Democratic Freak States Holy Saturday results thread (1st caucuses begin @1pmET)

[Alcon]

Also, the NYT results map shows Wahkiakum county went 17-2 Sanders with one precinct. If this is so, how did Clinton get anything out of that area? She would have been under the threshold in that one precinct. How does this work?

Wahkiakum has like ten precincts.  They must be reporting caucus sites (and delegates) instead of precincts.

It'll take a good while to post, but Sanders landslide at my caucus site in Downtown Seattle.  I don't think quite 80-20.  Some of the wealthier, older precincts split or narrowly went Clinton.  Mine was a narrow Clinton win.

[Alcon]

^ Let's see if that holds up with King County, which has a lot of wealthy people and some minorities.  So far these are all low-wage rural counties.

[Alcon]

There is no way Sanders won 98% in West Seattle.  It's the most suburban part of Seattle.

When they claim 7% are reporting, I don't think that means 7% of the caucus vote is in. Certainly those 5 rural counties are not 7% of the state population or 7% of the precincts. Is it 7% of the caucus sites?

yes.  Some caucus sites had a few small precincts.  Ours had like 35 big ones.

[Alcon]

You could probably find more Sanders opponents at a Sanders rally than the West Seattle Caucus... I'm sure some people just went for the lolz or to accompany friends.

dude, Beet man, you do this with, like, every election.  Those aren't the right West Seattle numbers, and Clinton hit viability in most of our precincts (some of the most left-wing in Seattle), and even won a few of the older ones.

[Alcon]

I also love all the people on here who are like "Beet! Quit being unreasonable! Your candidate only has 2% of the vote in 1/17th of a major urban center! Stop freaking out!"

As I said, that is (obviously) not the correct number.  West Seattle is more suburban, wealthy, and old than the rest of Seattle.  There is no damn way that Sanders got 98%.  You are being ridiculous.

edit: told you!

[Alcon]

Someone on twitter is claiming the 98% Sanders thing is a lie.

https://twitter.com/withmeyourheart/status/713826069296451584

1484 is the number of the precinct, they say. The actual result is 28-11. If people would stop lying and posting bad information, we would maybe be able to have reasonable analysis.

I thought NC taught you not to take random stuff Bernie people on Twitter/Reddit say as gospel.

Yeah no way 1484 people live in a single precinct.
Unless... how do they deal with supertall apartment buildings?  If 3000 people live in one block of skyscrapers, do they all vote in one precinct?

Yeah, everyone with the same physical address currently has to be in one precinct, and precincts are maxed out to something like 1,200 registered voters.  I'm not sure how we'll handle that if they ever build something like this.

[Alcon]

They don't have the population, but they sure as hell have the delegates. Sanders just made up over 500,000 vote deficit from Florida today.

Im just gonna put you on ignore. Oh wait, I can't because your a moderator. Torie with his conspiracy theories, Tender Branson with his racism, you with your hysterics. I'm just gonna come back here when Hillary is sworn in, alright?

Seriously, Likely Voter is the only level headed one still here right now.

And Mr. Morden.

I'm honored if I'm being confused with Mr. Morden

[Alcon]

Looks like some suburban parts of Seattle were significantly closer.  The Queen Anne caucus site was 43 Sanders, 37 Clinton.

The 1-1 thing in King County is just a test.

[Alcon]

Anecdotally hearing that Pierce County will be very heavily Sanders.

edit: first caucus site in there -- 77.5% Sanders

[Alcon]

Have all the caucus places in Washington closed yet, Alcon?  When can we call it?

It's not so much about "closing," but when the organizers get things together and turn them in -- that can be a while after the site has "closed" for public voting.  I'd be shocked if any precincts aren't done voting.  Caucus sites still getting their stuff together...yeah, that's possible.  Basically, I think all the votes have been counted and delegates allocated.  The next step is to get them to a central site that reports them.  That's most of the lag here.

Franklin County goes 80-20 Sanders

That's interesting, since it has a lot of Latino voters and was close in 2008.

Why do these wealthier precincts vote clinton when sanders is less religious?

Religion is a non-issue, until crazy far-right wing people try to enforce it.

religion has absolutely been one of the reasons for sanders trouble in the black south.

Religion is part of the cultural clash between Sanders and southern blacks, but I don't think it's the main thing.  In any case, the rich voters are mostly pretty to very secular; a lot of them are voting Clinton because...well, for obvious reasons, rich people are mostly less excited about Sanders.  They also tend to be in more Clinton-friendly demographics anyway (they're older).  I don't think there are many secular people (except hardcore young ones perhaps) who are voting against Clinton for being "too religious," in any case...

[Alcon]

if sanders ran third party, would a generic R compete with hilalry in WA?

damn these margins are insane.

I think so. If you do a real quick estimation, Sanders is getting 75% in the caucus, Obama got 56% in the general election in 2012. .75 * .56 = .42. And Mitt Romney got 41% in 2012.

Caucusgoers are totally unrepresentative of even Washington Democrats.  Watch the pointless May primary have drastically higher turnout and Sanders do quite a bit worse.  Also, a huge proportion of Sanders supporters will vote Clinton if she's the nominee over a third-party challenge.

Grays Harbor 2008: 55% Obama
Grays Harbor 2016: 73% Sanders

That area typifies the kind of area Sanders would outperform Obama -- economically devastated whites.

[Alcon]

Here's the citation:

In 2008, white caucus voters in Yakima County outnumbered Hispanic voters 83%-15%.

Precinct 1930 and 1932, "both one of the most Asian areas of Seattle," have whites outnumbering Asian as registered voters by a margin of 58%-23% (in other words, under a quarter Asian).  That are definitely way more Asian precincts in Seattle than these two, but nonetheless, the Asian population is way underrepresented among voters and even moreso among caucus attendees.  When it comes to 2008 caucusgoers, whites outnumbered Asians in these two precincts by a margin of 85% to 6%.

The point I'm making: be wary of extreme mismatches between an area's demographic make-up (especially when it's self-reported by some randomer) and the actual turnout of the vote you're looking at.  Maybe minority turnout was up huge in these areas since 2008 -- but I think it's much more likely that the caucusgoers there were overwhelmingly white.

[Alcon]

Here's the citation:

In 2008, white caucus voters in Yakima County outnumbered Hispanic voters 83%-15%.

Precinct 1930 and 1932, "both one of the most Asian areas of Seattle," have whites outnumbering Asian as registered voters by a margin of 58%-23% (in other words, under a quarter Asian).  That are definitely way more Asian precincts in Seattle than these two, but nonetheless, the Asian population is way underrepresented among voters and even moreso among caucus attendees.  When it comes to 2008 caucusgoers, whites outnumbered Asians in these two precincts by a margin of 85% to 6%.

The point I'm making: be wary of extreme mismatches between an area's demographic make-up (especially when it's self-reported by some randomer) and the actual turnout of the vote you're looking at.  Maybe minority turnout was up huge in these areas since 2008 -- but I think it's much more likely that the caucusgoers there were overwhelmingly white.

Since those aren't 2016 statistics, we still can't be sure that they apply to this year. The point is, some minorities did turn out, and, based on Sanders' sweeping win, were probably solidly for Sanders. Also, I doubt that caucusgoers in Hawaii were overwhelmingly white, considering the demographics of the state.

I agree that caucusgoers in Hawaii are probably not overwhelmingly white, but too many extrapolations are happening in this thread.  Do you think it's reasonable to assume those precincts went from 6% Asian in 2008 to being a good metric of the Asian vote in 2016? I don't at all.   That area is getting more white, if anything, and I see no reason to assume Asian turnout skyrocketed.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if Hispanic turnout in Yakima was up -- the population is growing, and Sanders held a rally in the middle of Yakima -- it's still probably hard to draw inferences in the final numbers if they were like 20% of the turnout (up from 15%).  Let's say Yakima County Hispanics were 20% of Yakima County turnout and split 50%-50% between Clinton and Sanders.  Assuming that the delegate allocation reflects the final vote, Sanders getting 75.7% would require him winning Yakima whites with about 82%.  That seems high to me -- I suspect he did win Hispanics -- but he hit the low 80's in several Eastern Washington counties, and Hispanic turnout may not have hit 20%, so we can't be sure.

It is pretty unlikely to imagine Sanders almost hit 80% in Franklin County without winning a majority of Hispanics there, to be fair.