How come this map shows Washington voted yesterday?

[Quixote1818]

Scroll down and Washington is shaded black and they are still counting returns. Wasn't Washington last week or two weeks ago?

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/bruised-clinton-looks-to-ohio-texas/20080219224809990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[rox63]

1. The repukes just had their primary in WA yesterday

The Dems had theirs a couple of weeks ago.

[Quixote1818]

3. It's the Democratic map though. It shows Obama up by 50 to 47%. nt

[K Gardner]

2. The dems voted in a "beauty contest" primary.. that doesn't count.

[Quixote1818]

5. Why have two votes? nt

[Lucinda]

9. Weird isn't it?

[K Gardner]

10. I have no idea..

[LiveLiberally]

4. Washington held a GOP primary last night & a democratic "beauty contest"

The democratic delegates for WA were chosen in a caucus on Feb. 9th.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Official Results: Obama 49.96 % - Clinton 46.93 %. Total votes 512,257

Washington Democrats are odd in that they let caucuses award the delgates but hold a primary anyway. Note that over a half million Democrats voted in Washington State's primary, at least 250% the number who participated in the Washington State Caucus, and Clinton finished FAR closer in the primary - losing by only 3%, than she did in the Washington Caucus. And that's not simply because Democrats didn't bother to participate because no delegates were awarded, over 135,000 more Democrats voted than Republicans. The CNN and New York Times web sites aren't even listing the Democratic results, I had to find a Washington State Government site to get the final results:

President - Democratic Party
Federal (Statewide)
Last updated on 2/20 12:27 AM
Candidate Votes Votes %

Joe Biden Democrat
1,447 0.28 %

Hillary Clinton Democrat
240,394 46.93 %

Christopher J. Dodd Democrat
473 0.09 %

John Edwards Democrat
8,999 1.76 %

Mike Gravel Democrat
787 0.15 %

Dennis J. Kucinich Democrat
2,766 0.54 %

Barack Obama Democrat
255,918 49.96 %

Bill Richardson Democrat
1,473 0.29 %

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Votes 512,257 100%

(Total Votes Republican - 376,113 100%)

http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/results.aspx

[JMDEM]

7. Washington voted some 230 years ago. He's long dead by now. NT

[Tarc]

8. They held a primary, that if binding,m would show the REAL will of the voters

See here for more info;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4679733&mesg_id=4679733

32,000 diehards took part in the caucus and gave Obama a 68% mark, while 500,000 voted last night and split the vote. It is a travesty that the former is the one that gets to decide the delegate allotment.

[Alexander]

12. Obama won both contests. How are those sour grapes tasting?

[Tarc]

15. Do you need me to lead you by the nose to the point, my dear boy?

The primary result would have been a "win" in the same way that New Mexico was a "win" for Clinton or Missouri was a "win" for Obama; bragging rights but a split of the delegates.

The flawed caucus system gave Obama approx 14 more delegates than he deserved.

[Alexander]

20. My point is, Obama's 11-0 since Super Tuesday. How are those sour grapes?

Hillary and her surrogates sure didn't complain about caucuses after Nevada. :eyes:

[Tarc]

24. Your point is a non-sequitur, because you lack the ability to justify

32,000 being a better representation of the will of the state than 500,000.

A cultist to the last.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. "flawed caucus system"..i'm hearing this more & more these days

but only from the clintonites. gee, i wonder why? until this primary cycle, i never knew nor cared how delegates were awarded, and most of us (if we're honest) felt that way. i don't remember hearing bill clinton complain about the "flawed caucus system" in '92 or '96. Why is the system suddenly "flawed" in 2008?

You guys made the argument that primaries were your candidate's strength, and caucuses were Obama's strength. But now that he's winning both primaries & caucuses...suddenly the system is unfair. Whine much?

[goldcanyonaz]

13. wtf is up with that?

[high density]

14. Wisconsin was a primary

Do you think those voters in WI were not represented accurately?

Washington state sounds like they need to choose a method and stick with it. Having half a million people show up for a non-binding primary sounds like a waste of money, among other things. Where were these people on the 9th?

[Tarc]

17. Working, home with the family, etc...

By and large, real working-class people...the meat and core of the Democratic constituency...do not have the time, energy, or resources to spend several hours in a afternoon or evening debating their vote. They, like I did, slipped away during lunch break to stand in line and had to hope they had enough time to get something to eat before they had to punch back in.

[high density]

18. I don't like caucuses

But I think Clinton supporters have found an odd time to complain about them. The time for this activism against them was over a year ago.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. I agree with you on both counts...

...however if the race ends up being extremely close, with Clinton coming back and winning almost all of the final large state primaries, I think it would be fair for her supporters to point out the inherently less democratic nature of caucus victories as an argument for undecided super delegates to consider, particulary if the final momentum is all Hillary and she ends up ahead in the unofficial "popular vote" totals.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. WI voters were represented accurately, certainly

But Obamna being on a huge momentum roll with 8 straight hefty wins did play into the dynamics of that primary. If the WA primary vote is indicitive that caucus victories tend to exaggerate the support of one canidate over another, then the Super Tuesday results would have looked a bit different, with Clinton coming out of it appearing significantly stronger since Obama rolled up a number of big caucus victories on Feb. 5th. That likely would have effected how subsequent races played out, plus the margins Obama rolled up in some of his later caucus wins probably would have looked less impressive also.

None of this is a slam against Obama. The fact remains his side out organized the Clinton campaign in caucus states where everyone knew the rules. I happen to be among those who think that rules that give so much influence to caucuses as opposed to secret ballot elections when it comes time to choose our leaders suck.

[high density]

23. I question the results from a secondary "non-binding primary"

more than I do the results from a caucus which has real delegates attached to it. Why a half million people would go out and vote in something that is non-binding, I don't know. If I had spent hours participating in the official caucus, I definitely would not waste my time reiterating my position in such a charade.

Like I said above, I don't like the caucus idea. I am curious to see if any of these Clinton supporters who are supposedly being disenfranchised by it will act to get the system changed. I'm doubtful it will happen, but I'd certainly join them on that fight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. A good case can be made that Obama's WA supporters were more passionate

...than Clinton's WA supporters. But secret ballot elections only measure passion to the degree that it is sufficient enough to get a voter to vote for a candidate. In an election that is the bottom line, who wins the most votes not how passionate the core supporters of either candidate are. This year is seems to me that the most passionate voters of all supported Ron Paul, but that wasn't enough to win him the nomination. It was enough however to help him do extremely well in caucuses relative to his overall level of support inside the Republican Party:

Ron Paul '08: A Primary vs Caucus Results Case Study
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/10/92130/2524#readmore

[Dumak]

25. The flaw in your argument

The 32,000 figure is for precinct delegates, not number of voters.

[GP6971]

11. WA Democrats have both a Caucus and Primary

The delegates are selected at the caucus so have no idea why we go through this wasted effort of a primary.

[gasperc]

16. WA had a totally meaning less primary yesterday

it partially counted for the GOP but was meaningless for the Dems. The legislature added it so that it would "franchise" more voters who can't attend caucuses but totally pointless since the Dems won't use any of the results to calculate delegate allocations. Really stupid.

[RoadRage]

21. Dems in WA upped their caucus to be before the Primary - and Obama already won that..

but legally they couldn't take the primary date out, so people showed up to vote for the downlines, and obviously voted again for who they liked. The caucus decided who got how many delegates though.