It was foretold

crystal_ball_lg

The Washington State primary will occur after the February 5th national primary:

Washington will hold its presidential primary on Feb. 19, joining a national stampede of states to hold primaries earlier in the year.

Party leaders and state lawmakers made the decision this afternoon. So far, more than 30 states are either holding their presidential primaries and caucuses before March — or are considering doing so.

And as I predicted, the Dems are going to get rolled over the coals between now and the beauty pageant, as this Seattle Times Editorial explains:

The state Democratic Party voted to ignore the primary, in which 40 percent of the state’s registered voters participated in 2000. Instead, it will let the 2 percent of voters who attend caucuses make all of the decisions about Washington’s inclinations.

In contrast, the state Republican Party’s central committee last weekend decided to embrace the primary’s results to allocate 50 percent of its delegates to the national GOP convention. The rest will be determined by caucuses.

The GOP is more inclusive than the Democrats. (my emphasis)

I hate to say this, but if a lowly blogger could’ve predicted the media reaction on this, surely the fine WSDCC state committee men and women should have figured it out. Is the caucus really all that popular amongst the powers that be within the party?

Given that the caucus is held earlier than the primary, let’s envision a scenario where the caucus results don’t match what the primary voters selected, will that be further grist for the media mill? Hilarity is sure to ensue.

My crystal ball is pulsing with dark green energy, and it’s saying that the REAL reason for keeping the caucus system is Hillary Clinton. Duh duh duh duhhhhhh.

Update:The WSDCC’s home page weighs in with a quote from Pelz:

“We hope each and every Democrat in Washington State will attend their neighborhood caucus and vote for their candidate for President.”, said Chair Dwight Pelz.

No Dwight, you really don’t hope that every Democrat in Washington State shows up, since there’s absolutely no way the local party organizations can rent out enough space for even 1/10th of all Democrats in the state.

Last 2 posts in Democrats

Brian Baird is a Flake - May 15th, 2008
thank you, jesus - May 15th, 2008

Last 2 posts in Voting

Kudos to Martin Hash and dissent for the Nominating Convention - May 14th, 2008
Confessions of a Precinct Committee Officer (part 1) - May 4th, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

5 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)

Let’s save everyone the time and trouble and just make her the nominee by a vote of the party leadership.

[reply to this]

1. Above written by bushtool on June 12th, 2007 at 6:14 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
This is gonna suck. The only people I hear talking about Hillary in anything but negative terms are old-school caucus Democrats. I almost feel like these folks have nostalgia for the Clinton years in terms of their status politically in the organization, and they think Hillary will bring that back.

My only hope? That Hillary’s BS will engender a strong leftward streak towards Dennis Kucinich and, to a lesser extent, John Edwards.

[reply to this]

2. Above written by Tahoma Activist on June 12th, 2007 at 6:34 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
TA,

The only people I hear talking about Hillary in anything but negative terms are old-school caucus Democrats.

Sounds like you understand what is happening. My hope is the MSM does to her what they did to Dean and one of the “lesser” and better candidates slips into the forefront.

It is amazing to me that the American people are so gullible that they allow the MSM, the electeds and the party elites to choose their leaders over and over again. And the criteria used by these autocrats is always appearances and political correctness (i.e. fundraising ability) over reality.

Our country desperately needs something like an ugly, fat, black or hispanic woman with an IQ of 170, the ethics of the Dalai Lama and the visions of John & Robert Kennedy & MLK, Jr. to lead us.

But I will have to wait for another reality for that to ever happen.

Instead we get media creations that have the right look, the right name, the right connections and no real vision and no real ethics.

This is not democracy but elitism and feudalism.

[reply to this]

3. Above written by bushtool on June 12th, 2007 at 7:55 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
From my point of view our Washington State party is a party of micromanagement. Most Democrats are revolted at this. That is why principled activist types get very involved for a period of time, discover they’ve been used and abused, then leave.

[reply to this]

4. Above written by Pat Campbell on June 12th, 2007 at 7:55 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Our country desperately needs something like an ugly, fat, black or hispanic woman with an IQ of 170, the ethics of the Dalai Lama and the visions of John & Robert Kennedy & MLK, Jr. to lead us.

I forgot to add “impoverished” in the above description.

[reply to this]

5. Above written by bushtool on June 12th, 2007 at 8:11 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

Moderation Active: Comments are open on this post and will be moderated (i.e. the post will not appear immediately, please don't submit twice !)