WA - Elway: Clinton leads, tied race on GOP side
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:13:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
  WA - Elway: Clinton leads, tied race on GOP side
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: WA - Elway: Clinton leads, tied race on GOP side  (Read 2588 times)
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 22, 2016, 10:34:48 AM »



https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2809332-Elway-Presidential-Poll-4-21-16.html

The question was open-ended, which is a little annoying, but that's basically how the ballot is set up for the Washington primary. The results on the Democratic side will be non-binding.
Logged
yankeesfan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,148
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2016, 10:38:31 AM »

503 registered voters, April 14-17, conducted by live, professional interviewers; 20% by cell phones, +/- 4.5% MOE

That picture looks garbage, but it appears to be legit.
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2016, 10:44:24 AM »

This is why people thinking Sanders' is going to win Oregon, a closed primary, because he won Washington, in an open caucus, is crazy. I'm not saying it won't happen, I think it'll be close either way, but the results in Washington were mostly the product of the format the election took place in and indicate very little about how the vote would look in a similar place but with a completely different format. Clearly if Washington had been a closed primary Clinton would have had a good shot at winning it.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2016, 10:51:25 AM »

Sanders should be fine in Oregon. He will spend about $2-3 million there while Clinton spends nothing because she's saving for the general, and he'll net a grand total of 8-9 delegates.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,613
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2016, 11:08:00 AM »

Sanders was right that the primary process was rigged in many states.
Rigged to his favor.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2016, 11:19:20 AM »

Total junk. The way that this poll was conducted should be evidence enough that the results are not believable. Those of you who actually think Clinton would've won a closed primary here with delegates at stake are the delusional ones, not the ones who think Sanders will win Oregon.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2016, 11:25:20 AM »

No one thinks Clinton would've won a closed primary in Washington. But it wouldn't have been a 45% margin win for Sanders.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2016, 11:29:27 AM »

No one thinks Clinton would've won a closed primary in Washington. But it wouldn't have been a 45% margin win for Sanders.

I know, I was mainly responding to the poster who seems to think Oregon will be very close. It won't be. Sanders' margin won't be what it was in WA, but the PNW is still a very pro-Sanders region.
Logged
BundouYMB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2016, 11:59:28 AM »

No one thinks Clinton would've won a closed primary in Washington. But it wouldn't have been a 45% margin win for Sanders.

I know, I was mainly responding to the poster who seems to think Oregon will be very close. It won't be. Sanders' margin won't be what it was in WA, but the PNW is still a very pro-Sanders region.

Uh, just out of curiosity, what makes you think the PNW is a "very pro-Sanders region"? Yes it's like 99% white (and I admit that's arguably that's been the best predictor of Sanders' vote) but Washington and Oregon both have some of the most moderate elected Democrats in the country. The PNW Democratic Parties aren't exactly a bastion of Sanders-style liberalism in the way that, say, the Wisconsin Democratic Party is (Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, ect.) It's also, again, a closed primary, a format that Sanders has done badly in so far.

I'd like to stress that I wouldn't be surprised if he won Oregon -- I'm just saying that I don't expect it to be a blowout, and I don't think the result of an open caucus in Washington tells us much about how Oregon will vote using a completely different format.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2016, 12:45:28 PM »

No one thinks Clinton would've won a closed primary in Washington. But it wouldn't have been a 45% margin win for Sanders.

I know, I was mainly responding to the poster who seems to think Oregon will be very close. It won't be. Sanders' margin won't be what it was in WA, but the PNW is still a very pro-Sanders region.

Uh, just out of curiosity, what makes you think the PNW is a "very pro-Sanders region"? Yes it's like 99% white (and I admit that's arguably that's been the best predictor of Sanders' vote) but Washington and Oregon both have some of the most moderate elected Democrats in the country. The PNW Democratic Parties aren't exactly a bastion of Sanders-style liberalism in the way that, say, the Wisconsin Democratic Party is (Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, ect.) It's also, again, a closed primary, a format that Sanders has done badly in so far.

I'd like to stress that I wouldn't be surprised if he won Oregon -- I'm just saying that I don't expect it to be a blowout, and I don't think the result of an open caucus in Washington tells us much about how Oregon will vote using a completely different format.

Some of our Democratic politicians happen to be a bit more moderate (not Murray or Inslee), but that does not mean the Democratic voting population isn't very progressive. It is about as progressive as Wisconsin or Vermont's. I can tell you definitively that WA and OR are very polarized, inelastic states, which makes them good fits for both Sanders and Cruz. Trust me, I know my home state, and while the caucus results may be very Sanders-friendly, they're much closer to reality than this poll.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2016, 02:06:00 PM »

This isn't too surprising actually. In 08 Obama won the caucus by 37 points, but the beauty contest by only 5 points. In Nebraska he won the caucus by 36 points and the beauty contest by 3 points. In Texas he lost the primary by 4 but won the caucus by 12. We saw it on the Republican side too, with Ted Cruz winning Maine when he's about as popular as herpes in the Northeast. It seems to be a trend.

If she actually comes within single digits here (or wins it), it will definitely be another great arrow in the quiver of the cause of caucus abolition. It's true that it won't be representative either since Bernie won't be focused on running up the score and spending money there, but it will definitely be more representative than the caucus was (granted, that's not saying very much.)
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2016, 10:42:40 PM »

This isn't too surprising actually. In 08 Obama won the caucus by 37 points, but the beauty contest by only 5 points. In Nebraska he won the caucus by 36 points and the beauty contest by 3 points. In Texas he lost the primary by 4 but won the caucus by 12. We saw it on the Republican side too, with Ted Cruz winning Maine when he's about as popular as herpes in the Northeast. It seems to be a trend.

If she actually comes within single digits here (or wins it), it will definitely be another great arrow in the quiver of the cause of caucus abolition. It's true that it won't be representative either since Bernie won't be focused on running up the score and spending money there, but it will definitely be more representative than the caucus was (granted, that's not saying very much.)

I really don't think you can put any stock in beauty contests. People in this state who are likely to vote in the primary are more reliable voters (older, more affluent) which skews the results toward Hillary, similar to how caucus results are skewed to some degree toward Bernie. Your Texas example is a good one, though, since both contests were held on the same day, and both had delegates at stake, so there was incentive to participate in both. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Washington is very pro-Sanders. He might not be favored 3:1 here, but it's certainly not close, which the beauty contest might be.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2016, 07:43:33 AM »

I dunno who cares for this sh**. I know a large section of Sanders supporters didn't even care to participate in this junk stuff.

I mean this was the main issue - Which is the junk beauty poll & stuff & which was the one which mattered, so that people don't vote in this junk stuff n go back home. Reddit was full of these posts about this junk poll not mattering n stuff!
Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,802
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2016, 09:03:15 AM »

I dunno who cares for this sh**. I know a large section of Sanders supporters didn't even care to participate in this junk stuff.

I mean this was the main issue - Which is the junk beauty poll & stuff & which was the one which mattered, so that people don't vote in this junk stuff n go back home. Reddit was full of these posts about this junk poll not mattering n stuff!

Certainly agree with you there. However in the future Washington State should be a primary. It is too large to be a caucus state. Agree that Sanders would win Washington in a contested primary but the margin would be around 60-40, not 73-27
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,579
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2016, 01:02:26 PM »

Oh, if only our top-two system applied to presidential elections... Now that's a poll I'd like to see: Clinton vs. Sanders among the whole Washington electorate.
Logged
Bigby
Mod_Libertarian_GOPer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: 3.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2016, 08:20:40 AM »

Why did they lump all the candidates into one race? That doesn't tell us jack when it comes to two separate primaries.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,579
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2016, 11:46:54 AM »

Why did they lump all the candidates into one race? That doesn't tell us jack when it comes to two separate primaries.

This is how it will appear on the ballot, and it's actually probably slightly more accurate this way. If instead they had asked the respondents which party they were supporting, then which candidate, a few might have been Republicans for Sanders or Democrats for Trump. This way they can just say "who are you voting for?" and put those numbers down. Undecided also in this case includes people who don't know which party they are voting for, let alone which candidate. Also, the math isn't really that difficult for sorting out the individual primary numbers. From this it's:

Trump - 39%
Cruz - 39%
Kasich - 21%

Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2016, 11:54:07 AM »

Why did they lump all the candidates into one race? That doesn't tell us jack when it comes to two separate primaries.

