March 29, 2008
Who are these Democratic Delegates?
Seattle Weekly political reporter, brolly enthusiast and SLUT racer Aimee Curl has a must read bit about elected delegates for the Washington State Democratic Party.
After doing a bit of good old fashioned shoe-leather reporting Curl writes that significant numbers of delegates elected during last February's primaries aren't even registered to vote or were elected in the wrong precinct.
The number is reportedly as high as ten percent in some counties.
As this closest of close presidential primary horse races comes down to the bitter finish between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton it will be interesting to see how much blood letting occurs if too many of these unorthodoxly elected delegates will have their credentials challenged.
Benefit of the doubt can attribute some of these numbers to enthusiastic high school seniors and the usual failing of the Model Mark I Human. But a ten percent error rate leads one to understand why the state's WASL math scores are so low...
Flashback: Last February a lot of online snark was slathered by Democrats, leftist bloggers, ill-informed political reporters and a certain presidential hopeful after Luke Esser, chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, declared that John McCain had "won" the state caucus before all the presidential preference sheets had been tallied.
That issue has been hashed out fully here at Sound Politics and anyone who knows anything about the way the GOP caucus system is run knows that no presidential candidate really wins this state's caucus until the state convention in May.
It was humorous reading all the wannabe political analysts blogging locally trying to be "ironic" saying how Esser was trying to "steal" the election; particularly after many Republicans have been so vocal about the 2004 gubernatorial race being "stolen".
Glass houses and stones.
Posted by DonWard at March 29, 2008
12:32 AM | Email This
1. The democrat attempt to select their prez candidate has by far been the biggest joke around. And Hillary hanging around by a thread has been humorous to watch. Bill and Hill won't quit. But this selection process, after I've read your post, is far more messed up than I thought. Delegates not even getting elected from the right district?? I think this could be Howard Dean's last scream--I mean---term as DNC leader.
2. The Democratic primary is an excellent example of how liberals attempt to "manage" anything. Just look at Seattle, King County, our state and finally their national effort to elect a candidate. It speaks volumes...
3. It always amazes me that people who are incompetent individuals gather together and sincerely believe that by uniting, they will be collectively become competent. Liberals are like a giant hive of retarded bees with Hillary as the Queen.
4. Let's see, if 10% of the delegates aren't eligible to be delegates, exactly how many of the caucus goers cast illegal votes for their delegate of choice? Did Hillary really win?
5. Sounds about Par for the course when it comes to the election process in Wahington State. My only question is, Are the Democrats going to make sure every vote counts?
6. One person cited in the article, who I know personally, who is a known opponent of the caucus system, "estimates," in his own words and in the words of the author of the article, that ten percent of the people are not registered or in the right precinct, and you rightards accept it as a fact and go running off yelling "TEN PERCENT! TEN PERCENT!"
7. What!! A democratic voter who's not a registered voter! Who would ever have thought that could happen.
8. These kind of problems don't surprise me given how the Obama organization operated here and elsewhere.
Flooding precinct caucuses with his supporters was the tactic that won here and elsewhere. That some of those supporters were not from the precinct logically follows, especially in less urbanized precincts or those without a college, where Obama's support is greatest.
Whether delegates are qualified is problem for the dems.
I see this debacle as more reason for making primaries the only method for selection, but I'm not a member of either party.
9. So Ivan you are saying that one of your buddies may not be completely honest with his statements and that they are doing this to better their cause? Oh what shock and amazement I feel at that..../sarcasm
10. That Democrat spokesperson Kelly Steele calls checking to make sure the delegates are legally elected "a witch hunt" brings pure joy to this Republican's heart.
ivan#6 A 10% screw-up rate for a political party that is still crying about butterfly ballots 8 years after the fact, sounds about right.
11. Either a Clinton or Obama in the White House would turn our country over to the Dhimmicrats, as it appears that they will control the Senate and House, but maybe not by much. Also, the SCOTUS will be looking at 2-3 replacements over the first term of the President and we sorely need judges who will take the Constitution seriously, instead of taking it as a Living breathing document and using their activism aided by the ACLU to interpret it.
McCain is the only candidate who is not out to radically change America and even rewrite history. I'm not saying that no change is needed - this country needs a change or even overhaul in some areas, like less corruption, energy policy and financially getting our house in order, for which the Legislative and Executive branches have been incompetent in doing. McCain is a fiscal conservative, unlike Bush - which can only help. The Democrat candidates believe that fiscal conservatism is not an option, since it does not promote the codependent nanny state, which they are out to promote - which proves that Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
12. "True Soldier" @ 9:
What part of the word "estimate" do you fail to understand, mercenary boy?
KS @ 11:
What *evidence* do you have, other than your own desperate, pathetic, faith-based belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeef, that McCain would be any more of a "fiscal conservative" than the disaster that has been Bush?
13. Ivan: Thank you. Once again, you have truly represented a distasteful segment of your political party and the liberal viewpoint that our military and anyone who has ever served in combat are "mercenary boys". Instead, you choose to worship at the foot of your pitiful statue of Lenin. Sometimes, we do need clarification on that, lest we forget.
14. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts the first time because there were no matching spending cuts. That is typically a fiscally conservative position ? Also, he voted against Bush 41's tax increase (in 1991) that eventually cost him the election. Google these if you are skeptical.
15. GS: You're right. McCain originally supported the tax cuts in the first version. However, by the time it came to a vote, McCain, who was probably the only one who actually read the final version, discovered tons of pork attached to it by both sides, which would have never been made public. He could not vote for it under those conditions, as he has steadfastly opposed earmarks and the growing of government. He is indeed a fiscal conservative.
16. "That issue has been hashed out fully here at Sound Politics and anyone who knows anything about the way the GOP caucus system is run knows that no presidential candidate really wins this state's caucus until the state convention in May."
