Cross Tabs

2016prim.png

Crosscut Washington Primary Poll

HOLD ON ONE FUCKING MINUTE!!!

I was at that primary caucus in 2016. I was a delegate for Bernie. Bernie won my precint in Green Lake and I went to the district caucus in Wallingford.

I have old vote records listed at ToP from the caucus. I can GUARANTEE you it wasn't 17% for Bernie Sanders.

So this poll, which is released just as early voting begins in Washington (already cast my ballot); this poll come from our local PBS affiliate which seems to be all-in on the Bloomberg front what I can see. KCTS is the playground of the plutocrats in Seattle.

21 Bernie Sanders
15 Michael Bloomberg
11 Elizabeth Warren
11 Amy Klobuchar
10 Joe Biden
9 Pete Buttigieg

Ok, so the good news here, is that even among this elite coterie, Bernie is still winning.

EDITED FOR FORMATTING

ONE FINAL ADDENDUM:

I sent the following email to Elway Research. I wouldn't normally do this kind of thing, but FWIW the Elway Poll has a history here in the NW since 1992 as being a "non-partisan" important pollster. Since the partnership with KCTS, and the wholesale takeover of PBS by rightwing Oligarchs, I have real misgivings about their purpose here. I have also forwarded the email to Joel Connelly who covered the story for the Seattle Post Intelligencer. So here it is, if anyone cares.

I have attempted to contact you by phone, but you do not appear to taking calls at the moment.
I have serious concerns about the methodology and sample used in your recently released Elway Washington Primary Poll.

What sent off immediate alarms bells, was when I saw the results of your poll to question 8.

8.In the Primaries in 2016, who did you support or President? [DO NOT READ]

67 Clinton
17 Sanders
4 Another Democrat
4 Trump
1 Another Republican
2 A Third Party Candidate
5 No Answer

Now as someone who participated in the 2016 caucus in Washington State, and was in fact a delegate from my precinct, these numbers cannot possibly be representative. As you well know Bernie won 73% of the delegates in the caucus. In the “beauty pageant” primary that occurred later, a contest that produced no National delegates, Bernie received 48% of the vote.

Note in your sample you have Sanders' supporters at 17%. Is that number self-identified? Are people misremembering their own votes? Are they telling us who they supported in the General Election? We have no idea, because apparently you weren’t interested in finding out.

But even if we somehow believe that over 40% of Sanders' supporters “forgot” who they supported in 2016, there are major demographic issues with your sample.

For example:

9. I have just four last questions for our statistical analysis. How old are you?
12 18-35
24 36-50
24 51-34
38 65+
2 No Answer

Somehow you have nearly 2/5 of the representative sample being over the age of 65. This is simply bad polling.

11.What is the last year of schooling you completed?
12 High school
23 Some college or vocational school
38 College degree
26 Post-graduate school
1 No Answer

In this sample a full 64% has a college degree.
Here are the actual numbers from the Washington State Department of Financial Management:

Year Bachelor's Degree or Higher
2017 35.5%
2010 31.0%
2000 27.7%
1990 22.9%
1980 19.0%
1970 12.7%

There are clearly serious sampling issues with your poll. I would like some clarification as to how your sample was chosen. And I will be sharing this email publicly as well.

Sincerely

Tags: 
Share
up
32 users have voted.

Comments

Hawkfish's picture

At Hamilton. And no way was it 17% Sanders. We were more pro Bernie than the rest of the state - which he won iirc. Plus we had four of the seven “faithless electors”.

Edit: I forgot - there was also a “beauty contest” primary in May? Which Clinton won. Probably because half the electorate couldn’t be bothered. But our caucus was mobbed, so I don’t buy the motivation argument in this case.

up
25 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

@Hawkfish as did every single other person on earth, so good catch.
Is that what they are referring to in the crosstabs? Was that the result of the state primary?
I went to the New York times and all they have is (lol):
caucus.png

up
19 users have voted.

@Hawkfish but it's the only place I could find that bothered to put up some numbers.

Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in Washington state Tuesday, though she technically got no closer to becoming the party’s 2016 presidential nominee.

With 74 percent of the vote counted, the former first lady had 54 percent of the vote, to rival Sen. Bernard Sanders‘ 46 percent.

However, the primary was largely a beauty contest, as Washington already had allocated its delegates to the Democratic National Convention in March caucuses. Mr. Sanders won that contest handily, taking 74 of the state’s delegates, to Mrs. Clinton’s 27.

up
20 users have voted.
Shahryar's picture

@konondrum thanks, so this poll is skewed, slightly overstating "centrists" and wildly missing lefties.

The difference from 46% to 17% makes it unreliable (being generous)

up
14 users have voted.

