« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
ATTN: WA primary was MEANINGLESS
I posted something similar in reply to someone else's post. But I wanted to get it out there.
The primary in WA was completely MEANINGLESS. Everyone knew that the democratic party in WA allocated its delegates from only the caucus results. Turnout was HUGE that day. A week or more later, one could mail in a ballot for the primary. I know of not a single person that mailed there's in. Why? Because it meant JACK SHIT. Anyone using the contrast between WA caucus and primary results to argue the unfairness of the caucus process is completely BULLSHITTING you.
I challenge anyone to argue that knowing your vote doesn't count somehow doesn't influence your voting behavior. This is why the FL and MI votes are such a problem. If people in those states thought their votes would count, there would have been greater turnout, and probably different results. How fair is it to an Obama supporter in FL, that didn't go to the polls because they knew it wouldn't mean anything, to then find out that it actually would have meant something after it was too late? Who here actually thinks that's fair?
Identify yourself.
Comments (5)
"I challenge anyone to argue that knowing your vote doesn't count somehow doesn't influence your voting behavior."
I completely agree with that statement and I wouldn't take up your challenge. However, I think your comparison between the Washington primary with MI and FL is not a fair one because how it affects voting behavior is up to debate. With similar knowledge, it was a low turn out in WA (your statement), and it was a historically high turn out in both MI and FL.
I did some quick math:
2004 Dem primary, FL = 712,845 total votes
2008 Dem primary, FL = 1,674,853 total votes
2004 Dem primary, MI = 160,566 total votes
2008 Dem primary, MI = 589,984 total votes
Turn out was extremely high in FL and MI this year.
May 21, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your stance that WA is not comparable with FL and MI. But I would point out that in MI and FL, the Dem turnout was less than the Republican turnout, which was unusual for this primary, except in the reddest states. Granted, it was still early in the process, and before McCain clinched, but I doubt FL and MI have fewer registered Dems. To me, this suggests depressed Dem turnout.
May 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the GOP had higher turnouts and they had a lot more guys still in the race.
The Dem turnout might have been higher but never the less, it was not that far behind the GOP.
May 21, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone using the contrast between WA caucus and primary results to argue the unfairness of the caucus process is completely BULLSHITTING you."
As for the statement above, although WA maybe a bad example because of the low turn out in the WA primary, the over arching principle, I think is not arguable. Your own argument supports it. More people turn out, more accurate the will of the people. In a real primary, more people turn out.
May 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - I think TX supports the argument against caucuses being as representative of the will of the people as primaries. But, my main point is for people to stop using WA in their argument, because it was completely meaningless.
Another point: the people who've followed this primary process more closely (activist base) have tended to be Obama supporters. And I believe that because of this, people not showing up when the vote didn't count, would mostly be people informed enough to know the vote would be meaningless, and therefore be disproportionately for Obama.
More succinctly, Obama's voters stayed home in FL and MI more than Hillary's supporters. This is open for debate, since there are no numbers behind my argument. But I'd like to hear an argument challenging this idea. And another one then validating the MI and FL results.
May 21, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment