Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET)

[politicallefty]

Rules are rules, but I don't think low turnout unrepresentative caucuses are the best thing for the party. I like both of our candidates and I don't mind seeing the race go on (especially because California's top-two system can product nasty results if only Republicans have competitive races, such as CA-31 in 2012), but I really don't believe these kind of margins are representative of the broader Democratic electorate.

I think all states should have primaries. And, I think if Washington Republicans can have a primary for delegates, Democrats should certainly do so as well. I would hope this is something the party can work on for the future once we have our nominee.

[politicallefty]

I think all states should have primaries. And, I think if Washington Republicans can have a primary for delegates, Democrats should certainly do so as well. I would hope this is something the party can work on for the future once we have our nominee.

Agreed, but it sounds like the Washington Caucus is relatively new. Used to be a primary, but they switched.

Huh?  Caucuses have existed in Washington for many years, it's just that there's also a primary.  The Republicans have sometimes split the delegate allocation between caucuses and primary, but I don't think the primary has been used for delegate allocation on the Dem. side for a while.

According to Rachel Maddow's show, Republicans switched from a caucus to a primary after Pat Robertson won the Washington caucuses in 1988.

[politicallefty]

For the anti-caucus crowd, if you got your way and caucuses were done away with, would you make an exception for Iowa?  There is a lot of tradition there, and they do a good job managing it.

Absolutely not, particularly because I don't think Iowa or New Hampshire should go first. Those states should not have a stranglehold on the nominating process anymore. Ideally, I think both parties should work together to find a new nominating process. (If anything, I wouldn't mind invoking a penalty that puts those two states at the very back of the line for once.) Eliminating caucuses can be done unilaterally by one party. Considering their swing state status, I think both parties will have to act on IA and NH together, not just one party acting on its own.

[politicallefty]

Something I'm rather confident in: Sanders won't be winning California - by ten points or otherwise. She won the state in 2008 against Obama by 8 points. I won't say it's impossible for Sanders to win the state (he won Michigan for god's sake) - but he won't be winning it by more than 10.

I'm more optimistic about California than you are. I think the results will look quite similar to 2008, give or take a couple percentage points. I think Hillary will do better than 2008 in SoCal and the Central Valley, while Bernie will do better than Obama in the Bay Area. How much that changes will determine the margin, anything from a mid-single digit win for Hillary to something in the mid-teens. I would be stunned beyond belief if Hillary loses California (even more than her loss in Michigan).