Chief
02-12-2008, 05:52 PM
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010137.html
*SNIP*
1) The myth that the Washington State Republican Party (WSRP) "stopped counting votes" is hogwash. It has nonetheless been ensconced in a number of media stories, thanks in part to the rhetorical repetition of the Huckabee campaign.
The WSRP bears some responsibility for not clearly stating in their press release Saturday night that a) they were projecting a "winner," not declaring one, b) all results would be still be tallied, but c) results from some rural caucuses had not yet been submitted so could not be tallied that night anyway.
Either way, reports that "vote" counting was prematurely halted were and are totally erroneous.
2) "Votes" isn't even an accurate term. Results are being expressed in terms of the stated Presidential preferences of the delegates who were elected in each precinct to attend their county GOP conventions this spring. As pudge explained yesterday, the process of electing precinct delegates is not directly correlated to the preferences of all caucus attendees. There is no assurance that the preferences of the precinct delegates will be in the same proportion as the caucus attendees (though an aggressive and well-organized campaign can obviously improve their own lot by ensuring their preferred delegates are elected).
3) The confusion about the details of our caucus system belies the fact that the ten other states holding GOP caucuses prior to our own this year used largely similar formats (one can view a good summary of the details of each state's process by clicking on the appropriate state at this page and scrolling down to the "Details of the Nominating Process" section).
In short, almost every GOP caucus in other states has been similar to ours. Only the results of the initial caucuses in Montana and North Dakota created a binding result actually allocating national convention delegates. The perhaps under-reported story is that most GOP caucuses thus far have allowed for some sort of tabulation of Presidential preferences (either by attendees or elected delegates), but have not created a binding result that obligates the distribution of delegates to respective Presidential candidates at the national convention.
**SCHNIPP**
This just keeps getting crazier and crazier as time goes on...a real three ring circus out there, boys and girls...
The Democrats are divided down the middle between Her Thighness and Obama, while McCain is pretending he's the chosen one for the Republicans, while leaving Conservatives out in the cold...
We all thought the 2000 elections were a zoo....well, I think we ain't seen nuthin' yet...
8)
*SNIP*
1) The myth that the Washington State Republican Party (WSRP) "stopped counting votes" is hogwash. It has nonetheless been ensconced in a number of media stories, thanks in part to the rhetorical repetition of the Huckabee campaign.
The WSRP bears some responsibility for not clearly stating in their press release Saturday night that a) they were projecting a "winner," not declaring one, b) all results would be still be tallied, but c) results from some rural caucuses had not yet been submitted so could not be tallied that night anyway.
Either way, reports that "vote" counting was prematurely halted were and are totally erroneous.
2) "Votes" isn't even an accurate term. Results are being expressed in terms of the stated Presidential preferences of the delegates who were elected in each precinct to attend their county GOP conventions this spring. As pudge explained yesterday, the process of electing precinct delegates is not directly correlated to the preferences of all caucus attendees. There is no assurance that the preferences of the precinct delegates will be in the same proportion as the caucus attendees (though an aggressive and well-organized campaign can obviously improve their own lot by ensuring their preferred delegates are elected).
3) The confusion about the details of our caucus system belies the fact that the ten other states holding GOP caucuses prior to our own this year used largely similar formats (one can view a good summary of the details of each state's process by clicking on the appropriate state at this page and scrolling down to the "Details of the Nominating Process" section).
In short, almost every GOP caucus in other states has been similar to ours. Only the results of the initial caucuses in Montana and North Dakota created a binding result actually allocating national convention delegates. The perhaps under-reported story is that most GOP caucuses thus far have allowed for some sort of tabulation of Presidential preferences (either by attendees or elected delegates), but have not created a binding result that obligates the distribution of delegates to respective Presidential candidates at the national convention.
**SCHNIPP**
This just keeps getting crazier and crazier as time goes on...a real three ring circus out there, boys and girls...
The Democrats are divided down the middle between Her Thighness and Obama, while McCain is pretending he's the chosen one for the Republicans, while leaving Conservatives out in the cold...
We all thought the 2000 elections were a zoo....well, I think we ain't seen nuthin' yet...
8)