not what we do in American elections," Huckabee said on CNN's American Morning Monday. "Maybe that's how they used to conduct it in the old Soviet Union, but you don't just throw people's votes out and say, 'well, we're not going to bother counting them because we kind of think we know where this was going.'
Thanks Mr. Huckabee, I couldn't have said it better myself. And FANTASTIC job Mr. Esser, you made believers of all of us.
Washington State Republicans === fascists, communists, crooks and liars!
See pudge, it DOES matter!
Posted by: barely awake on February 11, 2008 10:46 AMWhy?
Who knows? Who cares?
Maybe because the Huckabee supporters didn't want to go to county convention. Maybe because half of them showed up in a single precinct and only got two delegates to represent them all. There's no way to know from looking at this data, and no reason to think anything untoward happened.
... by declaring that John McCain actually won Washington State, the WA GOP lied to the National media.
He did not say that, that I am aware of. He said that McCain won the state's precinct caucuses. That is not at all the same as saying he won the state.
Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson: I don't think Jeff intended to call you a troll. Others obviously are.
How could they have possibly counted delegates in some places, and sign-in sheets in others, while remaining remotely fair?
"Fair" is weird to me since the "results" don't matter anyway. But as I said: this is something that will be resolved. They recognize all of it should be done the same way, and so they will fix it.
Doug: No, requiring them to pledge to vote their precincts' voters requirments doesn't take rights away from delegates, it ensures the rights of the actual Republican precinct caucus goers are preserved.
Nonsense. Many precinct voters, including myself, DID NOT CARE about the presidential preference of our delegates. You're telling me that someone should be obligated to me about something I don't want them to obligated to me for!
As I told all 38 of our precincts: if you want to ask your prospective delegates to promise to support their stated preference at county, fine, they can be bound by their word, and if they lie, you can try to make sure they never get elected delegate again. But let's not assume that precinct caucus participants WANT their delegates to be bound to their stated preference. Some do, and some don't.
My suggestion protects the rights of the precinct caucus goers. If you can't see that then it is obvious that you are a political insider who doesn't give a crap about the initial voters.
Nope, just the opposite. I care so much about the individual caucus participants that I don't want to force unnecessary rules on them. I trust them all as adults to make their own decisions.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 10:56 AMThanks Mr. Huckabee, I couldn't have said it better myself.
That's sad, since everyone's votes were counted on Saturday. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that indicates otherwise.
If you have any such evidence, let us know!
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 11:00 AMDid they count the preferences of all the attendees? Or, through a more laborious process, did they match the indication of the designated delegate (from another document we filled out) with that person's preference on the precinct sign in sheet?
I feel sorry for Esser. He's in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Imagine if he'd refused to provide any numbers and honestly said that the results don't reflect what candidate half the final delegates will prefer?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 11, 2008 11:10 AMOne thing I would like to be explained by Mr. Pudge, who is a delegate (if I have read correctly) to the county convention of his residence (I'm sorry I missed your county Mr. Pudge). Do you have to announce your candidate preference before your county convention? How many delegates to the WA state convention will be elected at your county convention? Does your county elect delegates who are obligated to vote for a candidate at the state convention? or are they free to vote for anyone once they get to the state convention? Mr. Pudge, are you up for election as a delegate to the state convention?
Number 105 has posted on the Pierce County results. My calculations show 714 delegates to the Pierce County convention. Is this correct? How many delegates from Pierce County go to the state convention?
Finally, (I apologize for the many questions), I assume the delegates not pledged in your primary election are pledges at your state convention (some time in May I recall)?
Posted by: MarkN on February 11, 2008 11:14 AMEntirely false. That is the only thing that DOES matter: which preferred delegates you voted for.
we can rely on those appointed or elected officials (whether precinct officers, party chairmen, election supervisors) to straighten out how they want the results to be
Entirely false. No appointed or PCOs, chairmen, or "election supervisors" (whatever those are) have any authority here. Only the delegates do, and those are the people you elected.
Doug: you are spreading completely incorrect information.
MarkN: One thing I would like to be explained by Mr. Pudge, who is a delegate (if I have read correctly) to the county convention of his residence (I'm sorry I missed your county Mr. Pudge). Do you have to announce your candidate preference before your county convention?
No. But if it is a close race, you probably won't be elected as a state delegate if you don't.
How many delegates to the WA state convention will be elected at your county convention?
139 IIRC.
Does your county elect delegates who are obligated to vote for a candidate at the state convention? or are they free to vote for anyone once they get to the state convention?
The latter. There is nothing in the rules binding them to a stated preference.
Mr. Pudge, are you up for election as a delegate to the state convention?
Probably will be. As I was busy doing all the paperwork after the caucus, I didn't fill out the state delegate nomination form. The rules state that I can notify the county chair of my intent to be on the ballot at least 72 hours before the opening gavel of the county convention, so I will probably do that tomorrow. If I don't, however, then I can still be nominated from the floor of the LD caucus at county convention, which I will probably be chairing.
Finally, (I apologize for the many questions), I assume the delegates not pledged in your primary election are pledges at your state convention (some time in May I recall)?
May 29-31, and I am not sure. This is going to be a bit different since some of those delegates elected will likely have their preferenced dictated to them by the results of the primary, so maybe some will be bound, and others won't? I am not sure on this, but that is my best guess.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 11:25 AMThe real vote is the 19th. I may even vote for McCain contrary to my promise last week to make a protest vote for Paul. That is based on the actions of one Mr. Michael Huckabee.
Posted by: swatter on February 11, 2008 11:25 AMThe at-large delegates at state are apportioned according to the primary. In addition, each congressional district gets two. And I believe the preferences of the latter are not obligated, while the former are.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 11:28 AMInitiative 99 in 1988 was an initiative to the legislature. It was not an initiative to the people which could enact a law. The legislature enacted the law.
In addition, the presidential preference primary that resulted from that initiative to the legislature authorized people to cast votes as "unaffiliated" voters -- that is, as "independents" who declared no party preference or affiliation.
The legislature changed the law in 2007, so that this year's presidential primary doesn't include the opportunity for unaffiliated voters to have their votes counted and reported -- for whatever influence their votes might have. (Since the bandwagon effect causes people like Luke Esser to report "results" when there are none, it should be obvious that the votes of "unaffiliated" voters could have an influence on the national process.)
Who asked the legislature to eliminate the opportunity to cast votes as "unaffiliated" voters? Was there a silent groundswell of public sentiment that caused Secretary of State Sam Reed (R) to request this change to the law?
This year's presidential primary is not at all what the taxpayers who submitted that initiative to the legislature wanted.
Who did want it to be this way this year? Some people within the two major parties apparently wanted the primary to be the way it is this year.
Huckabee not making friends here. Possibly bad move BEFORE the primary. Makes me think he knows even less about how things work here.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 11:32 AMTherefore my statement at number 114 that partly makes light of the 2004 election is not as you put it: spreading completely incorrect information.
In our county, the precinct captains/officers were automatic delegates to the county.
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 11:47 AMYou vote for McCain!?! Wow, Huckabee really is doing his job well, he's managed to get conservatives who have vowed never to vote for McCain to actually physically support him. Hmmmmmm, part of the big plan?
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 11:49 AM