UPDATE II: In addition to releasing updated results last night, The WSRP issued a letter from Luke Esser discussing the issue below as well as questions discussed in a previous post. I note the problem identified in Snohomish occurred in three other counties, speaking to an obvious need to improve lines of communication between the WSRP and the volunteer-run county parties.
Original post
The Snohomish County GOP does appear to have reported results inconsistent with the WSRP's method of reporting results for Saturday's caucuses. Robert Mark at KING 5 has reported on the story. I witnessed that same problem he described at my caucus location and have been communicating with party officials since then to clarify how the results were being reported. In response to my questions, and others, the state GOP had representatives up at Snohomish County GOP HQ this morning to sort things out.
The WSRP asked for results in terms described previously: the Presidential preference of the elected precinct delegates. The county GOP reported results in terms of the preferences of all attendees. As pudge and I have described here on the main page, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the two.
Needless to say, this is not a good situation at all. I have had conversations with enough relevant individuals at the county and state level to determine there was clearly a communication breakdown at some point between the county and state parties. Who is ultimately responsible for that lack of alignment is for others to determine and rectify. Conversations with my sources haven't provided enough information to point fingers, even while clearly revealing a breakdown in the reporting system.
The issue at hand right now is promptly tabulating the Presidential preferences of the precinct delegates elected on Saturday in Snohomish County. Then, those results will replace the previous Snohomish County results. That will on one hand lower the total, overall numbers being used by the WSRP to calculate the percentage of delegates supporting each candidate since there were obviously less precinct delegates elected than there were caucus attendees. Again, however, as pudge and I have discussed, there are a lot of variables involved in electing the delegates themselves so the ultimate effect on the "results" of the precinct caucuses is unknown. My hunch is it won't change the statewide outcome, but that and $1.50 will buy you a nice, inky Sunday newspaper.
From my communications with the WSRP and GOP officials at the county level I think everyone was acting in good faith. They all just need to rectify matters ASAP, while concurrently being forthcoming as they can to queries on the topic. I for one will want to see what results Snohomish County originally reported versus what the properly tabulated tally ends up being.
UPDATE: tonight's latest results from the WSRP seem to confirm the strength of McCain's hand. No word on whether or not the updated numbers reflect changes in Snohomish County's totals. I have an inquiry into the WSRP on the status of things.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 11, 2008 10:39 PM | Email ThisAnd it looks like county's have made mistakes and are trying to fix them. Good for them! And they're all volunteers and not professionals so they should get some slack. It's all a straw poll anyway and doesn't mean much until the county conventions when their vote becomes part of the record.
I have a feeling things will be a little smoother by then. Good job all you county chairs, PCO's, delegates, alternates, and caucus participants for exercising democracy.
Posted by: Matty on February 11, 2008 10:56 PMThere can be no confidence in these results, and if the Republican party of Washington proceeds in this fashion it will speak to the integrity of the party and its membership.
Posted by: Timothy on February 11, 2008 11:00 PMDepends on how you look at it. Did he edge out his nearest other competitor? Sure, and I assume that's what you meant. Did he make a good showing for the presumptive nominee who is consolidating party support to move on into the general election? Hardly. I mean, I'm not sayin', you know... I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: TB on February 12, 2008 12:27 AMAlso, as I understand it, Obama didn't have that problem.
Timothy is, of course, directly on target. Calling or comparing someone to a "troll" doesn't get us past the basic competency issues that has resulted in this buffoonery.
"Fixing mistakes" is one thing. But being "stuck on stupid" is something else again, and their is no conceivable spin or excuse that justifies this idiocy from Esser.
Posted by: Hinton on February 12, 2008 01:47 AMThat's true, but apparently that's what all caucus states do, so I think we were all putting too much blame on Esser yesterday (including me). Esser's mistake was in not ensuring that he had good numbers before announcing.
The Iowa GOP does claim that its unbound delegates "usually feel obligated to follow the wishes expressed by the caucus-goers" in their straw poll, whereas I'm pretty sure that's not the case here, but it's basically the same system, and it's the system that is to blame for overstating the predictive value of the "results," not Esser.
Perhaps this will expose the problems with making such predictions, and next time state parties will be somewhat more cautious in allocating presumed RNC delegates based on non-binding preference polls.
