With 70% of the vote in and with over 650,000 votes tallied (also known as almost three times as many votes as the caucus which took place in March with its pathetic 5.8% turnout), Clinton is leading Sanders in Washington State by 7—at 53.65% to 46.35%. Granted it’s only 70% of the vote, but even if the remainder of the 30% of voters overwhelmingly choose Sanders by ridiculous margins, Sanders will not secure a victory here by nearly the same percentage as he did for his nearly 3-1 victory in Washington back in March. Washington, by the way, is Sanders’ biggest win, with over a hundred delegates up for grabs.
Some observations:
1) The claim that Sanders wins when turnout is high (and the implied smear that Clinton only wins when no one cares) is absurd. Clinton wins more primaries (BOTH open and closed, despite what some Bernie supporters here on DailyKos will tell you), Bernie wins more caucuses. Primaries have higher turnout and more voters than caucuses.
2) The claim that caucuses accurately reflect the will of an electorate, and that we can therefore assume that Sanders’ big caucus wins mean that we can extrapolate him winning huge margins in those states were they primaries, is absurd. The Seattle Times agrees with me. Nebraska agrees with me. And it looks like Washington’s about to agree with me.
3) In case anyone’s seriously considering typing this in the comment section: no, Clinton has no incentive to “rig” this primary. No delegates are allocated, it’s purely informal. Do I sound paranoid presuming that someone might accuse rigging? Well, that’s what happened when I posted about the Nevada caucus and the handful of delegates going around there.
4) Washington State government is really confounding in its primary system. I understand why a state like, say, North Dakota would want caucuses. Primaries are expensive, ND's a big state, and it’s got a tiny population. But Washington? With its big populations, big cities, and relative wealth? AND it holds a primary after a caucus purely for shits and giggles?
5) I’d sorely love to see an alternate universe where caucuses were abolished. Would Clinton have clinched the nomination without supers a month ago? What about if all the states were open primaries? Closed? It’s a shame we’ll never know for sure.
6) At all the people crying about how closed primaries are undemocratic: face it. You’re less concerned about democracy than you are about Sanders winning. If you really cared about democracy, you would have started blaming the system mid-March, not post- New York. Caucuses are the single most undemocratic institution in this race.