@konondrum
WA Caucuses - Sanders 73%
WA Primary - Sanders 48% (not a factor in the nomination)
Today pollster can only find 17% that voted for Sanders and 67% the voted Hillary.

Assuming a majority of those polled aren't senile, the most likely innocent explanation is that that majority didn't hear the question, didn't attend a caucus, and/or didn't vote in the primary and reported who they voted for in the '16 general election. Or the pollster doesn't know the first damn thing about poll sampling or was paid to pull a fast one.

up
14 users have voted.

@Marie Thanks

up
4 users have voted.

@konondrum
self-protection are large factors in mis-remembering one's past behavior. ie. after Nixon's resignation, pollsters couldn't find samples that conformed to the 1992 election results. Don't recall the specific numbers, but it was dramatic. Something like only 40% admitted to voting for Nixon when the official results had it at 60%. No way was CREEP able to fix that election by 20%; so, in those post-Watergate polling samples people were either knowingly lying or had deluded themselves. Can't see where that type of phenomenon is at play in this poll, but it's something to keep in mind for future polls.

up
5 users have voted.
earthling1's picture

@Marie
Thurowl
Acurat
Relieable

up
6 users have voted.

After six years, still getting robo-calls from Marriot Hotels.
They're like herpes.

earthling1's picture

@Hawkfish
and it was full on 80% for Sanders. They are getting really desperate now.
Anything could happen at this point.
TPTB are capable of any solution to stop The People's Choice.

up
14 users have voted.

After six years, still getting robo-calls from Marriot Hotels.
They're like herpes.

orlbucfan's picture

@earthling1 in all the state primaries/caucuses, and the DumboNC screws with The People’s Choice, worse than shite will hit the fan. Folks are hurting and they are pissed and scared, nationwide. Rec’d!!

up
11 users have voted.
Anja Geitz's picture

Was the look on pundits faces as the numbers from Nevada were coming in.

Polls that lie? People who were in for Hillary still don't believe me when I tell them that most of the polls CNN and MSNBC were using never included voters in the 18-38 yo demographic. They also don't look at the crosstabs on polls. I dunno. Maybe there's a connection.

up
16 users have voted.

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

(will delete if others object)

Note: all the Democratic candidates attended the NAN Ministers Breakfast this morning and each spoke for 5-10 minutes.

up
17 users have voted.

@Marie will add another tidbit wrt the SC primary:

Jesse Jackson, February 25, 2020 The Important Word When Bernie Says 'Democratic Socialism' Is 'Democratic'

Jesse has been in SC this week doing GOTV. Stopped just short of an endorsement for Sanders by including a positive (inaccurate IMO) comment about Warren.

Jesse and Al may have put a dent in the SC DP drive for Biden. Biden will still do well, but a Sanders win may be more possible than I considered a few days ago.

up
8 users have voted.
PriceRip's picture

this ( @Marie ), @Marie , I thought, " and I will repost this ( @Marie ) posthaste if you delete it.

          I lived through the 50s and 60s, in a very isolated region but "cheek by jowl" with the issues. This history is very important and germane to the present situation.

          The parallels are striking and instructive for those that wish to have history not repeat itself.

RIP

up
3 users have voted.

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert J. McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman. From a press briefing during the Vietnam war.

@Marie
have happened had Al Gore chosen Jackson for his VP nominee.

I think it would have been a landslide.

up
5 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd
Not such a flip response. Junior at that time at least had a couple of terms in the US House; Senior has never held elective office. MLK, junior understood the difference between being an activist, and in his case religious minister, and an elected politician/lawmaker. Different skills sets and different assessment measures should be used to assess effectiveness. While still very young when he died, he was very clear that he would never run for political office.

While I don't know precisely when it happened, by 2008 I knew that there was no impediment for a woman or AA to become POTUS and by extension that also included VPs. That wasn't the condition in 2000 for an AA (and the AA vote was already solid for Gore). Perhaps more favorable for a woman, but there were very few from which to choose and none of them added anything to a Gore ticket. It's tempting to speculate what would have happened with Bob Graham on the ticket because he carried weight in FL. OTOH, that calculation doesn't work as well as it did throughout more of the US history and can backfire as too cynical. Plus and for good reasons, Gore didn't originally have FL on his list of targeted states. Finally, as the MSM had already been pummeling Gore over imaginary idiosyncrasies, they would have had a field day with Graham.

Landslides may also be a thing of the past, or not possible in the 1988-?? era. The GOP God, guns, racism/sexism, and tax cuts for the wealthy is too repulsive for Democrats to crossover. And Republicans will stick with a real Republican and not the Republican-lite that Democrats since 1988 have been offering and that GOP v. GOP lite isn't a meaningful enough difference to get that additional 5-10% to vote.

Where was Gore weak? The south and central 'bible belt' with its racism and fake religiosity and personal morality. Clinton/Gore carried TN twice but not with a majority, against a Republican and a Republican anti-NAFTA candidates. As a "favorite son," that 47% was good enough in '92 but a loser in 2000. So, the question became how to add MO to a MN, WI, IL, IA swath, add OH to a NY, PA, MI swath, hold NV and NM, or hold NM and retake CO. Holding WI, IA, and NM weren't even easy tasks. The was no prominent Democratic politician that as VP could be instrumental in nailing down one of those options and at the same time not jeopardize the states already in the must hold category. However, almost anyone would have been better than Lieberman who not only didn't add anything to the ticket electorally, but made for an awkward looking ticket.

If one is going to use the VP slot to make a statement about inclusivity, make damn sure it will bring in more needed voters in at least one critical state. Was there even one politician like that in 2000?

Not in the inclusivity category, there was one politician that would have been a big bonus for the ticket. But he wanted the top job and like a child wasn't about to swallow his pride to be second banana.

up
0 users have voted.

@Marie
JJ senior was in fact elected as a "shadow senator" from the district of columbia, serving 6 years in the 90s.

These counterfactuals are difficult to entertain with any serious precision. I just happen to think that a whole lotta folks -- in particular, but not only, African Americans -- would have showed up who didn't. Don't forget that Jackson got about 30% of the national delegates in the '88 primary. He had a populist message similar in many ways to that of Sanders ("when the orderly who changes those sheets gets sick, there's no bed for him to lie down in"). The speech he gave on the steps of the Wisconsin Capital was one of the 3 most dramatic and enthusiastically received that I've personally witnessed.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd kept a recording of the '84 convention speech for a long time. Still, unless you can cite a state that would have flipped with Jackson's presence on the ticket and without jeopardizing one the Gore won without Jackson on the ticket, it wouldn't have been a winning ticket.

Jackson was active in that election on behalf to Gore. Very visible in FL during the recount before it was aborted and the MSM trashed him during that period.

Should also mention that I thought highly of Junior as a lawmaker and member of the House and expected that one day he could be on a national ticket. It did pain me to see him go down for something as stupid as enriching himself with campaign funds.

up
2 users have voted.

@Marie
map ... and i can't imagine that being a priority in the near future ... or ever, really, i guess.

up
0 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

I live in Kitsap County, WA, and caucused there. It was overwhelmingly Bernie where I was at. Something like 69% or more. Now, that primary which came a few months after and was just for show? Yea, it went to Clinton. But the caucus? Totally Bernie. I was a delegate for Bernie to the next higher up caucus. It was also overwhelmingly for Bernie.
8 years before that, I caucused, am ashamed to say, for Clinton against Obama. Why? I didn't trust Obama. I was right about that. But I shouldn't have trusted Clinton either, and learned not to as soon as she started her sec of state gig. The energy in that primary, for Clinton or Obama, was about 1/5 the energy in the 2016 primary for Bernie, and the number of attendants in 2008 reflected that energy, being much lower than in 2016.

up
5 users have voted.

@Sima caucused in two election cycles is very interesting and informative for a couple of reasons. Most striking is that it differs so much from the stats and media reports on those two primary election cycles and only someone that had caucused in a state that didn't get intense media scrutiny could have seen it. Participation in the '08 IA caucuses far exceeded that of 2016 and 2016 voter turnout in primary states was either flat or down from that of 2008. GE turnout followed the similar pattern, mostly flat for both parties with a few exceptions.

In theory caucuses should be a superior method to choose nominees: participants being more informed and more engaged. In practice and overall, it's not living up to the promise, particularly in IA. Academic at this point for WA. The switch to a primary (and an early one at that) will mean that conservative Democrats will carry more weight in the WA delegation to the national convention than they did in '08 and '16. A WA primary in '08 would have put Clinton closer to that nomination.

I trusted Clinton in '08 and '12 to continue following her neoliberalcon record and conservative orientation. She also demonstrates poor political instincts and is lousy at retail politicking.. My assessment in '08 was that Obama was either a neoliberalcon clone or to some unknown degree less of a neoliberalcon clone and appeared to have slightly better political instincts and retail political skills. That "to unknown degree less" turned out to be very small (perhaps reduced by giving Clinton a free hand at State). Thus, I was never enthralled with Obama nor disappointed in getting one more very mediocre President. Given nearly no choice between the two, the electorate still managed to go with the ever so slightly better of the two. The same can't be said of the Democratic electorate in '16.

up
2 users have voted.