A good reason why Esser never should have declared a winner at all.
17. Katomar @ 13:
The poster who calls himself "True Soldier" is by his own admission working for a contractor, and is not at present a member of the U.S. Armed Forces.
I understand that in your cramped, intolerant, narrow conservative mind, the distinction is lost on you, but I assure you that is not lost on me. I am not in the habit of calling active U.S. military personnel "mercenaries," only mercenary employees of war-profiteering contractors.
So you are lying about what I said. I have no use for liars, and consequently I have no use for you. Have a nice day.
18. Ivan, what is wrong with working for a contractor? And your use of the term mercenary seems to indicate a veiled insult to the military, nonetheless. We get it.
19. I doubt that the percentage is even as high as 5%. The biggest problem would be people who are registered in the wrong precinct. Those folks would still be eligible voters in a regular election. They would get mail ballots with the correct precinct, or be directed to the correct physical polling place, and if neither of those happened, then they would cast a provisional ballot that would ultimately be credited to the county and precinct in which they were actually registered.
But let's just suppose that 10% of Democratic caucus goers on February 9 were either not registered to vote yet, or went to a caucus in a different precinct than where they were registered.
10% of 250,000 equals 25,000 careless Democratic caucus goers.
25,000 careless Democratic caucus goers is basically equal to the 25,000 people who attended Republican caucuses statewide.
So it is interesting for a Republican to criticize 10% of committed Democrats for allegedly being careless, when that number of careless Democrats is basically equal to the total number of committed Republicans.
20. Oh, Don and company, you're all so cute with your purposeful misuse of the word "Democrat" (as in "Democrat party" or "Democrat delegates", instead of "Democratic party" or "Democratic delegates").
Meanwhile, thanks for your concern regarding the potential of credential challenges during the caucus process. I'm sure there will be many, but that's why there is a process in place for that.
21. Ivan: The first good thing I have ever read you espouse is that you have no use for me. Thank heaven for that, at least. I feel better already.
22. Daniel K. The Democrat Party has been named so since its inception, and in the last couple of years, the Democrat Party has begun calling itself Democratic, as in the adjective. Democratic reflects many of our political processes in this country. The Democrat Party changed its name only recently in order to make themselves appear to be the only democratic folks in town, as opposed to the nasty Republican party, which has never changed its name for PR purposes.
23. Daniel K,
Dude. Check my past postings. I always use Democratic or at least endeavor to do so. I know AP style. Clacking away ona rented hotel computer with a sticky keyboard from God knows what is not conducive to won's spelling. Especially when you only have thirty minutes to post two items. Hence the even more than usual attrociious lettering.
Oh you are so cute with your fake outrageous though.
24. Oh come on Don, I don't buy that from a supposed "real" journalist for a single second, especially within the title of the posting.
25. Waaah! Waaaah! It's
democratic!!!
What a bunch of freakin' children.
And by the way, Ivan - I'll take a 'mercenary' over an extortionist union goon any day.
26. Katomar - Wrong. Show me your sources. Here are a couple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#History
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29
and
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg
27. Then you're stupider than I took you for Daniel.
28. Yeah Don, which is why you've not bothered to correct the title. Obviously you can type enough to post your comments.
But, go ahead and call me stupid if that's your wont - it just reaffirms your lame reporter status.
29. So the fact that I make money over in Iraq working for a company that repairs and maintains the vehicles are brave young men and women use to take the fight to the enemy makes me a mercenary. Well then I would much rather be considered a mercenary that is actually doing something productive for our soldiers than a liberal who wants the deaths of our soldiers to be in vein. By the way, you forgot to mention that I am a disabled Vet from this war who decided that the mission is worth it and returned to Iraq to do what he can to help out the mission. I know you would not understand that, after all your answer of "estimates" sounds allot like a former Presidents questioning of what the word "is" means.
30. As much as I enjoy whiny puling my initial typo is fixed now that I've time to actually log on to my SP account. Sorry for the inadvertant mistake; thus offending whatever jamokes are out there with a knot in their panties.
Obviously if I was intentially trying to do the "democrat" line I wouldn't have started my first paragraph describing the Washington State "DEMOCRATIC" Party. If you're going to be a tool stay in the shed.
Once again my apologies and curse you Demon rum. Will scrounge through the others at a later date. Maybe.
Now back on to the original topic about Miss Curl's story at the Seattle Weekly shining the light on the state Democratic caucus process.
31. Daniel is the acting in his capacity as the Minister of Truth for the "Democratic" Democrat Party.
Like all such Orwellian propaganda, I take his words with a heaping helping of salt.
32. Daniel: I must apologize. I have done what I have dunned others for, namely speaking without research. I did a bit, and this is what I found (but not from Wiki, which is unreliable). The Democratic Party was indeed so named originally. So I went to official Democratic Party sites and articles, where I found both Democratic Party and Democrat Party used. Then I went to newspapers, but could not find anything much older than late 90's, or so because I don't have relevant subscriptions to go back further. However, I did find that this whole scurfuffle started when Bush accidentally said Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party. In my lifetime, which is fairly long, I don't remember ever hearing anyone call themselves a Democratic, and my memory is of the Democratic Party being referred to as the Democrat Party in casual conversation, and in the media. I think it became just the easiest verbiage to use as Democratic Party is more awkward than Democrat, and Democrats are not referred to as Democratics, nor Republicans as Republicanics. I really don't think there is any great right wing conspiracy here.
33. Judging by the huge turnout as seen
here,
here, and
here, confusing rules, and general voter apathy about how the caucus process works it's not hard to see why some people voted in the wrong precinct.
This state should have a cutoff date for election registration (like they do for primaries) to stop people from registering at the caucus site.