"Independent Voter": Take a pill, boy. No one "cheated." There's no indication of irregularities in the delegate selection process, and no reason to believe that the state party's final numbers will be wrong.
But even if the party made the statewide numbers up out of whole cloth, it wouldn't affect anything in the real world. The delegates actually elected will be the ones going to the county conventions, regardless of what the state party says about the numbers gleaned from the straw poll. The party's numbers are not "votes." The only votes taken on Saturday were for precinct delegates to the county conventions, and as far as I know, there is no allegation of any problems with the vote count in any precinct.
That's why this is all a huge overreaction.
Posted by: ScottM on February 12, 2008 05:43 AMStick a fork in this guy. He is done.
Where is my This Democrat for McCain bumper sticker?
Posted by: swatter on February 12, 2008 06:51 AMLuke gladly gave that away to McCain by declaring him the winner before everything was even counted, much less counted right. Nothing else matters.
Go ahead, call me a whiner or tell me to call the whambulance.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 12, 2008 07:14 AMCaucus goers signed in when they showed up at the caucus on Sat. They wrote down their initial preference.
They sat down with others in their precinct and talked about the party platform, candidates, and/or other issues.
They elected delegates. Potential delegates, acording to the WSRP rules, were required to state their presidential preference, but that preference did not have to match their preference when they signed in.
The stated preference of the elected delegates was not written down. There is no record of what any of the delegates said at the time they were elected.
So what do the results mean on the WSRP website? Why does Esser say McCain won when there is no record of what the preference of the delegates at the time they're elected? Aren't republicans as pissed as I am that the WSRP is lying about the results to the media?
Why isn't Esser's head on a pike yet?
Posted by: Reaganology on February 12, 2008 07:49 AM"Basic competency issues," "buffoonery," and "stuck on stupid" are exactly the face of the Republican Party that we knew you lot would reveal to the voters sooner or later.
That giant flushing sound the whole state just heard is Dino Rossi's campaign disappearing down the toilet. Like you clowns expect to run the whole state after this fiasco?
With any luck, Esser the Suppressor just might take his puppetmaster McKenna down the drain with Dino.
Nice going, GOP. Well played. I applaud.
Very telling if you ask me.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 12, 2008 07:53 AMRegarding the Che flag...awful on all counts. One idiotic Obama supporter doing an idiotic thing. It's the typical find a bizarre, idiotic event and link it with an overall effort -- good thing is most thinking folks realize this.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 12, 2008 07:58 AMWhen there is a communication breakdown, it is usually the fault of both sides. Finding someone to blame is not necessary to fix a communication breakdown, as the solution to improve communication is still the same no matter who is most to blame: you sit down with all parties and find out the best way to communicate the information for the next time.
(My communication theory courses weren't useless! I SWEARS it!)
Duffman: While the details are apparently being worked out and hopefully a lesson has been learned through all of this - the real damage is to our State and the perception that we don't know what the hell we're doing up here.
Yes, which is why I tried to inform people at the outset of course ... and while that has helped to some degree, you still get disgruntled Republicans and partisan Democrats and others who see this as an opportunity to make some noise, and while that was not the initial cause of the perception problem, it is the persistent cause.
Not that there's anything you can do about it, but you and I appear to be in agreement that there's no serious actual problem here, yet we're still getting attacked from multiple sides like we did something totally horrible. And those attackers are the ones insisting on making the WSRP and its volunteers, and by extension the whole state, into this "laughing stock" you speak of.
Timothy: look. You've made your point, one that I agree with in substance -- but not importance -- but as a hardcore Democrat, your repeating it over and over isn't going to sway anyone. You think it is a huge deal, but as someone from the other side, you have a vested interest in trying to convince people that there is a serious problem here, so we don't take you seriously on that.
Just laying the cards on the table here ...
Posted by: pudge on February 12, 2008 08:02 AMIt's not about laws. only about how THEY feel.
Everytime you see a dem protest these type of flags and other stalin saying show up.
Correct.
They sat down with others in their precinct and talked about the party platform, candidates, and/or other issues.
If they wanted to, yes.
