Support NeoGAF

[Suikoguy]

Those aren't votes in that sense. They're delegates. Like Nevada.

Wait what? It lists it as:

So we have no way to compare participation rates?
To be honest it did seem way too low, but it says votes and makes little sense any other way.

 

[Makai]

Yes they're not covering the Hawaii caucus.

Because there's nothing to cover.

Especially if results aren't coming for another 2 hours.

That never stopped MSNBC before.

 

[NeoXChaos]

are all the caucuses delegates ? none of them do raw vote?

 

[User 463088]

The best part of it is that Adam's phone thinks "cock uses" is a totally reasonable thing for him to post. Much more plausible than him actually talking about elections.

Well, at least I'm consistent.

 

[Macho Madness]

That never stopped MSNBC before.

Did they cover the Alaska GOP caucus that much? If I remember right they broke in when they had a winner and that's about it.

 

[Officerrob]

That never stopped MSNBC before.

MSNBC didn't even bother to have their A or B teams come in to cover the caucuses today

 

[Basileus777]

Did they cover the Alaska GOP caucus that much? If I remember right they broke in when they had a winner and that's about it.

They didn't cover it much at all beyond reporting the eventual winner.

 

[Macho Madness]

Wait what? It lists it as:

So we have no way to compare participation rates?
To be honest it did seem way too low, but it says votes and makes little sense any other way.

Each precinct elects delegates to represent their candidates at the state convention. Those are the numbers you're seeing. Raw vote totals can only be estimated.

 

[Makai]

MSNBC didn't even bother to have their A or B teams come in to cover the caucuses today

They knew what would happen :,(

 

[Suikoguy]

Each precinct elects delegates to represent their candidates at the state convention. Those are the numbers you're seeing. Raw vote totals can only be estimated.

Are those the "estimated" numbers, or something else?
I'm so confused now.

Edit: Oh, and sorry Basileus777 for snapping at you, i'm more confused by Caucuses now than before.

 

[Holmes]

are all the caucuses delegates ? none of them do raw vote?

I think Kansas and Nebraska had the raw vote?

 

[User 463088]

In 2008, she lost the Washington caucus 67/31. The primary they held after that she lost 50/47.

Clearly, she has caucus issues that are not related, solely to organization. Lower turn out events, for some reason, seem to benefit her challenger. It's rather interesting.

 

[lastflowers]

Wait what? It lists it as:

So we have no way to compare participation rates?
To be honest it did seem way too low, but it says votes and makes little sense any other way.

http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucus-results

note: vote counts above represent the number of legislative district convention delegates won by each presidential prefence.

From my understanding: I am a 'legistlative district delegate', and I am representative of 5 bernie supporters who voted in my precinct. Each individual precinct within a district will have it's own ratio per vote.

 

[Gotchaye]

While the earthquakes that seem to be associated with fracking (I think really we think they're due to wastewater injection, but you need to do something with the byproducts of fracking) in Oklahoma aren't big by, like, California standards, nothing in Oklahoma is built to withstand an earthquake. So there can be significant damage from relatively small quakes. And it's kind of obvious to everyone that the earthquakes have something to do with fracking. When I was a kid we had to go to the Omniplex and get in the little elevator looking thing that shook up and down to simulate an earthquake, and now people can feel the ground shaking on a monthly basis. I got to be in my first-ever earthquake when I was visiting home for Christmas. It's notable that this is Oklahoma and the population is split about 50/50 on whether fracking is a good idea.

I don't know what other options there are for dealing with the wastewater.

 

[Macho Madness]

Are those the "estimated" numbers, or something else?
I'm so confused now.

No those are the elected delegate totals. It's confusing, but theyre delegates representative of how each precinct voted.

Just fuck caucuses

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

In 2008, she lost the Washington caucus 67/31. The primary they held after that she lost 50/47.

Clearly, she has caucus issues that are not related, solely to organization. Lower turn out events, for some reason, seem to benefit her challenger. It's rather interesting.

