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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
Jamielswa
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.
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.
“A Horse’s Ass” is sponsoring an initiative to…
Clap! Clap! Point! Point!
Clap! Clap! Point! Point!
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 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.
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!
All the best, but I wish you would temper your passion with some wisdom.
I wonder if it's odd that Hillary is favored to win in states with the most voter fraud history?
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
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%.
Whether we have single payer or a blended solution, it will come in the form of some kind of mandate.
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.