They elected delegates. Potential delegates, acording to the WSRP rules, were required to state their presidential preference, but that preference did not have to match their preference when they signed in.
That is unclear. What the rule says is, "In a Presidential year nominees shall indicate Presidential preference or declare
themselves uncommitted." It does not say whether the sign-in sheet does, or does not, constitute such a declaration.
The stated preference of the elected delegates was not written down. There is no record of what any of the delegates said at the time they were elected.
Correct.
So what do the results mean on the WSRP website?
Exactly what I said in my initial post: nothing of importance.
Why does Esser say McCain won when there is no record of what the preference of the delegates at the time they're elected?
Exactly what I said in my initial post: to make news. (In fairness, the news media was begging us to release our results, probably even after Esser and the WSRP informed them that it wasn't meaningful, after the party told them last month we would NOT release results.)
Aren't republicans as pissed as I am that the WSRP is lying about the results to the media?
I see no lie of fact. I see what I believe is a misrepresentation of IMPORTANCE or MEANING, but that is a far too subjective a thing for me to call it a "lie."
And you saw the other post. Many people -- including me -- vocally asserted our disagreement with how Esser handled it. So why don't you take that as your answer?
Why isn't Esser's head on a pike yet?
Simple psychology.
Those of us who -- some of us, even before the results went up -- were opposed the way the results were being provided, are, obviously, more likely to be the kind of people who are less rash, less prone to jumping to conclusions, and less prone to inflate the importance of an event.
So if we are less likely to be rash or to make a mountain out of a molehill by posting the results as was done, then similarly, we will be less likely to be rash or to make a mountain out of a molehill in our response to what Esser did.
Posted by: pudge on February 12, 2008 08:11 AMscary logic...blaming the many for the few....hope you aren't really serious
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 12, 2008 08:17 AMThat was a very unnecessary part of the letter; otherwise it was a good start. :)
Posted by: Duffman on February 12, 2008 08:18 AMhttp://tinyurl.com/yoksku
Says this
The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign.
Seems like rogue volunteers if you ask me. Idiot Commies...
But weird to have that disclaimer, eh?
Posted by: Reaganology on February 12, 2008 08:21 AMI'm not talking just once. They show up at all of the Dem protest. Heck just watch when code pink shows up or any San Fran protest.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 12, 2008 08:21 AMAnd no, I'm not an Obama supporter, so don't bother with that one. I want nothing to do with the looters.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 12, 2008 08:24 AMGood day sir
Posted by: Andrew Brown on February 12, 2008 08:30 AMI would hope that someone aspiring to be president would have the temperament to verify facts before flying off the handle.
Mr. Esser, despite the fact that the press is screaming for information (when aren't they?) - "measure twice, cut once."
pudge, am I correct in thinking that the actual committed delegates related to this caucus won't be officially allocated until the State convention? Will the primary actually assign a hard count of delegates, or is that "up in the air" until the State convention as well?
I disagree that this is a boon to KCE. The caucuses were run by volunteers, not by "professinals". They were primarily paper based and did not have the benefit of expensive computer systems and devices.
The errors encountered were actually minor and had no material effect. It will be a very long time before KCE can make the same claim about their mistakes.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 12, 2008 08:51 AMThe results of the Primary next week will bind 19 of our delegates proportionately to candidates who procure at least 20%, but only for the first round of voting at the National Convention. If, after the first ballot, no candidate has a majority, then the delegates are released from any committments to candidates and may vote for the person of their choice.
There will be 18 delegates chosen through the convention process who will be completely free to vote for whomever they wish, unless they've made promises to those who elected them. In which case they are bound by their word, not any rules.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on February 12, 2008 09:05 AMWell, technically, the errors had no material effect because technically the caucuses chose delegates, not presidential candidates. But the process could not have been more bungled. The more the party attempts to defend it, the more ridiculous it looks.
As for KCE, they have always claimed their mistakes had no effect, and more objectively, the courts agreed with them.
The primary/caucus process is undemocratic for both parties, especially in WA, for many reasons. But it's ironic that the biggest problem with vote counting and reporting -- and apparently lying -- occurred among WA Republicans, a group that whines about fraud whenever they lose, or expect to lose, an election.
