August 10 Poll Report

August 10, 2019
 

 

August 10 Poll Report

Good afternoon everybody.   I have been on vacation visiting my sons on the West Coast, and, while I tried to update the polls every day, there were quite a few days in there when I wasn’t able to get it done.  I am back at home now, so I should be able to do regular updates from now on.

It has been four days since I have done an update, so let me begin by reporting on the four polls which have wrun since I have ritten.  In the poll of August 6th, Elizabeth Warren drew 56% against an expected 50%, with the gains coming entirely at the expense of Kamala Harris:

Scores

Booker

436

Harris

1010

Castro

372

Warren

1844

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Booker

12

Harris

28

Castro

10

Warren

50

Actual

Booker

11

Harris

22

Castro

10

Warren

56

 

In the standings posted below, Warren will be up 33 points and Harris down 36 points because of this poll.   The candidates listed in that poll control 37% of the vote, which is more than the other three polls combined, and that poll was 88% consistent with previous poll results. 

In the poll of August 7th, Michael Bennet staggered a weak polling group, taking 44% of the vote:

Scores

Weld

220

Bennet

244

Steyer

54

Ryan

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Weld

33

Bennet

37

Steyer

8

Ryan

21

Actual

Weld

28

Bennet

44

Steyer

7

Ryan

20

 

Bennet was up seven points from expectations, while all three of the others were down.  Those four candidates control only 6½% of the vote, and predictions for the poll were 85% accurate.   Michael Bennet will be up 11 points in the Support Scores (below) due to that poll, and also the removal of an old poll. 

Mike Gravel was scheduled to be included in the poll of August 8th, but he pulled out of the race a few days before that, so we wound up polling only three candidates, which I don’t like to do although there is no clear reason not to.   (If you go from four candidates to three the norm goes from 25% to 33%, but that has nothing to do with the math, since those numbers don’t play into the computations.  What goes into the computations is how one candidate fares vs. the other candidates in the group.  A win of 50% to 25% is exactly the same, in the computations, as a win of 40% to 20%.)  Anyway, Gravel hit the road, which left us with three candidates, one of whom was much stronger than the other two:

Scores

Bullock

142

Buttigieg

991

Delaney

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Bullock

11

Buttigieg

80

Delaney

9

Actual

Bullock

12

Buttigieg

78

Delaney

10

 

The system is set up to generate matches between candidates of relatively equal strength, but with a random input.  Occasionally the random numbers work out such that you get a strong candidate matched against non-competitive candidates.   Those three candidates represent 12% of the Support, and predictions for the poll were 97% accurate. 

And in yesterday’s poll, the poll of August 9th, we had Donald Trump polling his usual 25% and splitting the rest of the vote.  But there is a surprise there, which can not be explained with reference to Trump.   Gillibrand won the poll with 29%.  Accepting that most of my twitter respondents would vote against Trump in a polling group with O.J. Simpson, Seabiscuit and Frosty the Snowman, we still would have expected Gillibrand to finish behind her two Democratic rivals, not ahead of them.   Don’t know what happened there; anyway, there are the poll results:

Scores

Inslee

226

Trump

541

Gabbard

325

Gillibrand

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Inslee

17

Trump

42

Gabbard

25

Gillibrand

16

Actual

Inslee

26

Trump

25

Gabbard

21

Gillibrand

29

 

Those candidates control 13% of the support, and predictions for that poll were only 58% accurate, which is very, very low. 

The changes in the scores since our last update are actually very modest, despite four polls being added to the system and four removed.  Since our last update:

Elizabeth Warren is up 33 points,

Kirsten Gillibrand is up 22 points,

Tulsi Gabbard is up 17 points, since the removal of an old poll outweighs her disappointing performance in yesterday’s poll,

Jay Inslee is up 13 points,

Michael Bennet is up 11 points,

Pete Buttigieg is down 10 points,

Kamala Harris is down 36 points,

Beto O’Rourke is down another 34 points due to the removal of an old poll from the data considered relevant, and

Donald Trump is down 40 points. 

These are the updated Support Scores:

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1887

2

Pete

Buttigieg

981

3

Kamala

Harris

974

4

Joe

Biden

777

5

Donald

Trump

501

6

Andrew

Yang

467

7

Amy

Klobuchar

449

8

Cory

Booker

436

9

Bernie

Sanders

407

10

Julian

Castro

381

11

Tulsi

Gabbard

342

12

Beto

O'Rourke

276

13

John

Hickenlooper

257

14

Michael

Bennet

255

15

Jay

Inslee

239

16

Kirsten

Gillibrand

233

17

Bill

Weld

213

18

Howard

Schultz

164

19

Tim

Ryan

148

20

Steve

Bullock

142

21

John

Delaney

114

22

Marianne

Williamson

107

23

Seth

Moulton

101

24

Bill

de Blasio

92

25

Tom

Steyer

54

 

The Green List, which at one point had 12 names on it, is now down to four names.  Andrew Yang has temporarily dropped off the Green List, but will probably be back on it tomorrow; he is up 32% in the last 30 days.  The requirement is that a candidate has to be up 33% in the last 30 days to qualify for the Green List, but he is up 32% and is performing extremely well in the poll which is currently running.

