« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Washington GOP: State Chair Was Giving His "Analysis"
We've been trying to get a handle today on just what's been going on up in Washington state, and I just got off the phone with a spokesman for the Washington Republican Party. Here, at least, is his explanation of what happened on Saturday.
The process as he described it was this: Washington Republicans showed up at their precinct caucuses on Saturday. Each caucus-goer indicated their presidential preference on a sign-in sheet at the door. Then each caucus elected precinct delegates from among those in attendance at the caucus. Each precinct then reported the presidential choice of its elected delegates as indicated on their sign-in sheets. The precincts report up to their respective counties and the counties in turn report to the state GOP.
So why did the state GOP Chair Luke Esser decide to pack it in early on Saturday night? It's a relatively chaotic process, the spokesman said, which was made more chaotic by their first try at same-day reporting. He stressed that the process was "all voluntary." The last results came in around 10 PM. And that was it; the tendency was natural to fold up early, he said. "People want to be fresh for the next day."
So why did Esser call the race with 13% of the delegates still outstanding? "He was giving his analysis," the spokesman said. "He said it appears John McCain has won. This wasn't a certainty." (The party's press release, titled "Sen. McCain Wins Republican Precinct Caucuses in Washington State," bore no such ambiguity.) People who had participated in the caucuses had naturally "expected to hear results and hear analysis of what they had spent the whole day doing," he explained.
Esser's pronouncement had nothing to do with any favoritism for McCain, he said. That's "misinformation." He would have done the same for any other candidate.
The remaining results, he said, are slow going. They probably won't get to 100% today. The state gets results from the county, but some of the precincts are apparently tardy in reporting to the counties. The spokesman said that was as expected. "People went off to work on Monday. People had services on Sunday."
A whole separate issue is the uncertain correlation of Saturday's caucus results with the delegates that the Washington GOP will ultimately send to the convention. The spokesman compared Saturday's results to a "flash poll" that's just a step on the way to the GOP selecting the state's 18 delegates for the convention. And he stressed that they were "at-will" delegates who could change their choice for president at any time.
A Washington blogger who attended the GOP caucuses writes that presidential preference never "came up" in selecting their delegates. The post, titled "What The Washington GOP Precinct Caucus Results Mean," begins, "Nothing."
Josh
Zachary
Wow, this guy needs to be fired.
Good thing for him that Republicans don't care about democracy.
February 11, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right; and the Supreme Court, in 2000, was just trying to provide it's analysis of the Florida vote count.
February 11, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I trust Huck's folks will reach out to all those Romney and Paul supporters who with them made up 75% of the vote when it's convention time.
And maybe someone at the Convention can make a motion to vacate the chair.
February 11, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will be useful to recall is there is another tight race and the GOP screams bloody murder as they did in the Gregoire race.
It's illustrative of the known fact that ballot integrity, democracy, rule of the people and other traditional American values are just buzzwords to these people and have no intrinsic meaning to them.
February 11, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blogger is wrong!!!
The person delegate selected at least determine which way a delegate is likely to vote at the next level.
Someone from Reverend Hutchinson's church will vote for Huckabee and NEVER change to McCain because christian fundamentalism is THE issue.
Washington state republi-can't party has a heavy fundamental christian base - google "Ellen Craswell."
My belief is that Luke Esser is trying to dilute this wing of the party in hopes that the republi-can'ts can elect someone on the more poulous west side of the cascade mountains.
On the other hand, Ron Paul is raising money and taking the libretarians who vote republi-can't east of the mountains.
February 11, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed, it seems that Mr. Esser should be looking for another job.
Of course this batch of Republicans are about as sharp as bowling balls, so they will probably keep him.
February 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
the thing that i’m amazed by at this point in the debacle is that esser still claims they’re “counting” something. since the washington republicans responding here and elsewhere have made it abundantly clear that they don’t “actually vote for candidates” at their caucuses and have railed at the benighted for such a foolish assumption, what the hell is he counting???
February 11, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The comments thread on the linked blog is enlightening (as well as sometimes hilarious). The linked blogger is actually a precinct captain in Washington and has a very good understanding of how the process works. If anything, it just looks like Esser should've said nothing, as Saturdays contest was only very loosely tied to how Washington's actual delegates will be apportioned.
It also appears from some of the comments that this is souring Evergreen-staters on Huckabee - he never came here, and now he obviously doesn't understand the process, threatens lawyers, etc...
Unfortunately, I think the only meat in this story is a furthered media narrative that Washington doesn't know how to hold an election. Sometimes perception is everything.
February 11, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not be surprised at all to see president McCain nominate this guy to become a member of the FEC.
Except. I don't think there will be a president McCain.
February 11, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not be surprised at all to see president McCain nominate this guy to become a member of the FEC.
Except. I don't think there will be a president McCain.
February 11, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I ask a Q on the Huckabee letter authored by Ed Rollins? Why does the stationary still read it is an exploratory committee? Shouldn't he be well past that stage, and isn't he now a bona fide candidate? And does it really matter? Just asking.
February 11, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny exactly when republicans demand transparency and fairness.
February 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for representation by the people. I guess the party leaders decide. Isn't that how the USSR was run during the cold war?
February 11, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree things should be counted start to finish, but I believe in the power of deductive reasoning as well. We're having a conversation about it at:
www.purplestates.tv
I'm Elizabeth, a citizen journalist, but I believe our conversation is on Tamara's page.
February 11, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like there should be a criminal investigation.
February 12, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that it would be unreasonable for the people to demand a total recount for Western WA. This demonstration of incompetence is so ridiculous, it's embarrassing. The GOP needs to get its act together and take this thing seriously.
February 12, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that it would be unreasonable for the people to demand a total recount for Western WA. This demonstration of incompetence is so ridiculous, it's embarrassing. The GOP needs to get its act together and take this thing seriously.