Posted by: Bruce on February 12, 2008 09:17 AMI appreciate that you discount what I say simply for partisan reasons, but understand that on issues of voting and process, I care about the Country as a whole.
Luke Esser has arbitrarily changed the dialogue of an entire Nation. You downplay that aspect of this discussion as though it is meaningless, which it is not. The actions of the Washington State Republican Party speak to the integrity of the system you've built. I can tell you that I wouldn't stand idly by on our side and allow what is happening to happen.
For perhaps the final time, I'll just state this: The Washington State Republican party is acting dishonestly by declaring a winner from the Feb. 9th caucus. The ability of the Republicans in Washington to lecture the democrats on issues of voter integrity have been weakened through this event.
But, Pudge, at least you're admitting the errors, even if you minimize the importance of them.
Carry on! :-)
To all...my project at MorePerfect.org is non-partisan, and I'd love to have your participation there as I continue to explore new ways to involve more people directly in the process of our democracy. Take a look and let me know your thoughts.
Posted by: Timothy on February 12, 2008 09:35 AMI don't. I am saying it won't be convincing, that it will be taken with a big grain of salt, not that it will be totally discounted.
Luke Esser has arbitrarily changed the dialogue of an entire Nation.
Only because the media and most of us set it up so that this sort of thing can happen. I am, frankly, not inclined to give a damn when a child murders his parents and then asks for mercy because he's an orphan. The media and most of the rest of us here have all built up this horse race system where every little thing means something big, whether it actually has any big inherent meaning or not.
That's not to say Esser should have done what he did, as I've disagreed with it many times, but the effects are caused not just by the person who does the initial act, but the people who exacerbate it because they WANT it to mean something it doesn't. And so then when it doesn't fit the narrative, or there's a small mistake, it gets blown WAY out of proportion, and that is primarily the fault of the people who blow it out of proportion.
So Huckabee loves to make small meaningless victories be perceived as major wins in his favor, and then he complains when a small meaningless victory makes him look bad? Color me completely and totally unsympathetic, because he is to blame for helping to create a system where such a small meaningless thing could have the power to make him look bad.
The actions of the Washington State Republican Party speak to the integrity of the system you've built.
No, they do not, at all, because they are completely separate from the caucus system itself. People can THINK it speaks to the integrity of the system, but only if they do not understand the fact that it is separate from the system.
I don't. I am saying it won't be convincing, that it will be taken with a big grain of salt, not that it will be totally discounted.
Luke Esser has arbitrarily changed the dialogue of an entire Nation.
Only because the media and most of us set it up so that this sort of thing can happen. I am, frankly, not inclined to give a damn when a child murders his parents and then asks for mercy because he's an orphan. The media and most of the rest of us here have all built up this horse race system where every little thing means something big, whether it actually has any big inherent meaning or not.
That's not to say Esser should have done what he did, as I've disagreed with it many times, but the effects are caused not just by the person who does the initial act, but the people who exacerbate it because they WANT it to mean something it doesn't. And so then when it doesn't fit the narrative, or there's a small mistake, it gets blown WAY out of proportion, and that is primarily the fault of the people who blow it out of proportion.
So Huckabee loves to make small meaningless victories be perceived as major wins in his favor, and then he complains when a small meaningless victory makes him look bad? Color me completely and totally unsympathetic, because he is to blame for helping to create a system where such a small meaningless thing could have the power to make him look bad.
The actions of the Washington State Republican Party speak to the integrity of the system you've built.
No, they do not, at all, because they are completely separate from the caucus system itself. People can THINK it speaks to the integrity of the system, but only if they do not understand the fact that it is separate from the system.
But, let me differ with you on a single point. Who created this?
The Caucus system of the Republican Party is a closed system. Outside the system, it's very hard to get information. So, we place our trust that the Chair of the Republican Party will be straight with us, tell us not what we want or expect to hear, but what is actual and true.
To blame the media because they wanted or expected results is perhaps a convenient way to minimize the fault here, but it's a meaningless argument. "The Media" isn't a single entity that can be managed in some meaningful way.
The only point along the chain in which the information can be effectively managed is with the Chair of the Republican party, and then secondarily those who support and uphold his actions.
Knowing how big a deal the primaries are, it seems to me that the Republican party of Washington would take care to craft a system that either provides what people expect, or to be clear that it won't. The democrats have devised a system that accomplishes that, and was able to do so with 10 times the number participants.
Pudge, it's just not convincing to blame the expectations of others. Where does the buck stop here?
Posted by: Timothy on February 12, 2008 10:09 AMIt is well known that the candidates either go in person or send representatives to the Iowa county conventions to "pick up delegates" that are now free to switch sides before the Iowa state convention.
By September at the National GOP convention, John McCain, who came in fourth at the January caucus could receive the most votes from the Iowa delegation. Mainly, because Iowa's delegates to the National GOP convention have not as of yet been chosen.
Posted by: MarkN on February 12, 2008 10:28 AMWhat, exactly, was the lie, Bruce?
As for KCE, they have always claimed their mistakes had no effect, and more objectively, the courts agreed with them.
Which court Bruce?
This one?
This Court is not in a position to fix the deficiencies in the election process that we heard about in this courtroom over the past nine days. However, the voters of this state are in a position to demand of their executive and legislative bodies that remedial measures be instituted immediately. And clearly, the evidence here suggests that the problems require more than just constructing new buildings and hiring more staff.
Mr. Logan in his testimony in court and, more particularly, in his deposition testimony referred to the culture he found when he assumed the responsibilities of the Director of Elections in King County. Almost anyone who works in state or local government knows exactly what this culture is. It's inertia. It's selfishness. It's taking our paycheck but not doing the work. It's not caring about either our fellow workers or the public we are supposed to serve. It's not taking responsibility. It's refusing to be held accountable. And so it is the voters who should send the message.
Based on the findings, the Court concludes that 1,678 illegal votes were cast in the 2004 general election. This includes felons established by petitioners totaling 754, felons established by intervenors totaling 647, deceased voters totaling 19, double voters totaling 6, provisional ballots in King County totaling 96, provisional ballots in Pierce County totaling 79 and additional votes in Pierce County for which there could not be found a registered voter through crediting, at least, totaling 77. And, therefore, the total is 1,678.
This court did NOT say that there were no issues with KCE, only that there wasn't enough proof to satisfy the existing laws.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 12, 2008 10:35 AMWhy are some conservatives enamored with him anyway? Have they looked at his record on taxes as governor, or is it just McCain Derangement Syndrome?
Posted by: Palouse on February 12, 2008 10:42 AMCaucuses are a thing whose time has long gone. I'd say 'good riddance' if we never had another.
Posted by: MrConservative on February 12, 2008 11:13 AMWashington State's Republican Caucus isn't much different from others around the nation. The announced "results" aren't all that binding, but they make good headlines, much the same as Maine, Kansas, South Dakota, and even Iowa.
The outcome in all these states is virtually the same - results of the precinct caucuses are not binding and delegates are officially allocated at state conventions at a later time.
Here is what various GOP websites say about their caucuses:
North Dakota:
The statewide caucus results will provide for a proportional vote of the National Convention Delegates on the first ballot; i.e., a candidate receiving 40% of the statewide caucus vote would receive 40% of the convention delegate votes on the first ballot. A candidate must receive at least 15% of the total ballots cast to be eligible to receive any of North Dakota's National Convention Delegates. If a 2008 Presidential Caucus candidate receives more than two-thirds of the total statewide votes cast during the 2008 North Dakota Presidential Caucus, that candidate receives all of North Dakota's National Convention Delegates.
Maine:
While candidates for state convention delegate and alternate are free to express their
presidential preference to the caucus body and caucus members are free to ask candidates for delegate and
alternate positions, delegates and alternates will not be bound to their presidential preference.
These results DO NOT BIND delegates to the state or national conventions!
Please note: Our office has been receiving large amounts of calls regarding the percentage totals. We are currently in the process of working to compile the rest of the data.
Although 411 towns were listed are as caucusing, some towns have either
a.) not yet held their caucus,
b.) postponed their caucus due to inclement weather,
c.) have not yet contacted us with their results, or
d.) were scheduled to hold a caucus but no one participated.
We are continually updating our records as results are reported to us. The percentage reporting now reflects the number of towns that actually caucused or have yet to caucus.
Thanks for your patience and please keep checking back here first for the most updated results.
Kansas:
Will there be any delegates selected at the caucus on February 9?
No. Delegates to the Republican National Convention are selected through a separate process later this spring.
Iowa:
The results of this caucus activity on both the Republican and Democratic sides are not binding on the elected delegates, but the delegates usually feel obligated to follow the wishes expressed by the caucus-goers. Thus the initial caucus results provide a good barometer of the composition of Iowa's national delegation, keeping in mind the effect that candidates' withdrawals can have right up to convention voting time.
South Dakota:
Third is the Statewide Caucus at 1 p.m. on Saturday, March 15, at the Kings Inn in Pierre. You will split up according to the Presidential candidate that you support and will select from those people who won at the Regional level 23 delegates and 24 alternates. The names of those people who are elected will go on the June 3 primary ballot under the name of the Presidential candidate they support.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 12, 2008 11:18 AMThe fact is, this is a little meaningless thing on its own. The only reason why it is a "big deal" is because the media and campaigns WANTED it to be a big deal. The media's job is to understand this, and if they printed the truth -- that this is meaningless -- then no one would watch. So they eagerly and carelessly posted the results and made them out to be a big deal to get viewers. And now they, and the campaigns, complain when this little meaningless thing isn't treated like the big deal they wanted it to be, but knew all along it wasn't. (You really think Ed Rollins doesn't know exactly what happened?)
"The Media" isn't a single entity that can be managed in some meaningful way.
Obviously. But that is irrelevant to me. My degree is in journalism, and I've been heavily involved with Internet news for more than ten years. I know how the media works, and it is my well-studied and educated opinion that each and every media org is individually responsible for what they do. Every news org that says "we have to do it, because everyone else is doing it" is part of the problem.
But then, I watch PBS News Hour every evening ... one of the few that dares to ignore what other news orgs are doing, that doesn't generally follow the horse race, that doesn't report on Britney Spears, and so on. I don't read "the blogs." I am not normal. :-) But I do know what I am talking about.
Pudge, it's just not convincing to blame the expectations of others.
Shrug. I believe it is the only reasonable conclusion. Will I change anything? Probably not, but I can at least help give people some perspective.
Where does the buck stop here?
Come on. I've criticized Esser's handling of this since the beginning, and you know it. I am not saying he doesn't deserve blame. I am saying that this problem was ultimately created by people like Huckabee and the news media, and that their crying about it when it turns against them is not something I care about.
Huckabee pretends that he "won" Iowa, and that this makes him a "frontrunner," and twists the truth to make it seem like he was ahead of Romney. Misleading claim after misleading claim ... and now I should care about him potentially getting burned by the poor reporting of some meaningless data? You can't be serious.
Now, I don't like Huckabee, but I am only using him because he is the clearest example in this case. All of them do it. And it is the same thing with the media. On Sunday (in an example that defends Huckabee) Tim Russert brings up the fact that a televaneglist is under investigation by Senator Grassley, and that this guy is raising money for Huckabee, and that Huckabee said he is on the televangelist's side, not the Senate's. And Russert asks the incredible question: "isn't this obstruction of the investigation?" Um ... no. Not in any way whatsoever. As usual, the media is trying to create news where none exists, so that it can get more of our attention.
They -- the media, the campaigns, and many of the people -- make every little thing out to be a big thing, and damn the truth. They deserve to get burned every once in awhile.
I care about is that the people I am responsible to -- my local Republicans -- are properly represented, and to the extent that didn't happen, I am disappointed in Esser, as I have been saying since the beginning. But I could not care less about what the campaigns and media think about "the dialogue of an entire Nation." They get what they deserve.
Posted by: pudge on February 12, 2008 11:25 AMGiven than only 20,000 people attended the GOP precinct caucuses, that means that maybe 5,000 people showed up to support McCain.
I would bet that somewhat more than 5,000 Republicans crossed over to the Democratic caucuses to support Obama. And if you include former Republicans (such as folks who voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, or even folks who supported McCain in 2000), I would bet that Obama received far more than 5,000 of these folks in Saturday's caucus.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 12, 2008 11:58 AMI got a kick out of reading about Maine! Apparently Washington isn't the only state where practically no one gives a damn about the Republican Party.
Maine has 411 "towns", into which the state is divided. I looked at the Maine state GOP website, and 347 of these "towns" have already held their caucuses:
http://www.mainegop.com/FlexPage.aspx?area=caucus2008results
6 more towns are scheduled to hold their GOP caucuses after today's date:
http://www.mainegop.com/FlexPage.aspx?area=caucus2008schedule
Only 353 towns in Maine are holding GOP caucuses this year. The other 58 towns are not holding GOP caucuses because they have NO REPUBLICANS interested in participating.
Posted by: Richard Pope on February 12, 2008 12:22 PM1. At my democratic caucus, I heard dozens of people say they were republicans voting in a democtratic caucus for the first time (all who indicated a preference said they were for Obama). I bet they are especially glad now -- knowing their vote actually counted.
pudge's response: no one cares what you heard or think or pretend you heard.
2. The republican party, like all political parties, doesn't exist for the people. It exists for itself and for the people in power.
pudge's reponse: still no one cares what you think and you are probably right about the liberal left, but conservative, right-thinking folks in the republican party always put people before politics. reagan is a perfect example.
3. The events this week at the republican caucuses is an embarassment to the State of Washington. We are now seen as a laughing stock, backwater wild west wackos.
pudge's response: that conclusion was reached after queen chrissy stole the election from the righltly elected rossi whom we can re-elect this fall.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 12, 2008 01:24 PMYes, it is common for people to pretend to be coming from another party, or for people to pretend they talked to people making such claims.
I bet they are especially glad now -- knowing their vote actually counted.
You're a liar. It is fact that the votes in the GOP caucuses counted.
The republican party, like all political parties, doesn't exist for the people. It exists for itself and for the people in power.
Nope. The GOP exists for the members of the GOP.
The events this week at the republican caucuses is an embarassment to the State of Washington. We are now seen as a laughing stock, backwater wild west wackos.
Yes, partisan Democrats like you are trying to create that perception, so you can then blame it on Republicans.
Posted by: pudge on February 12, 2008 01:30 PM(pudge, how'd i do?)
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 12, 2008 02:03 PMCome on, you can do better than that. My claim did not imply the characteristic of being a partisan Democrat was either a necessary or sufficient condition for being involved, and in fact, I blamed Huckabee and his people for it, too.
jj: Hey, we had an error rate that any bank would be proud of.
Yes, that's true, since from all we can tell, there was no error at all. None. Zip.
Bill Anderson: (pudge, how'd i do?)
Poorly, as usual. I did blame Huckabee; I never implied or contested the media was biased politically; and I never pay attention to Coulter, Limbaugh, or Savage, and I don't watch Fox News.
Posted by: pudge on February 12, 2008 02:51 PMTo say that stating a preference when you signed in is in fact a vote for a candidate is to ignore the primary purpose of the caucus.
To suggest that their is a "winner" is nothing more than a sham. To challenge the "numbers" is lunacy. What numbers are being challenged? The tally of preferences. If that is the case I would suggest that by my estimate undecided and uncommitted "voters" probably constituted a major percentage.
Just for the record the people attending the "pool" caucus were not very enthusiastic about McCain. And that is saying it politely.
"The Washington State Republican party is acting dishonestly by declaring a winner from the Feb. 9th caucus. The ability of the Republicans in Washington to lecture the democrats on issues of voter integrity have been weakened through this event."
By that standard, Iowa and any other state that holds a caucus merely to elect uncommitted delegates is acting dishonestly if they report a "winner"
Posted by: Dave on February 12, 2008 09:13 PMIf your quesion was to me, the numbers I'm referring to is of the delegates. Most delegates committed to a particular delegate when running. That's the way we handled it in my precinct, and the way the rest of the precincts in my pooled caucus. We've already established that we were there to elect delegates. The delegates will go n to the county convention to elect delegates to the state convention, and the state delegates will go onto the state convention and elect national delegates, who will be the ones to select our nominee. That's why it's important to know who your delegates support.
Posted by: Michelle on February 12, 2008 09:26 PMGetting rid of Dean Logan doesn't seem to have helped the KC elections dept. very much. Still making mistakes! Still oblivious!
Posted by: Clean House on February 12, 2008 10:11 PMMost caucuses lacked sufficient people willing and able to accept the responsibility of attending the county convention. This means that many delegates were nominated and "elected" to represent their caucus as a matter of availability. Once again hardly a "vote" for a given candidate. Having attended a number of conventions, be assured that alternates will probably be seated.
Conventions are going to be interesting this election cycle.
My ax to grind is with the people issuing press releases in the name of the Republican Party that a given presidential candidate won. And this is followed by a number of "votes" being published. Sorry, it simply didn't occur that way. Writing in a preference when you sign in doesn't count as a vote. I imagine that a number of people were not aware they were "voting" for a candidate by providing a preference.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 12, 2008 11:31 PMI've been blaming four main groups all along. The media wants something it can pass off as news, doesn't matter what it is, and the consumers of the media don't hold the media to a high standard. The campaigns and their supporters take advantage of this by doing whatever they can to make things into news that can be spun to their advantage, no matter how meaningless. And the party just wants to be mentioned so it will grab hold of whatever it's got to get on the front page.
Not naming names, and many of these people are my friends, but most of the Republicans who are demanding the numbers from the state are backing a particular candidate and fall into that third category up there.
I won't say I can't blame them, because I don't want to fall into the second category: I demand high standards. Everyone who is claiming these numbers are meaningful is a part of the problem. I do blame myself too, though, because I knew about it before it happened and should have spoken up; if I'd known it was going to be such a big deal, I would have.
Next time.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2008 07:25 AMAs Snuffy and Pudge have suggested...many precincts didn't even have enough people to adequately fill the role of delegates; so, the numbers on the R side must be tiny. By contrast, the D's had a turnout of over 250,000 people, 150,000 more people than turned out in the record-breaking 2004 election cycle. And yet, the D's got their count done, 100%, on Saturday night.
To independent and open-minded R's in Washington...join us on the D side. The R's are irrelevant in this State. Come and help us build a better Wasington. Caucus where your voice is hear, where discussion and disagreement take place in a civil manner, and where we can work to get things done.
The R's in Washington snipe about sideline issue with no real plan to do anything. Complaining about the Viaduct? 520? The R's aren't even in the game.
So, join us. We'll welcome you and put you to work.
Posted by: Timothy on February 13, 2008 12:03 PMWhat's amazing about it? The counties were not required to turn anything in until the 16th. So therefore they didn't plan on being able to turn it in until the 16th. Because it is not important or meaningful, several counties did not make it a priority to get the information in before it is due. Not Important.
To independent and open-minded R's in Washington...join us on the D side.
I am independent and open-minded, which is why I would never become a Democrat. They would try to change me into being a mindless follower.
The R's are irrelevant in this State. Come and help us build a better Wasington.
To the Democrats, a "better Washington" is one without liberty.
Caucus where your voice is hear, where discussion and disagreement take place in a civil manner, and where we can work to get things done.
That is precisely what happened at our caucuses. Why you pretend that it didn't is odd: you are entirely incorrect.
The R's in Washington snipe about sideline issue with no real plan to do anything.
That's a lie. Indeed, for example, just last week, the Democrats refused a vote on a Republican plan to fix major problems with U.S. 2, while the Democrats have no solution of their own.
So, join us. We'll welcome you and put you to work.
Yes, exactly: the Democrats are trying to make everyone an employee of the state government.
It makes me question the results in the rest of the states.
Posted by: Michelle on February 13, 2008 12:20 PMI could not disagree more. To me it seems like Esser just wanted the WSRP to be in the news.
It makes me question the results in the rest of the states.
Our state is different than most though. Our delegates are not committed, first of all. Some are the same way, but many are not. More importantly, we don't actually vote on presidential preferences, or record our preferences AFTER the caucus. I don't know of any other like that.
And MOST importantly ... we do not elect delegates in the counties, proportional to their final representation at state. So we could have twice as many delegates in one county proportional to another, and yet they will be counted as equal in the WSRP's "results."
So our "results" are much more questionable than most.
Posted by: pudge on February 13, 2008 01:15 PM