WA Caucus: Obama Routs Clinton
Anecdotal reports are trickling in from throughout the state, and if they're at all representative, it looks like we may see a rout for Barack Obama in Washington's Democratic presidential caucus. Turnout has been HUGE almost everywhere, with caucus sites running out of sign-in sheets, chairs, and even standing room. Everybody expected crowds, but nobody seemed prepared for anything like this.
At my own southeast Seattle location, in the heart of one of the most ethnically diverse neighborhoods in the nation, Obama averaged a four-to-one advantage across the various precincts, with similar results being reported from throughout Seattle and the Puget Sound region. I haven't heard from the other side of the mountains yet, but I'll update as more reports come in.
UPDATE 4:50PM:
Reports are now coming in from Eastern Washington, where Obama appears to be putting up similar numbers. Record turnout statewide -- twice that from 2004 -- and an apparent landslide for Obama. Official results should be coming soon.
UPDATE 5:40PM:
The official results are now pouring in, and the rout is confirmed. With 42% of precincts reporting, Obama leads Clinton 67% to 31%. I've updated the title accordingly.
UPDATE 7:20PM:
Still 67-31 Obama, now with 94% of precincts reporting. And Obama's support turned out to be as wide as it was deep, with him winning the delegate battle in 38 of WA's 39 counties. Meanwhile on the Republican side, Huckabee and Romney remain neck and neck with 16% of precincts reporting.
Look for more information and regular updates at HorsesAss.org.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here are a few reasons Obama is my choice:
Clinton: 1 - After losing Iowa, mailed out flyers to NH women saying Obama was soft on women's rights for voting "present" on anti-abortion bills in Illinois, failing to point out that PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASKED HIM TO VOTE PRESENT, rather than "no", to give cover for moderates to also voter "present", thus killing the bills. Distortion of record.
2 - In South Carolina, running ads saying Obama preferred Reagan's ideas to Democratic ideas, when he said nothing remotely like that. Lie.
3 - When the DNC asked all candidates to pull their names off the ballots in Michigan for moving up their primary, Obama complied, she refused.
4 - In Nevada, tried to have the caucusing rules that she had agreed to months before changed at the last minute when the Culinary Workers' Union endorsed Obama instead of her.
5 - Making a case that she should get the unseated delegates in Michigan and Florida, after the DNC stripped them of delegates, and no one campaigned in either state.
6 - Making a case that even if Obama gets more delegates in all of the state's contests, it's fine if all of her old friends among the superdelegates give her the nomination instead, ignoring the Democratic voters.
7- Messsage has changes too many times to count. Obama--same message; same team.
8- If you can't manage a campaign budget, and have to loan it money, how do you oversee the US's gargantuan budget.
9- Played the lame crying-wimp card three times; that's two times to many.
10- The ultimate deal-breaker: Iraq vote and her triangualting, unapoligetic response.
Obama:
Clean campaign, not one distortion of Clinton's record. Played by the DNC's rules. Argues that whoever wins the most pledged delegates from the voters should be the nominee.
Easy call. I go with the guy who has displayed nothing but integrity, honesty, and character. One more vote for Obama.
The caucus system is the worst system imaginable; certainly not "democratic", nor is it representative. There is no good reason why people should have to vote in public.
Caucuses are exclusive - excluding those who are ill, elderly, working two or more jobs, those without cars, etc, etc... The bully prevails, and a mob rule aspect is evident.....
If the Clintons were winning these caucuses, Hill & Bill not her supporters would be whining. Caucuses have been around a long time, now-all of a sudden--they're undemocratic.
Not a shock to see Obama take Washington handily. An important story, though, in the Obama/Clinton race which has been mostly overlooked is the generational one. Wait, I know that the word generation has been bandied about a lot in this campaign, but it's primarily in the context of the stale unchanging narrative of older generations voting Hillary and younger generations voting Barack. What's being overlooked is the key role of the "in-between" generations' role.
When you study the polling (including the exit polling), you find that the real play is concentrated mainly in the "Generation Jones"(lost generation between Boomers and Xers, born 1954-1965) voting block. Jonesers are the segment which is most closely divided between Obama and Clinton, and given how populous this cohort is (GenJones was 29% of the '06 midterm electorate), it seems reasonable to conclude that whoever can get GenJones to swing their way is likley to find that support decisive in this contest.
Which brings up another related generational ommission. Much has been written about Obama as post-Boomer, but not much informed analysis about which post-Boomer generation he is actually a part of. Finally, this issue is being looked at, and the obvious conclusion is that he is GenJones (see, for example, Jonathan Alter's column this week in Newsweek in which he argues that Obama is neither Boomer nor Xer, but is specifically part of Generation Jones, and that that matters in understanding this election.