February 12, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's just incredibly amusing about this is all of the howling the Republicans did over the 2004 election for governor in Washington.
The election was insanely close - a margin of a couple hundred votes out of about 3m if I remember correctly. Well, as with any human activity there were some issues and oh did the Rs whine. Elections, you understand, are sacred and it's IMPERATIVE that we be 100% accurate. They even filed court challenges to the election that went on into May of 2005.
But when it's their turn to actually count who caucus participants put down as their preference? Hey, kinda close is good enough. It's not like this is for President or anything...
It will be interesting to see what happens with the primary results on the 19th (Yes, we have both a caucus and a primary. And no, I don't understand that either).
February 12, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The paleo's were too particular - and didn't defend their Mormon.
Now the neocons have a death grip on the party and the candidacy. The country isn't going to elect Bomb/Bomb/Iran. And the back up candidacy of Clitnon is sinking like a stone.
What nobody factored in was the Wisconsin Housewife Factor. Obama makes white people feel good about themselves. Yes, you heard right.
OBama is the Tiger Woods candidate. Aunt Beatrice and Uncle Harry voted Reagan - but they are like proud grandparents of that nice black man and his wife. OBama is everything white America hoped for in Black America. He's squeaky clean - great wife - without a hint of sassy black TV wife syndrome.
Le problema??? Obama has NOT been drinking his Jewish kool aid. Oh my>>>>>>>
February 12, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, if I haven't read everything about this case and I understand it was a caucus as opposed to the general election but isn't this voter disenfranchisement by the RNCC in Washington state and Mr Esser? At a bare minimum if what took place was not in reality a caucus or delegate choice at all but a RNCC choice of how they felt the state's direction in the Republican party should go then doesn't this scream of an undemocratic process chosen by the boss's of the RNCC? If this is the case then shouldn't this be a big story considering BUSH and Co made it a point in the DOJ to pursue voting irregularities and voter fraud?
February 12, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am the "blogger" (actually, no, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a "blogger") who wrote the Sound Poilitics story linked to above. (Also, FWIW, I am the YouTube user who serenaded the GOP candidates in the CNN debate last November.)
I love the claim of "criminal investigation," as if any law was broken. And there is utterly no need for a "recount," as there is exactly zero evidence that there were any errors in counting! There IS NO voter disenfranchisement. The only vote you get in the caucus is for delegates and alternates in your precinct (or for resolutions voted on), and there is no evidence that any of this didn't happen properly, or was not properly recorded.
(Well, there is a single report from one precinct caucus where a woman claims caucus rules were not followed, but that is completely separate from the other stuff going on, and it will be investigated, and if they did do it incorrectly, then the delegates will be taken away from that precinct.)
It is a caucus, JoshQ, but it is not like many other caucuses, where the main point is the presidential preference. The main point of our precinct caucus is to pick delegates to county convention, and precinct caucuses MAY choose to consider any factors they wish in the election of those delegates, including presidential preference.
The hubbub here is simply about how the state chair chose to announce the "results," which are nothing more than what people wrote on a sign-in sheet on their way in: they do not even reflect the person's view AFTER caucusing and voting, even though people often change their minds during the caucus. The state party wanted some "news" -- in large part because the media begged them to release "results" -- so they released the "precinct caucus results," which don't really mean anything.
You get rickg up there comparing this to 2004. Yes, let's do that (and go back to 2000 for good measure):
2000/2004: general election of candidates for public office
2008: precinct caucus election of delegates to county convention
2000/2004: actual errors regarding counting of the votes
2008: no evidence of any errors regarding counting of the votes
2000/2004: errors and irregularities potentially resulted in the "wrong" candidate being elected
2008: none of this has any impact on who is actually elected at any level
The comparison is downright silly, and is only being brought up by Democratic partisans with an axe to grind; but the rest of the people won't be fooled into thinking the comparison is rational.
And rickg: the reason we have both a caucus and a primary is because the voters asked for a primary back in 1988.
February 12, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah pudgy....
First off, I was comparing the attitudes of the Republicans not the import of the election though I think it's interesting that you feel accuracy's import depends on which election it is.
In 2004 the Rs were incensed that a few hundred ballots out of 3 million were questionable. Accuracy was key! But here, well, do we really need to count all of the votes (I'll use 'vote' though, of course, it's a caucus)? Nah, let's just kind of call it. It's classic "When someone else does it it's wrong, when I do it it's OK" thinking. And 2000 isn't relevant - it's not, after all, the Dem caucus results being questioned here. Nice try though.
And yes, I know why we have a primary, thanks. My aside was meant to imply that it's a bit silly to have both. However, since we DO have both close together we can compare the results of a primary and a caucus. Might be interesting information, might not. We'll see.
February 12, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
rickg: But here, well, do we really need to count all of the votes (I'll use 'vote' though, of course, it's a caucus)? Nah, let's just kind of call it.
That never happened. All delegates' preferences were going to be counted, and all the actual votes -- the ones for the delegates -- were already counted.
It's classic "When someone else does it it's wrong, when I do it it's OK" thinking.
No, it absolutely is not, because it was NEVER THE CASE that an incorrect or incomplete report was going to be the final product. So no one was saying such an incomplete/incorrect count is "OK."
You don't know what you are talking about.
And 2000 isn't relevant - it's not, after all, the Dem caucus results being questioned here. Nice try though.
Huh? I wasn't implying anything about partisanship there.
However, since we DO have both close together we can compare the results of a primary and a caucus
No, we can't, because -- as you still apparently do not understand -- the results being released by the WSRP do not have any real meaning. They do not reflect who will eventually get the delegates on the one hand, but they also don't even necessarily reflect the preferences of precinct caucus participants or delegates.
February 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink