Slog - Comments on Re: Full Farce http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce OK, Dan is confused. The numbers cited below represent precinct delegates elected; those totals are static regardless of turnout. The Ds have released their estimated turnout, but 200,000 is obviously a rounded number. The Rs haven't released theirs, as far as I can tell, so we have no stat to compare. However, even if we had the Republican turnout number, we still wouldn't be able to compare those stats fairly. For the Rs, you basically cast half of your vote in the caucuses; if you want to cast your other half a vote, you have to vote in the primary.... Copyright 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:21:14 -0800 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:14:50 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by Fnarf I wonder about that "200,000". In my precinct it took 18 people for each Obama delegate, and 12 for the lone Clinton one. If that ratio held statewide, it would be more like 300,000 or more. Sadly, we'll never know.

]]> Fnarf http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933132 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933132 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:36:19 -0800 Comment by dw Somewhere in yesterday's coverage I saw that the GOP had 300 at Nathan Hale for their caucuses and said it was way up from '04.

The Nathan Hale site pulls in a bunch of precincts across the north of the city, from Blue Ridge to Lake City. I can't find the list right now, but I think it's at least 20.

I was at Wilson-Pacific, which is basically the six Licton Springs precincts and two others on the other side of Aurora. At minimum there were 650 people there, possibly 750.

So maybe 300 at Hale is a great day, but when you have Democratic precinct caucuses pulling in at least 100 apiece, 300 for 20 precincts looks awfully small.

]]> dw http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933138 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933138 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:48:15 -0800 Comment by watcher And either way - only 10% of registered voters took part in yesterday's caucus process. Hardly representative.

]]> watcher http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933146 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933146 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:02:28 -0800 Comment by Cleve Posted at Sound Politics:

"1. Is it accurate that only some 4xxx people showed up at King County GOP caucuses?

2. The State GOP hasn't released the final totals yet. It's about 87% counted, they say. They call it for McCain though they say it's 25.5% for McCain and 23.7 for Huckabee, a difference of 1.8 with some 12.8% not reported. The NYT map for Washington sate says "County-level data not available."

What in heck is going on here?
Why are thee results not yet available??

How can you declare McCain won on this basis?
A 1.8 % points difference could change depending on which counties were counted first-- or perhaps because of rounding rules and other rules that would affect the no. of delegates, maybe Huckbee got more delegates than McCain.

Ron Paul in it, too, a few points behind Huckabee, too.

Why is there no final data?"

]]> Cleve http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933147 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933147 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:03:39 -0800 Comment by ivan No, actually, Annie, it's not confusing.

Fnarf @ 1:

The caucuses are here to stay as long as this dumbass state refuses to allow partisan voter registration. Until such time, those who show up get to choose a nominee. Tough shit if you don't like that.

I'd gladly trade the caucuses for partisan registration. But that is the trade. Deal or STFU.

]]> ivan http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933157 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933157 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:20:14 -0800 Comment by ivan I also wanted to add that IMO no single entity covered the caucuses better than the Stranger, and hats off to all of you for that, even though some of you drive me crazy sometimes.

]]> ivan http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933160 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933160 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:25:17 -0800 Comment by RonK, Seattle Other Republicans decided a half a vote is worth trading for the chance to spite Hillary.

At least one seasoned Republican operative is now an Obama delegate to Legislative District caucus and County convention.

]]> RonK, Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933163 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933163 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:29:52 -0800 Comment by Willis Sounds like sour grapes there RonK...

]]> Willis http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933181 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933181 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:57:27 -0800 Comment by RonK, Seattle Indigestion, Willis? I know of one for a fact. Wouldn't surprise me if more made delegate.

]]> RonK, Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933192 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933192 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:04:50 -0800 Comment by Jane Thanks for explaining that the approximately 31,000 Democratic "votes" was actually the number of delegates. Not only did it not make any sense vis-a-vis the 200,000 turnout figure, but I couldn't figure out how Nebraska (with 38,000 "votes") had more Democrats voting than Washington. It was heartening for a former Nebraskan, but still awfully confusing! Once again, the Stranger/Slog explains all!

]]> Jane http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933203 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/re_full_farce#c933203 2008 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:14:50 -0800