Washington Primary results thread (both parties; “polls close” at 11pm ET)

[Landslide Lyndon]

More proof about how ridiculous unrepresentative of voters intention the caucuses are.
But let's talk a little more about the evil of closed primaries.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

But not bigger than that between a 43-point win and an 8-point loss.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?   

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning. 

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

But not bigger than that between a 43-point win and an 8-point loss.

Thus why I said that the age divide is larger this time around.

I don't see how that explains the huge discrepancy. Sanders' young voters were motivated enough to attend caucus state conventions.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

Again, that's a pretty poor excuse. They were sent a ballot and all they had to do is mail it.
And I don't see why they were less motivated to do it than Clinton supporters.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, as those have delegates at stake.

Again, that's a pretty poor excuse. They were sent a ballot and all they had to do is mail it.
And I don't see why they were less motivated to do it than Clinton supporters.

I'm not saying they chose well or excusing their actions, I'm simply offering an explanation for at least some of the difference between the results. Also, for those who change addresses a lot, it's not quite that simple. I explained a bit more about that above.

How many people fall in that subcategory? A thousand? Two thousand?
The fact is that proof that caucuses are a mockery of democracy has reached critical mass.
Thankfully two states have already abolished them (Maine, Minnesota) and let's hope that by 2020 any state that still employs them will be punished accordingly.   

[Landslide Lyndon]

His explanation as to why (the shifting addresses, the lack of residence at permanent addresses) an age gap exists made sense - but of course, you weren't listening.

An age gap would make sense for a 20-30 point discrepancy, not a 50 points one.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The takeaway point is that if every state held a beauty contest primary after the actual contest, Clinton would likely win every one except Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire. I'll admit that Clinton supporters are, on the whole, more reliable voters, and these elections are mainly the most reliable voters (who skew older and more affluent) who are participating. I'd also add that while mail-in voting is great in that it allows a portion of the electorate for whom traveling to a polling booth is difficult or impossible, to participate to a greater degree, it's not great for everyone. Voters who change their address fairly regularly (who skew younger and less affluent) have a much more difficult time voting in these elections, and probably don't think it's worth the effort in a "contest" like this one.

Obama won both the caucuses and the primaries of Nebraska and Washington.
Didn't his supporters also skew younger? Didn't they know that the primaries were beauty contests?    

He just barely won them, despite winning the caucuses by a wide margin. I think the age gap is even wider this time around.

Winning by 5 points isn't "barely" winning.  

It's certainly a huge difference from a 36-point win.

But not bigger than that between a 43-point win and an 8-point loss.

I doubt it'll be 8 points by the time they finish counting the votes.

Because if it will be 5 or 6 it will refute my argument.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm not really even sure what you're trying to argue. I just felt that was worth noting.

I'm arguing that such a huge discrepancy between caucus and primary results shows clearly how undemocratic and unrepresentative of the will of the people caucuses are and that Washington obviously wasn't the slam-dunk Sanders state that everyone believed.