I took a poll of myself and it predicted that Clinton would win.
Still no numbers from Kansas (on the Democratic side)? What gives?
These numbers, if close to accurate, are amazing. In 2008 we had an ordinary primary election. No problem voting, polling places near home, etc. This time, due to KS legislature shenanigans, we had a caucus, paid for by the less than flush Dem party. The caucus was at a set time, when many people were still at work. For budget reasons we had less than half the caucus sites that the Republicans had, so had to use pretty large caucusing districts, and those in the counties where the Dems even had county branchesānot all counties have a functional party base. Many people had to drive; I had to go only about 15 milesā¦ but that was tough because my car was in the shop so I had to find a ride. I heard from a number, though, who had to drive up to 3 hours each way in order to caucus! Yet even with those severe handicaps we surpassed the 2008 turnout. Thereās no question that Kansas Dems are fighting this time for sure. If this is an indicator for the general election, we may well have record turnout.
5 Likes
Great to hear there was strong turnout despite the barriers. But what numbers are you referring to? I havenāt seen any numbers at all from Kansas yetā¦which I donāt understand, as the Party announced the winner a couple of hours ago.
Edit: Nevermind ā I see the results are up now. Looks like Bernie won by about 35 points!
The main number I was referring to was in the main article, that Dem turnout was higher than in 2008.
1 Like
Thanks, I didnāt see that when I first clicked on the article ā I think they added those second two paragraphs later.
Anyway, congrats on the increased turnout compared to 2008. Over on FiveThirtyEight, David Firestone had an interesting anecdote about that:
DAVID FIRESTONE 9:54 PM
Nate, in answer to your earlier question about why Sanders won Kansas, one explanation is likely to be a very heavy turnout in Douglas County, home of the University of Kansas, and traditionally one of the most liberal parts of the state. (In the 2008 general election, 64 percent of the county voted for Obama, while virtually every other part of the state supported McCain.) The Lawrence Journal-World reported a Democratic caucus turnout so heavy that voters had to be counted on a middle-school football field.
1 Like
that is hilarious
That is pretty amazing and admirable for the people who had to jump hurdles to participate in the primary and did so. Parties should not make it this difficult for people to vote or caucus, especially if they want people to show up in the fallā¦shame on the party machinery for doing this. .
We were a tad irked as the caucusing problems began to appear, too. However, the reasons also came clearer. KS Dems have very little money, vs a very well heeled Republican party here in the Koch state, with lots of volunteers to help. Reps had I think 104 sites for the 102 counties; Dems could manage only 42, and couldnāt afford busing. With the small size of the Dem party here, volunteers to handle all the work were stretched pretty thin as well, so some efficiencies fell by the wayside, including coordinating rides and such. Dems vs Reps are basically a David/Goliath match in KS. People helped each other a lot though, typical of Kansans.
1 Like
Thatās an interesting analysis and certainly fits Lawrence/Douglas County. However, the other districts in the state voted very nearly as strongly for Bernie as did this district, so Lawrence doesnāt explain Bernieās state win. Very simply, KS appears to be Bernieās all the way.
1 Like
Going back to your original comment, are you sure they were regular primaries in 2008? Tried looking it up, kept finding references to the 2008 Kansas Caucuses.
Maybe you were thinking of a previous year?
Anyway, still good that the turnout was up. Turnout was also up in Colorado (hit a new record, I believe) and I think it was up in Minnesota as well. Not sure about Nebraska tonight, but there are anecdotal reports of high turnout. Have to see what the final numbers show.
Oops. I hadnāt moved back here yet. I didnāt realize KS had a caucus then. Oh well, so much for my hubris. Still itās pretty great that as strongly as KS voted for Obama then, they came out even more this time. Also, Iād like to know how much funding if any has come from outside KS to help this struggling Dem party. To āpurpleā red states there really should be a bit of life support, which can only benefit the party nationwide.
2 Likes
The reason being that they have discounted Bernie as has the MSM. He won Kansas in a blowout.
ā¦and for 50 years Kansas has chosen the Democratic nominee with 100% accuracy!
6 electoral votes. Big whoop.
(I would have said that either way)
40 Delegates Kanasa
46 Delegates Kentcuky
Neither are Earth shattering .
The margin was 5-1 or 4-1. This is the reason one canāt find the numbers with the Hillary shills.
Just got back on after double-secret-probation. Iāll be more timely in pointing out easily verifiable facts next time.
And?
Louisiana was a slaughter for Sanders and if you total all the votes cast tonight in all 3 states, Clinton beat Sanders by more than a 2 to 1 ratio.
1 Like
Nonsense.
Total votes tonightās 3 races:
Clinton ā 246,499
Sanders ā 114,566
By state:
Nebraska
Clinton ā 12,291
Sanders ā 15,876
Kansas
Clinton ā 12,593
Sanders ā 26,450
Lousiana
Clinton ā 221,615
Sanders ā 72,240
Now letās look at the delegates awarded tonight:
Sanders
Nebraska - 14
Kansas - 23
Lousiana - 12
Total - 49
Clinton
Nebraska - 11
Kansas - 10
Lousiana - 39
Total - 60
So Clinton expanded her lead coming into tonight in pledged delegates by 11 delegates. And she was already ahead of Sanders by 201 pledged delegates coming into tonight.
She now leads Sanders by 212 delegates after tonight:
Clinton: 671
Sanders: 459
This is not even counting the so-called āsuper-delegatesā which I have not included in any of the above delegate numbers.
Sorry if facts and reality donāt bend you your wishes.
2 Likes
Chris Reeves on DKos pretty well decimated my poorly informed talk about KS turnout. But he goes on to a very sound discussion of caucusesāthe whys and the hows, that I hope might be a foundation for vastly improving this whole process, and not just in KS. A very good read: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/6/1496916/-Here-s-the-Truth-The-Caucus-System-Remains-an-Undemocratic-Relic-From-a-Bygone-Era