Slog - Comments on Slog Poll: Will Washington Matter?

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:21:01 -0800

No.

Comment by Gidge

Gidge — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:25:54 -0800

Are you asking whether the candidates will care enough to campaign here? Or whether our 97 delegates will make a difference in tipping the scales?

Comment by Eli Sanders

Eli Sanders — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:28:17 -0800

@2: Whether our 97 delegates will make a difference in tipping the scales.

Comment by Judah

Judah — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:30:21 -0800

What Mr. Poe said.

Comment by tiptoe tommy

tiptoe tommy — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:36:51 -0800

I would say our 97 delegates will not make a huge difference, but that candidates may well care enough to campaign here coming out of Super Tuesday.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:38:37 -0800

Well, according to our state Dem party chair, at least two major candidates will be appearing here between Dec. 5th and Dec. 9th ... so that means it does matter.

Comment by N in Seattle

N in Seattle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:39:43 -0800

Our votes may (or may not) make a big difference, but our $$$ do.

Comment by Mike of Renton

Mike of Renton — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:41:44 -0800

To think that it will be over after 2/5 assumes that 2/5 will be a landslide for someone. I highly doubt it will be.

Comment by stinkbug

stinkbug — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:45:14 -0800

I think that pundits will be so busy huckabeeing each other in the days after Super Tuesday that the WA caucus won't get much attention.

Comment by Cook

Cook — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:53:03 -0800

umm isn't obama leading by a landslide here? i feel like washington at this point is his state to lose, and the other candidates recognize that.

Comment by Geni

Geni — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:26 -0800

Does anyone REALLY believe that a single candidate will come out the clear leader after Super Duper Tuesday? I think it will be a virtual three-way tie, with each candidate picking up several hundred delegates (and one or two outliers picking up maybe a dozen). Yes, our caucuses will still matter. No one candidate will have acquired the necessary number of delegates to automatically receive the nomination.

And so it should be. Any one of the top three can win. Any one of the top three would be immeasurably better than any of the nutbars running on the other side of the aisle, and any one of the three would seem like a fucking genius compared to the half-wit silver-spoon cokehead fratboy dumbshit sonovabitch who's been occupying our White House for the last seven years.

Comment by steve

steve — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:20:17 -0800

I don't mean to be a dick, but EVERY 4 YEARS people in this state start to suggest 'hey, we could really make a difference this time!' and EVERY 4 YEARS they're wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe they do it to keep from becoming totally jaded and giving up on democracy altogether.

Anyway, it ain't gonna happen.

Comment by steve

steve — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:22:27 -0800

....that said, I WISH Washington did make a difference.

Comment by tsm

tsm — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:27:09 -0800

Half-assed predictions are fun! I'll join in.

If Obama disappoints in South Carolina, he will have a tough time overcoming Clinton's leads in NY, CA, and elsewhere, and will likely get trounced on Super Tuesday. and WA will cease to matter.

If Obama does well in South Carolina, he would gain momentum and could build support in NY and CA. If he ties or pulls off a win in either state, he'll be unstoppable (especially NY). If he disappoints there, then WA will matter; it could be his last chance.

So ... maybe.

Comment by Mr. Yuck

Mr. Yuck — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:39:42 -0800

How about posting the link the the GOP one since the Dem. Caucus doesn't count for anything under the new rules. The only choice seems to be to all turn out for Huckabee or Ron Paul since the GOP Caucus actually chooses delegates.

Comment by Mike of Renton

Mike of Renton — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:54:17 -0800

@15 You have the caucus and the primary confused. The Dem caucus counts, but the primary doesn't.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:42:45 -0800

@15 - the Dem caucus is the only one to count - the Dem primary is just a beauty show that gets NO delegates. The GOP has half the delegates from their caucus and the other half from combat-avoiding scum who don't want to serve in Iraq ... oh, sorry, I meant from the Primary.

Comment by N in Seattle

N in Seattle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:57:20 -0800

Hey Will in Seattle, if you don't check the comments in this Slog post, you'll feel very, very embarrassed on February 9.

Comment by tek

tek — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:06:28 -0800

The more I study the democratic primary system, the more disgusted I become with how undemocratic it and the DNC are. This article explains how Florida and Michigan will not have a vote in who the Democratic Nominee will be!!!!: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/01/AR2007120100722.html

Comment by Mike of Renton

Mike of Renton — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:12:45 -0800

@19
I seem to remember the Republicans having no primary at all in 2004. Would that be better?

Comment by tek

tek — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:41:49 -0800

@20 Of course not, and your point is? For the DNC to flush the voting rights of two states down the toilet bothers me. And this decision stinks all the more given the history of voting rights in Florida. Instead of Bush Inc sticking it to them, its the DNC.

Comment by RonK, Seattle

RonK, Seattle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:07:25 -0800

Yes. Sorta.

At the rate we're going, things won't be settled Feb 5. Nobody is pulling big majorities anywhere.

But the caucuses Feb 9 are only our "first determining step", and we don't get around to real delegate selection til ... I forget.

Comment by N in Seattle

N in Seattle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:10:35 -0800

tek, they did it to themselves.

DNC rules were clear -- no one could choose convention delegates within X days of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. Michigan and Florida set their primaries to be too soon after IA and NH, ergo, no delegates chosen in their primaries.

I suspect the compromise will be that delegates will be "chosen" later on, perhaps even partially basing the distribution on the results of the primaries.

Comment by Sir Vic

Sir Vic — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:13:59 -0800

What ever happened to an election? It would seem like the caucus is a way for the party to hold members and prospective members hostage for 6 hours, bullying them into making donations. Sounds a little like one of those time-share condo pitch meetings.

I'll admit that I've never been to a "real" caucus, but the reports of those that have makes it sound like a glorified middle school civics class project. ("let's play Election!") You spend hours trying to convince other informed people that they don't know what they are doing, and that they should vote for your crackpot candidate, not theirs.

I didn't get a chance to vote for Bill Bradley in 2000, and I won't get a chance to vote for Bill Richardson in 2008. Say what you will about those candidates, but don't I have some sort of right to vote for the candidate I want?

Of course not. The two parties in Washington have somehow hijacked an open election state into one that finances the balloting of a private organization. If the Dems or GOP want to have a private election, let those bastards (and the suckers at their caucuses) pay for it!

Comment by just win baby

just win baby — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:40:56 -0800

The only thing WA contributes to presidential races is making sure we deliver to the Democractic nominee in the general election.

The last two elections have been extremely close in electoral college terms. In recent years the Dems have come to rely on/assume they are getting all three west coast states and the northeast, while slugging it out in the great lakes to eke out the win. It's the union versus the conferedacy every freaking 4 years.

If Florida could count votes, WA voters could take pride knowing we prevented a middle eastern war.

Comment by tek

tek — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:02:42 -0800

@23 Why did the DNC make those rules? Why are those rules more important than the rights of Florida and Michigan to Vote? As an aside how does the DNC in denying the voting rights of Florida help the Democratic Party? If the DNC denied your right to pick the Dem Nominee, how would you react N in Seattle? The DNC with this bold dick head move might of already lost Florida and Michigan for the Democrats.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:19:32 -0800

Look, the prob is that the MSM and the powers that be want Iowa and NH to be first in the nation, and keep front-loading the election with the states in the Eastern half of the USA.

It makes no sense, of course, given where our current population lives.

Just like the Electoral College, that was created so the Elites could keep down the masses (no, that is not a joke).

Comment by Mike of Renton

Mike of Renton — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:50 -0800

@26 You might ask why Michigan and Florida Dems voted for those rules before violating them.