Because of the honeymoon Obama has had with the press, most Americans don't know very much about him. For example, most Americans have no idea how Obama won his first State Senate seat by stabbing his friend and patron, Alice Palmer, in the back and having her disqualified for the ballot. Most have no clue as to the connection between Obama and Tony Rezko, the slumlord, who has given Obama upwards of $200,000 over the last several years, and who has now been indicted. Most don't realize that once Obama was elected to the Senate, he supported the war in all votes UNTIL he ran for president. Most have no knowledge of Obama's self-described mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who espouses an arguably racist Christian theology and who gave Louis Farrakhan (the white and Jew hater) a lifetime achievement award several months ago. You can bet the Republican slime machine is aware of these things. Please, learn more about Obama before you make this crucial decision.
Hinnis--Don't have time to figure out if you are a Hillary or McCain fan...it doesn't really matter. Obama will get slimed--it'll hurt his run for president. Hillary has a skeleton or two, as does McCain. It's going to be an ugly campaign, to some large extent, because of people like you.
I have been "agnostic" about Obama. Yesterday, after I watched his last speech, I changed my mind. He might be lying to me, so might McCain or Hillary--but I think he's less dishonest than either of them--and I like the country he describes.
I'll take my chances.
Actually, Necron99, I'm not really fond of any politicians, but I do believe the Democrats hold out the best hope of positive change. Look up all of the issues I discussed in my post. They are all potential problems for Obama. As for your attack, I suppose that you would be happier if I didn't investigate the candidates before I voted, and most certainly didn't attempt to make any others aware of these issues. I'm sorry Necron99, I can't do that. I really wish we could discuss the issues, without these kind of attacks.
Hinnis, they all have baggage. Clinton every bit as much as Obama. She had a high flying contributor and fundraiser thrown in jail recently as well. And stabbing other politicians in the back to gain advantage?? My, oh my and tsk, tsk. What is the world coming to? As to the preacher of his church, do you remember the guy who went to the White House to pray with GW every month and then was exposed as having sex with a male prostitute and snorting crystal meth?? I don't remember that tainting GW all that much. I think it's safe to say that that is a serious reach. (Or maybe wide stance).
It always amuses me when people use the possibility of scandal when comparing Obama to Clinton. I mean, we are talking Clinton, here. Give me a break.
Yes, ATLiberal, they all have baggage. The difference is that while we all know about Hillary's baggage, Obama's has been largely ignored by the press. I don't think that will remain so if Obama gets the nomination. And, while you can joke about "stabbing other politicians in the back to gain advantage," this type of activity runs directly counter to Obama's assertions that he brings a different kind of politics to America.
Just curious, why do you spread lies? Alice Palmer vacated her state seat decided to run for Congress and Obama seized the opportunity to run for her open seat. Just like carpetbagger Hillary. She then lost the Congressional race and then wanted to hang on to her seat. To do this she had to garner a certain number of legal signatures. It was discovered at the Courthouse that she had submitted fake signatures, signatures of dead people, etc. So she was disqualified for essentially being a crooked politician. As for Rezco, he raised millions for Democrats & Republicans, including the Clintons- even in the 90’s.
Dear Voxlisa999:
As to State Senate seat issue, please direct your accusations about lying to the Chicago Tribune: (the link is too long, so please place a www. before it)
chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?,page=1
On the Rezko issue, I never alleged that Obama was the only politician to benefit from his largesse, however, their relationship was very close. Here is an article from the Huffington Post: (the link is too long, so please place a www. before it)
huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html.html
It amazes me the extent to which I have been attacked by Obama supporters for trying to discuss his record; these same people who claim they want a different kind of politics. Very sad.
Obama has lead in the total delegates and is favored to win the nomination depending on the outcome of February 19th. Read why at obamafaithful.com/perspectives, and comment on what you think.
Jamielswa
I suspect it has to be lights out for the Hillary camp, barring another improbable come-back.
The only question now is if she will go out with grace. I'm convinced she won't ... so the Republicans still have some small reason for hope.
I went to caucus in Everett, sleepy, Navy base and mom and pop, Everett Washington. Our precinct members sought the outdoors so that we could hear each other over the astonishing crowds. A neighbor brought her 15 year old daughter who, faced flushed in the cold and damp and shyness, spoke with clarity, seemingly beyond her years, in favor of Obama. A grizzled and wiry Korean vet explained, as he sucked on a Camel unfiltered, his ordeal and his hope to end the like for this next generation. His hope.
And a young blond woman, as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, spoke of her hope for the nation and could not finish, in tears, for fear of what we fear most about Obama’s candidacy.
This is a nation moved. Atrocity has been realized in our name. Poverty has been thrust upon the deserving and wealth has been showered on the undeserving. Bitter acrimony has been what is offered as a remedy. That is not good enough.
I wonder what happened to that big population of Asian Americans living in Washington State that was supposed to vote overwhelmingly for Clinton. Maybe the more they're getting to know Obama, the more they like him.
PS David Goldstein I still love you for the "Horse's Ass" initiative. That was perfect.
The "Horse's Ass" initiative, for any national audience, was a petition to make it a Washington State law to change Tim Eyman's name to "A Horses Ass". Tim Eyman is a regional right wing stooge who has sponsored myriad public school killing and budget busting initiatives. He lost some of his luster with the right when it was discovered that he was paying himself out of contributor’s funds. Oops. The “Horse’s Ass” initiative still stands as the indisputably sensible initiative ever offered to the public of Washington State.
“A Horse’s Ass” is sponsoring an initiative to…
At my caucus location in WA, we had people of all ages. Yes, it went very heavily toward Obama. But to say everyone there was young and politically active? At our table were two elderly women, one of which was in a wheelchair and 92 years old. This was her first caucus. She chose Obama. I am still touched at the effort she made to be there.
Clap! Clap! Point! Point!
Clap! Clap! Point! Point!
Clap! Clap! Point! Point!
This was brought to light by the Colbert Report. When Hillary wins or has a positive anything she does this thing that Stephen pointed out to those of us who watch. She does the clap clap point point often and if you missed it try going to the colbert report on the comedy web site.
Caucuses are silly. McCain hasn't won any (he lost all of them to Huckabee and Romney) and he will likely be the Republican nominee. Clinton has lost most of them and she still has a good chance to be the nominee (after OH, TX and PA). Only a small portion of voters participate in caucuses. Elderly voters, sickly voters, people who work or take care of others, busy voters or those who don't want to publically declare their vote can't participate. So who's left--the small, most extreme portions of the party. That's why the more moderate candidates don't do well. Every state should have a primary. To act as if winning a small state by several thousand votes is a huge deal, when candidates win other states by hundreds of thousands of voters is a joke. To treat the small caucus states as determinative when millions of voters are disenfranchised in FL and MI is a joke.
demlover1,
Give me a break! Record voting and you think it's no big deal. Clinton is not only beat in all three states, she didn't even come close. News flash - you can't win a general election by carrying only the large blue states - the small states count too. Don't count on TX, OH, and PA. MI and FL aren't going to seat their delegates because their state parties violated the rules of the DNC and the DNC sanctioned them.
ARe you paid to write this stuff?
You want a Caucus?
You want a Primary?
Hey! Come to Washington State. We have BOTH!
Statewide Democrats conducted their well-publicized caucuses today (Saturday, Feb. 9).
The state's Primary Election will be precisely 10 days later (Tuesday, Feb. 19).
Exactly how did this happen? It's a long story. As they say in NYC -- go figure!
I thought the New York Times had a critical typographical error last week when they reported that our election would be on Feb. 9 (not 19). Almost e-mailed them to that effect.
Sure enough, on Feb. 8 we received our ballots for the Feb. 19 primary election. We licked the stamps and mailed them the same day, smug smiles on our faces.
That night (Friday night), I was doing my regular three-hour scan of HuffPost, and at about 4 a.m. noticed a link to a Time Magazine article about Washington State's "confusion."
What confusion? Well, it seemed we had wound up with a caucus day AND a Primary Election day. The reasons were complex, some inept decision in Olympia several years ago.
But (and here's the knee-slapper!) -- ONLY THE CAUCUSES WOULD COUNT! In other words, our mail-in ballots were confetti-bound, and we had just wasted good stamp money.
Saturday morning. Late start. I alert the spouse, and we both haul ass to the Pacific County caucus site. We arrive a scant two minutes before the sign-in deadline, do some speechifying, and end up making Obama our precinct's choice by two votes. Our votes!
Yes, it's a helluva way to run a railroad. One hopes that Washington State, after wasting God alone knows how much money on the apparently useless Primary Election (all those pointless ballots, printing, mailing, etc.), will get its political act together before the next election.
But, hey -- how many of you get to legally vote TWICE this year? We did.
It was for Obama both times, I'm proud to confess. So went our precinct, our county, and our state.
Who says one vote doesn't count? Ours did.
Demlover1,
I don't for one minute believe that you are a democrat, but be that as it may. I would, however, like to point out an interesting difference between caucuses and primaries. Caucuses involve actual and verifiable counts of people and/or paper, whereas primaries usually involve unverifiable, easily hacked and easily manipulated e-voting machines. Doesn't it strike you as odd that Clinton and McCain seem to win only where there is e-voting?
In my opinion, the Clintons are politically filthy. Nothing is beneath them & they will say & do anything to win. Should they win, they will come into the White House with 20+ years of political favors to payback & lobbyist to please.