Someone the other day compared her to Mitt Romney, and I think that's a good estimation of her as a candidate. The party isn't necessarily excited about her, but she's a logical and strong choice in a general election.

 

[Kyosaiga]

No those are the elected delegate totals. It's confusing, but theyre delegates representative of how each precinct voted.

Just fuck caucuses

I understand why Iowa does it (to stay relevant)

But everybody else?

Switch to closed or semi-open primaries.

 

[Officerrob]

In 2008, she lost the Washington caucus 67/31. The primary they held after that she lost 50/47.

Clearly, she has caucus issues that are not related, solely to organization. Lower turn out events, for some reason, seem to benefit her challenger. It's rather interesting.

Caucuses favor the most passionate, people willing to stand around for a couple hours. Dems like Hillary, will vote for her, but don't have the passion to wait around for a couple hours after work or on their weekend to caucus.

 

[ampere]

The best part of it is that Adam's phone thinks "cock uses" is a totally reasonable thing for him to post. Much more plausible than him actually talking about elections.

I'm trying to think of when that phrase would be typed, even by a gay man...

 

[Macho Madness]

For reference, Suikoguy, it's estimated that 250,000 people participated in the WA caucus in 2008.

 

[User 463088]

The vote totals you see are district delegates.

The problem with a caucus is that they're entirely undemocratic. Let's say Presinct A is worth 2 delegates, Bernie gets 10 people there, Hillary gets 2. They split the delegates. Presinct B is worth 4 delegates. Hillary gets 200 people there, and Bernie gets 160. They have to split they delegates again, 2 to 2.

BUT, in this situation, Hillary won the popular vote but they get the same number of delegates. If this were just based on the popular vote, it would be a 3 to 2 split to Hillary...since, you know, she got more the vote.

(With margins this large, it wouldn't really make a difference, but it probably shorted Bernie out of a few delegates in Iowa, to be honest.)

 

[lastflowers]

Are those the "estimated" numbers, or something else?
I'm so confused now.

Edit: Oh, and sorry Basileus777 for snapping at you, i'm more confused by Caucuses now than before.

A district is full of precincts.

Each precinct is awarded a certain amount of 'legislative district delegates' (?) presumably based on population within that precinct. My precinct awards 6 delegates. The people who caucused our precinct resulted in a 5/1 ratio of Bernie/Hillary after some discussion.

That means that another precinct might only have 100 people show up for 10 delegates, with a 10:1 vote to delegate ratio as compared with my precinct's approximately 5:1 ratio.

Caucus exposes candidates who don't get people to show up, from the singular perspective of my precinct. No one from my precinct changed their mind (though some arrived after the initial count, so that might not necessarily be true). It's really bullshit though, and we should establish online voting for whenever we can alongside locations to vote through public computers (libraries?)

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Another interesting thing I've noticed this time around is that campaigning seems to have very little effect on the primary/caucus results. Hillary made a point to try and narrow Bernie's margins in WA and still got completely trounced. Same thing happened to Bernie in South Carolina. It seems that no matter how strongly states are contested, you can basically predict the outcome based on region, diversity and voting system. The south strongly favors Hillary, the pacific northwest and flyover states with caucuses strongly favor Bernie, and the midwest is almost perfectly split between the two. It's kind of amazing to me that the results in Illinois, Iowa and Missouri are pretty much identical, the results in Alaska, Idaho, and Utah are pretty much identical, and the results all through the south are pretty much identical. You can attribute the deviation between GA and AL and MS almost entirely to the amount of urban areas in each state. I'm pretty sure with enough data you could make an algorithm that predicts these outcomes and forego actual voting.

 

[Officerrob]

Another interesting thing I've noticed this time around is that campaigning seems to have very little effect on the primary/caucus results. Hillary made a point to try and narrow Bernie's margins in WA and still got completely trounced. Same thing happened to Bernie in South Carolina. It seems that no matter how strongly states are contested, you can basically predict the outcome based on region, diversity and voting system. The south strongly favors Hillary, the pacific northwest and flyover states with caucuses strongly favor Bernie, and the midwest is almost perfectly split between the two. It's kind of amazing to me that the results in Illinois, Iowa and Missouri are pretty much identical, the results in Alaska, Idaho, and Utah are pretty much identical, and the results all through the south are pretty much identical. You can attribute the deviation between GA and AL and MS almost entirely to the amount of urban areas in each state. I'm pretty sure with enough data you could make an algorithm that predicts these outcomes and forego actual voting.

Yep, campaigning and momentum have meant almost nothing

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

West Virginia on this map is deeply confusing with present day knowledge.

 

[User 463088]

I'm trying to think of when that phrase would be typed, even by a gay man...

What I do in my free time....

I don't know that I've ever typed that before. Honestly. I must have done, but I can't think of why.

A district is full of precincts.

Each precinct is awarded a certain amount of 'legislative district delegates' (?) presumably based on population within that precinct. My precinct awards 6 delegates. The people who caucused our precinct resulted in a 5/1 ratio of Bernie/Hillary after some discussion.

That means that another precinct might only have 100 people show up for 10 delegates, with a 10:1 vote to delegate ratio as compared with my precinct's approximately 5:1 ratio.

Caucus exposes candidates who don't get people to show up, from the singular perspective of my precinct. No one from my precinct changed their mind (though some arrived after the initial count, so that might not necessarily be true). It's really bullshit though, and we should establish online voting for whenever we can alongside locations to vote through our setup machines (libraries?)

It's not even always based on population. Sometimes it's on how blue the district is. I believe that's how they do it in Iowa. The more democratic a district the more delegates it's awarded. It's based on turnout in the last two elections and caucuses, I believe. So, if a candidate ranks up a huge margin in an area that had low Dem turnout last time (say a college area) they're penalized with fewer delegates.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Why is whatcom county hellbent on not releasing their results?

 

[Suikoguy]

For reference, Suikoguy, it's estimated that 250,000 people participated in the WA caucus in 2008.

So participation is about 2/3rds of what a Primary is assuming that it's equal to 2008.

South Carolina, with a similar number of delegates had 367k votes. I would estimate that there was less turnout than in 2008 as turnout has been down across the states.

 

[Macho Madness]

West Virginia on this map is deeply confusing with present day knowledge.

WV was a reliable Democratic state until Gore. Environmentalism? Social issues?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

WV was a reliable Democratic state until Gore. Environmentalism?

As a WV native, I can assure you it was the rise and prominence of social conservatism. WV was reliably blue because of a strong worker's rights history. Somewhere around the mid-90's everyone stopped giving a shit about worker's rights and just wanted to make sure the liberal agenda didn't turn their kids gay. Really depressing, because WV was seriously one of the most rock-solid blue states for a long time. They hated republicans then the way they hate democrats now.

 

[User 463088]

So participation is about 2/3rds of what a Primary is assuming that it's equal to 2008.

South Carolina, with a similar number of delegates had 367k votes. I would estimate that there was less turnout than in 2008 as turnout has been down across the states.

We can't infer turnout based on the numbers reported. There's just no way to know unless you counted the raw hand count in each individual caucus. That number's not reported to the party. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is the percentage of the vote each person got at each individual caucus site.

Say a precinct is worth 20 delegates. It's worth 20 delegates if two people show up or 30,000 people show up. It makes no difference. All we can say is that in "Caucus X, Bernie got 60% of the people that showed up and Hillary got 40%." That's the extent of what we can know.

 

[B-Dubs]

As a WV native, I can assure you it was the rise and prominence of social conservatism. WV was reliably blue because of a strong worker's rights history. Somewhere around the mid-90's everyone stopped giving a shit about worker's rights and just wanted to make sure the liberal agenda didn't turn their kids gay.

I imagine it coincided with the fall of the coal industry.

 

[BoboBrazil]

I see Bernie won all the caucuses. Not a surprise. Caucuses are a big fat mess! This will put confidence in his followers to dump more of their money to him.

 

[Macho Madness]

Do the Dems not award extra delegates to states that voted D in the last presidential election or was that the GOP?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I imagine it coincided with the fall of the coal industry.

That's probably part of it. My hometown was never quite in coal country (eastern panhandle), but it used to have dignified middle class jobs that have now mostly been replaced with, ya know, Target cashiers.

 

[Suikoguy]

We can't infer turnout based on the numbers reported. There's just no way to know unless you counted the raw hand count in each individual caucus. That number's not reported to the party. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is the percentage of the vote each person got at each individual caucus site.

Say a precinct is worth 20 delegates. It's worth 20 delegates if two people show up or 30,000 people show up. It makes no difference. All we can say is that in "Caucus X, Bernie got 60% of the people that showed up and Hillary got 40%." That's the extent of what we can know.

Blah..

That's just amazingly shortsighted of it. You would think the party would want to know turnout numbers in more than just estimates.

 

[lastflowers]

We can't infer turnout based on the numbers reported. There's just no way to know unless you counted the raw hand count in each individual caucus. That number's not reported to the party. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is the percentage of the vote each person got at each individual caucus site.

Say a precinct is worth 20 delegates. It's worth 20 delegates if two people show up or 30,000 people show up. It makes no difference. All we can say is that in "Caucus X, Bernie got 60% of the people that showed up and Hillary got 40%." That's the extent of what we can know.

it truly is bizarre.

I see Bernie won all the caucuses. Not a surprise. Caucuses are a big fat mess! This will put confidence in his followers to dump more of their money to him.

'tis not a bad thing if you know what you're doing with your money, don't need it, and know the vast improbability of success.

 

[User 463088]

Do the Dems not award extra delegates to states that voted D in the last presidential election or was that the GOP?

Blue states tend to be worth more, ya. Mass is worth 11 electoral votes and 91 delegates. Tennessee is also worth 11 electoral votes but only 67 delegates.

 

[Macho Madness]

That's probably part of it. My hometown was never quite in coal country (eastern panhandle), but it used to have dignified middle class jobs that have now mostly been replaced with, ya know, Target cashiers.

My hometown is propped up by the Department of Energy (where my dad works) and companies like Melaleuca that get massive tax breaks. Oh and Melaleuca's CEO was a Finance Co-Chair for the Romney campaign. His checkbook rules local politics.

As it concerns the Department of Energy, it baffles me that they continually vote for presidential candidates that want to get rid of it.

 

[theprodigy]

Do the Dems not award extra delegates to states that voted D in the last presidential election or was that the GOP?

Democrats award delegates based on how much of the popular vote for the Democrat is from that state, so it does but it scales linearly.

The GOP on the other hand has a binary bonus that's all or nothing based on whether the Republicans carried the state, that's how North Carolina has more delegates than Ohio for example.

 

[Tesseract]

Hillary is a mistake, no empathy. Sell out!

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

West Virginia is full of interesting contradictions, actually. The largest battle on American soil following the Civil War is the Battle of Blair Mountain, and it took place in WV between several thousand coal miners and a private militia hired by their bosses over the issue of worker's rights. It was exactly 100 years ago, I believe. Our state fought and bled for worker's rights to an extent unmatched by any other state, period. Today, though? We've recently replaced worker's rights with right-to-work laws.

Similarly, WV repudiated the confederacy with more veracity than any other state in the country. We broke away from Virginia strictly to disassociate ourselves from the rebel cause. Despite that, it is impossible to go anywhere in the state without seeing the rebel flag on cars, porches, shirts, belt buckles, etc. They say it's about honoring heritage without realizing, as a West Virginian, they're actually spitting on their heritage.

 

[Holmes]

Do the Dems not award extra delegates to states that voted D in the last presidential election or was that the GOP?

It's generally on a congressional district basis, I believe (in Texas it was based off of state Senate districts). The more a district voted Dem for pres, or if it had a Democratic congrssperson, the more delegates it has. So for example, CDs in Chicago were worth more delegates than downstate Republican CDs.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Hawaii results are never coming in, are they?

 

[User 463088]

Hawaii results are never coming in, are they?

They lost them along with President Obama's long form birth certificate.

HOW DEEP DOES THE RABBIT HOLE GO SHEEPLE!?

 

[Macho Madness]

West Virginia is full of interesting contradictions, actually. The largest battle on American soil following the Civil War is the Battle of Blair Mountain, and it took place in WV between several thousand coal miners and a private militia hired by their bosses over the issue of worker's rights. It was exactly 100 years ago, I believe. Our state fought and bled for worker's rights to an extent unmatched by any other state, period. Today, though? We've recently replaced worker's rights with right-to-work laws.

Similarly, WV repudiated the confederacy with more veracity than any other state in the country. We broke away from Virginia strictly to disassociate ourselves from the rebel cause. Despite that, it is impossible to go anywhere in the state without seeing the rebel flag on cars, porches, shirts, belt buckles, etc. They say it's about honoring heritage without realizing, as a West Virginian, they're actually spitting on their heritage.

I see a lot of confederate paraphernalia in Indiana. We have a giant, unmissable monument in downtown Indianapolis all about Indiana's vital war-time contributions to the union. I am continually baffled by the amount I see.

 

[NeoXChaos]

At the state level, West Virginia's politics were largely dominated by the Democratic Party from the Great Depression through the 2000s. This was a legacy of West Virginia's very strong tradition of union membership.[118] Since 2000, state elections have become more competitive at both the state and federal levels. After the 2014 midterm elections, Democrats controlled the governorship, the majority of statewide offices, and one U.S. Senate seat, while Republicans held one U.S. Senate seat, all three of the state's U.S. House seats, and a majority in both houses of the West Virginia Legislature.

once they win the governorship this year and take Manchin out the switch will be complete.

 

[Basileus777]

I see a lot of confederate paraphernalia in Indiana. We have a giant, unmissable monument in downtown Indianapolis all about the union soldiers that fought in the war. I am continually baffled by the amount I see.

You can find confederate flags flying in South Jersey. It's truly baffling.

 

[Suikoguy]

West Virginia is full of interesting contradictions, actually. The largest battle on American soil following the Civil War is the Battle of Blair Mountain, and it took place in WV between several thousand coal miners and a private militia hired by their bosses over the issue of worker's rights. It was exactly 100 years ago, I believe. Our state fought and bled for worker's rights to an extent unmatched by any other state, period. Today, though? We've recently replaced worker's rights with right-to-work laws.

Similarly, WV repudiated the confederacy with more veracity than any other state in the country. We broke away from Virginia strictly to disassociate ourselves from the rebel cause. Despite that, it is impossible to go anywhere in the state without seeing the rebel flag on cars, porches, shirts, belt buckles, etc. They say it's about honoring heritage without realizing, as a West Virginian, they're actually spitting on their heritage.

That's some really bizarre shit. I have to admit I was not well versed on the history of the state.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

In 2008, she lost the Washington caucus 67/31. The primary they held after that she lost 50/47.

Clearly, she has caucus issues that are not related, solely to organization. Lower turn out events, for some reason, seem to benefit her challenger. It's rather interesting.

I think she's had the bad luck of being one-on-one with transformative candidates (though their transformative natures and their levels of popularity differ significantly).

Her voters definitely had passion for her in 2008. She just ran into a once-in-a-generation candidate, a good-looking, JFK-like magnet for charisma (who was much, much better at governing, thankfully).

Now, it's eight years later and this Clinton primary run feels less like a breakthrough and more like a re-tread, and she's once again up against a candidate that is in some way transformative.

Candidates like that tend to have devoted followings who will make it out to the caucus site to vote, will harangue others to vote, give their money freely in donations, etc.

A lot of it, I believe, is just unfortunate timing on Ms. Clinton's part.