Who will win the Washington State Democratic caucuses?

As I understand it, this question, as asked, won't be decided until June 15th:

"At precinct caucuses Feb. 9, delegates representing presidential candidates are elected.

"They then attend legislative district caucuses, held April 5, and county conventions, held April 19. At the legislative district caucuses, delegates representing each candidate are elected and attend the Congressional-district caucuses and the state convention.

"The county conventions address other party business.

"Congressional-district caucuses are held May 17, during which 51 delegates are allocated proportionally to candidates.

"Elected delegates then attend the state convention, held June 14-15. An additional 27 pledged delegates and two unpledged add-on delegates are selected at the state convention. In addition, 17 party leaders and elected officials automatically become unpledged delegates."

Hmm... I'm not sure what this is talking about also where did you get it from? Is this talking about superdelegates?

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

I got it from the source listed in the Settlement rules -- "The New York Times".
The information didn't include super delegates.
See: <http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/WA.html>
Information is "below the fold".

Get the popcorn ready were in for a long wait.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

It is generally accepted that Obama won Washington. It was accepted 24 HOURS AGO. What IS the problem here?

good point any news-source will tell you taht obama won... so what are we waiting for...

randburg and germanicus -- I understand what you're saying ...
As I read it, I think one needs to be able to state how many delegates each candidate won in order to resolve this question.

with 97% of the districts reporting - Yahoo! news reports 25 delegates pleged to Obama - 12 to Clinton. What else is needed to settle this question?? http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

well as long as you know who won more you dodnt need to kow the exact number to declare a winner.

I don't disagree ... it's the "Settlement Details" that spell out what's needed.
(I cashed out at 97% rather than wait ... )

well cash out is not available atm...

Try it ;-)

@ germanicus,

I just read that one could cash out on suspended questions ... but that was a bug. So, you are correct that cash out is not (any longer) available.

<http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/another_new_rule>

what's going on here? i live in washington. he won. and trust me, if we voted again tomorrow, he'd win again. i'm also a delegate, and like every other precinct delegate in the state, i'm already pledged to vote for Obama at the next level. i don't understand what the deal is...

still suspended? i'm losing interest in hubdub...because of things like this...this is ridiculous. the question has been answered, the vote is over...

First, thank you for getting the "voids" refunded, at last. I take it that the glitch has been sorted and hopefully all will be ok now, in the event of a void. This was a programming problem and has been fixed. Many Thanks.

HOWEVER, the Washington Democratic Caucuses problem is NOT a programming error. It is Friday now, and for ALL of us who have been unlucky enough to have participated in the Washington Democratic Caucuses prediction, our money has been TIED UP for days, long after the prediction ended. We are at an unfair disadvantage in not having been able to use our funds (tied up in this prediction) for ANY purpose for the last six days. Our money has been frozen and there has been NO way to even cash it out and go on without waiting for a decision.

At this point there is no fair way to compensate the members who participated in this prediction. Whether you were right or wrong in this prediction, EVERYONE has LOST, and there is still no conclusion.

This matter must be settled by the American Politics Editor -- who is ultimately responsible -- at this time. Someone must take authority and decide this matter.

Everyone -- as 40styles, who is a WASHINGTON DELEGATE (!) -- KNOWS that Obama won. If truthwrangler and the American Politics Editor insist on holding out on a petty technicality when there is absolutely no question about the outcome, WHY NOT go back to the individual who submitted the question, explain the problem, and obtain their permission to CHANGE the settlement source? The editor has no problem lately in going back to the author of a question to change the question wording slightly OR even to change the wording HIMSELF to make the question clearer. That is what an editor is supposed to do, and we support that. Then Why is there so much nonsense about settling this question?

Did the original author INTEND for there to be chaos in settling this question? I doubt it. Enough is enough.

I really hate to "complain" when Hubdub is mostly fun and well organized.

As I've stated I will resolve this tonight. Expect either a void or a settlement, The final answer will be finalized by today. This market is taking a long time to resolve and I understand that. I'm meeting with all of the other Hubdub staff tonight, so we can come up with and implement ideas so that markets like these don't cause problems in the future.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

I hope Ryan is right, because I'm really disappointed with Hubdub right now, and considering quitting - but this started out as a lot of fun, so i hope the editors are able to fix the current bugs...

@ randburg -- you wrote:

"If truthwrangler and the American Politics Editor insist on holding out on a petty technicality when there is absolutely no question about the outcome ... "

Randburg, if you read my other posts, especially Comment #10, you would (likely) know that I have been in support of having the question resolved ... (i.e "I don't disagree ...") -- and I have/had no interest in "holding out".

In fact, just the opposite: my posts attempted to illuminate what the difficulty was, specifically the terms of the "Settlement Details" are what determines "the winner" ... for this question and all questions.

In this instance, the explicit requirements of the Settlement Details aren't realistic, IMNHO, for the question, and do hinder a "timely settlement". In other cases, explicit requirements may be a good thing.

In any event, it looks like this question will be decided later today. (My vote would be for "settlement" rather than "void").

@truthwrangler

Truthwrangler cashed out -- read BALED OUT -- at 97%, and is probably the only person to have got anything out of this prediction. THEN truthwrangler proceeds to argue with the Editor about how the technical terms will not allow settlement of this prediction for a very very long time. The Editor is caught in the middle between truthwrangler (who has almost no interest in the outcome of this prediction at this point) and THE REST OF US (who had enough faith in the system to ride out the prediction to it's natural end). FAITH REWARDED? Hardly.

I WONDER if truthwrangler would be so verbal about this technicality if HIS/HER money were still tied up in this prediction...HOW ABOUT A NEW RULE: that you can NOT make a comment if you don't have an active investment in a prediction??

Does anyone know why this wasn't settled last night after being assured it would be done yesterday?

@ randburg

I can see how, from where you sit, you may view me as "the enemy" (so-to-speak).

What's true is that I did have money on this question, and checked on it after the Caucus. I looked at the "Settlement Details" as was surprised by what I found on the NY Times site.

I commented (reported) on that (as the first comment on this question).

In response to a question from the Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor, I provided further information, and it was then that the Editor decided to "wait".

While I understood that decision, I didn't want to wait -- so it was then that I cashed out at 97%. At the time, one could cash out on "suspended questions" ... and since then, that option (bug) has been changed (which I also commented on).

As you know, forum posts and "electronic messages" often don't communicate the tone of a message ... and I think that may be in play here. My "style" in these forum posts was to "present information" rather than "judgment" ... said differently: my posts may not have communicated to you how or what I felt about the information.

When you say "The Editor is caught in the middle between truthwrangler ... and THE REST OF US", in my view you give me far more influence than I have -- and far less authority to the Editor. I sincerely doubt that the Editor felt any influence from me ... albeit he may have seen the difficulty of the explicitness of the Settlement Details" as a result of my initial post.

I'm glad this question has been settled, and that you, and others who had winning predictions on this, have received their reward. Maybe the "explicitness-factor" of this question will result in better questions in the future.