This is how it will appear on the ballot, and it's actually probably slightly more accurate this way. If instead they had asked the respondents which party they were supporting, then which candidate, a few might have been Republicans for Sanders or Democrats for Trump. This way they can just say "who are you voting for?" and put those numbers down. Undecided also in this case includes people who don't know which party they are voting for, let alone which candidate. Also, the math isn't really that difficult for sorting out the individual primary numbers. From this it's:

Trump - 39%
Cruz - 39%
Kasich - 21%

Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

This primary doesn't even matter on the dem side though.  We already caucused last month, nobody is going to show up.  It's a silly poll and they should have just polled Republicans with this ballot.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,579
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2016, 12:00:17 PM »

Why did they lump all the candidates into one race? That doesn't tell us jack when it comes to two separate primaries.

This is how it will appear on the ballot, and it's actually probably slightly more accurate this way. If instead they had asked the respondents which party they were supporting, then which candidate, a few might have been Republicans for Sanders or Democrats for Trump. This way they can just say "who are you voting for?" and put those numbers down. Undecided also in this case includes people who don't know which party they are voting for, let alone which candidate. Also, the math isn't really that difficult for sorting out the individual primary numbers. From this it's:

Trump - 39%
Cruz - 39%
Kasich - 21%

Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

This primary doesn't even matter on the dem side though.  We already caucused last month, nobody is going to show up.  It's a silly poll and they should have just polled Republicans with this ballot.

So here's a conundrum: If you voted in the Democratic caucus, I assume they don't want you voting for a Republican in their primary. But what's to stop you? They're on the same line of the ballot. How can they possibly control for a load of Democrats who voted in the caucus not just voting for Kasich or Cruz to hurt Trump? There's absolutely no incentive against shenanigans here.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2016, 03:44:42 PM »

Why did they lump all the candidates into one race? That doesn't tell us jack when it comes to two separate primaries.

This is how it will appear on the ballot, and it's actually probably slightly more accurate this way. If instead they had asked the respondents which party they were supporting, then which candidate, a few might have been Republicans for Sanders or Democrats for Trump. This way they can just say "who are you voting for?" and put those numbers down. Undecided also in this case includes people who don't know which party they are voting for, let alone which candidate. Also, the math isn't really that difficult for sorting out the individual primary numbers. From this it's:

Trump - 39%
Cruz - 39%
Kasich - 21%

Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

This primary doesn't even matter on the dem side though.  We already caucused last month, nobody is going to show up.  It's a silly poll and they should have just polled Republicans with this ballot.

So here's a conundrum: If you voted in the Democratic caucus, I assume they don't want you voting for a Republican in their primary. But what's to stop you? They're on the same line of the ballot. How can they possibly control for a load of Democrats who voted in the caucus not just voting for Kasich or Cruz to hurt Trump? There's absolutely no incentive against shenanigans here.

Yet more reason to abolish caucuses.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2016, 04:27:06 PM »

The only "incentive" against it is that you have to sign an affidavit that specifically says you didn't participate in the caucus, and the party ballot you choose is public record (although caucus participation is not).
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2016, 04:31:53 PM »

The only "incentive" against it is that you have to sign an affidavit that specifically says you didn't participate in the caucus, and the party ballot you choose is public record (although caucus participation is not).

Wait, if you're a democrat you have to choose whether you vote in the caucus or the primary, you can't do both?
That don't make no sense
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2016, 04:56:49 PM »

There's really nothing to definitely prevent Democrats from voting Republican in the primary. Yet another reason why the current system in WA needs to change, and why the primary results shouldn't be considered an accurate reflection of the electorate.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2016, 06:33:41 PM »

The only "incentive" against it is that you have to sign an affidavit that specifically says you didn't participate in the caucus, and the party ballot you choose is public record (although caucus participation is not).

Wait, if you're a democrat you have to choose whether you vote in the caucus or the primary, you can't do both?
That don't make no sense

Sorry, I was unclear.  The affidavit has you testify that you did/will not participate in the other party's nomination process.  That is, if you vote in the Republican primary, you have to affirm that you didn't participate in the Democratic caucus.

There's several hundred of people who participated in the Democratic caucus in 2008 but voted in the Republican primary, so there's plenty of people who weren't stopped.  You can only find out about that if you have access to the party's databases, anyway.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2016, 05:43:54 AM »

LOL, this whole thing is silly.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.