Why can't we make a clean break & fresh start?
I know why the Clintons are fighting to gain & retain power. I think Bill is terrified of being eclipsed by Barack - prior to Obama, many saw Bill as the most charismatic leader, capable of communicating & connecting with people in a way, not seen for a longtime. Compared to Obama, Bill looks quite ordinary.
Do we really want to have to look at, hear & deal with the Clintons again? What's wrong with us? Don't we feel worthy of going for something so much better? The Clintons are filthy!
How are they "filthy"? Do you mean subhuman? This kind of talk is truly disturbing, since it indicates a narrow-mindedness and willingness to demonize all who disagree with your point of view. That's not democratic, that's totalitarian. I thought that was what the right wing was about, but more frequently I'm seeing the same reflexive absolutism demonstrated by Obama supporters.
All the best, but I wish you would temper your passion with some wisdom.
Nah, they mean filthy as in immoral; but I understand that you didn't want to take the metaphorical definition as it made you feel uncomfortable. Though thanks for wasting your time attacking a definition that wasn't even right.
filthy == crooked
Roshi:
Filthy politician = Dirty politician = corrupt.
One recent example, Mr. Bill Clinton negotiating deals with a foreign dictator who is consistently in the Top 10 for world's worst dictators:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ex=1359435600&en=23a4d96223965ebf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Our precinct (Mukilteo) expected about 30 people and 64 showed up. We went 60% for Obama. It was definitely standing room only in all the common spaces at Kamiak High. I was so impressed by the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. Despite being the hometown of Tim Eyman, we are a very progressive place. A good day for democracy in Washington state!
SW Washington, our precinct went 8 delegates for Obama, 2 or Hillary. We're barely blue here, with blue dog Brian Baird here, but Barack ruling the roost here. Listening to Obama give his speech in Richmond now. Keep the power going, Virginia!
In the last governor's election there was wide spread voter fraud in the Dem Party. With Obama winning, does that mean he is the choice now of the party bosses? If Hillary could not win there, she must be losing the support of the party insiders
Good point. Hillary did pull out an improbable win in New Hampshire, the state with the most electronic voting irregularities in the country outside of Ohio. She also got her biggest win in Florida.
I wonder if it's odd that Hillary is favored to win in states with the most voter fraud history?
Have you not been keeping up with current events. The hand recount ordered by the Kucinich campaign turned up NO ballot irregularities, other than a few dozen, state-wide, that had been misread by the voting machines. A few dozen, out of hundreds of thousands, hardly indicative of fraud.
Hillary Clinton says that if she passes her health care plan, it will include provisions to garnish workers' wages.
Such confiscatory language shows she has not learned anything from the fight during the 1990s on health care, and how the Democrats will again lose the battle and probably the White House if she is leading the Party.
Experience is all well and good, but one should learn from it.
Clearly Sen. Clinton has not.
MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN
She scaled it to 10%. So if you aren't covered by medicaid or medicare, you lose 10% of your wages to health care coverage on top of taxes if you don't get your own healthcare.
By contrast, Obama throws a $2500 check at you, shrugs, and says, "No presssure."
Keep in mind, everyone, that this is the fundamental difference. Both of them claim to want to put controls on healthcare costs. Obama wants to double medicare and medicaid, and I'll assume Hillary wants to do the same (to be generous). Both of them want to update the electronic registry for healthcare and medicine.
The difference is, Hillary puts a 10% tax on the individual while rolling back an undefined amount on undefined earners to get far less money, and Obama rolls back tax cuts PRECISELY on the top 1%.
That's what universal health coverage is - a mandate. Everyone pays in, everyone gets health care in return. I currently pay about $300 per month for health insurance through my employer. That money is automatically deducted from my pay - that's a wage garnish. Taxes, that's a garnish. Auto insurance, garnish. 401K, garnish. Some of these things I choose to pay, others I don't. But what I get in return is a guarantee of service. That is what we call a mandate. It's a covenant between payee and agency to provide a service.
Whether we have single payer or a blended solution, it will come in the form of some kind of mandate.
Universal health insurance is mandated payments.
Universal health care is mandated coverage.
Huge difference.
BTW, your employer would probably be quite happy to let you opt out of your benefit package so that's not a garnishment of your pay, taxes aren't garnishment as they are not a debt but an obligation, auto insurance is voluntary for those who choose to drive, your 401K plan is also a benefit not a garnish as the money in your account remains your property.
Your claims are false, and your attempt to accrue the benefits of a single payer system onto a blended solution is pure spin.
There are neither guarentees of care or enforceable cost controls in a blended solution with a mandate. The only thing guarenteed is profit for shareholders and CEO salaries.
Loading comments…
Posted February 9, 2008 | 07:30 PM (EST)