I have two changes to the process to announce.  One is that I will start now removing TWO days of old polling each day, until the number of polls included in the system is down to 40, rather than 50.   This has to do with a few candidates dropping out of the race or being eliminated from the polling.  I need at least 15 "positioning estimates" or position points for each candidate to feel comfortable. . . well, I really need 10 points to feel pretty comfortable, but it is always better to have more data than you absolutely need.  At one point I was polling 30 or 32 candidates or something; at one point I was polling Wayne Messam and Eric Swalwell and Jeff Flake and Stacey Abrams and John Kasich.   You get 12 positioning points from each poll; with 40 polls, that’s 480 positioning point estimates to work with.  With 30 candidates, that’s just 16 per candidate—not enough to feel comfortable.  But as more candidates drop out of the race, I am more comfortable relying on fewer polls. 

The other change is that I am not going to try to write DAILY updates; I’ll do them at least twice a week and probably every two days.  I don’t mind the work, but it’s kind of the "watched pot never boils" syndrome.  When you watch the results too closely, nothing seems to be happening.  I think the reports will be more interesting if I don’t do them as often. 

In the reader comments to the last poll there was discussion about Climate Change/Global Warming, and, while this is not a Climate Change discussion page, I thought I would comment briefly about that in an effort to move the discussion.   There are what I call Spin-Your-Wheels discussions, and there are discussions which make progress. 

In the larger community, Climate Change has obviously devolved into a Spin-Your-Whells discussion in which people keep making the same arguments on both sides over and over, without many people moving their positions, sort of like a chess game in which both players keep moving their knights and bishops back and forth so that the game merely returns to where it was.  In our little community, though, could we perhaps start moving the discussion along?

I don’t see, personally, that there is any reasonable doubt that the world population is facing a tremendous problem which will have serious consequences.  I don’t think there is any doubt that the sooner we can find consensus on what needs to be done, the better off our grandchildren will be. 

Part of the problem, though, is that while the Climate Change deniers are (I think) clearly wrong, not everything which is said by the Climate Action Advocates is true.   SOME of it is true, much of it is true, but a great many things are said about Climate Change which are just complete nonsense, and many other things are said which may be true or may not.  From my standpoint, it is almost impossible to tell whether new claims are credible or are not—and I am sincerely trying. 

When people say things about Climate Change which are not true or are absurdly difficult to substantiate, this gives ammunition to those who want to deny that Climate Change is happening at all.  From my standpoint, what would appear to be helpful to moving the discussion forward would be if people who are genuinely knowledgeable about the subject would organize and bat down those who make widely publicized irresponsible or undocumented claims about Changes to the Environment.   That would be my thought.

Thank you for reading. 

 

 

 

 

 
 

COMMENTS (17 Comments, most recent shown first)

MarisFan61
Even if it were (or is) an existential issue, it's an unrelated one.

It's worthy of separate discussion, but bringing into this is a distraction.
9:41 PM Aug 12th
 
steve161
Many economists do not agree that the US national debt is an existential issue. Almost no climate scientists disagree about climate change.

If a climate scientist denied General Relativity, without addressing the math, would any physicists take him seriously?
6:24 PM Aug 12th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Maris- the debt is not unrelated when discussing things that are a threat to our grandchildren's future. The debt is first and foremost in that regard.

Secondly, many of the proposals to curb "man-made" climate change would have a negative effect on the economy if implemented. Some already have. In turn a negative effect on the economy will also contribute to the growing debt crisis.

Many are fine with the growing debt crisis which is why this current generation of politicians age 50 to 85 is the most selfish generation in history.




"Isn't it rich......"
12:37 PM Aug 12th
 
Gfletch
Ride a painted pony...
11:28 AM Aug 12th
 
MarisFan61
-- The debt issue is unrelated. There are many issues which in themselves arguably should be addressed better or at all. Unless they're related, they're unrelated, and this one is unrelated.

-- Unlike climate change, it doesn't threaten the structure of the earth and the very existence of life on earth.
10:07 AM Aug 12th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Maybe I should have been clearer in making my point because as one comment indicates below, the point was lost on them.

Man made climate change believers are never going to change the opinion of those who believe man's behaviour can change the earth's climate. Those who believe the opposite to be true i.e. that there are a multitude of forces (for example the sun) much greater than man that determine the earth's climate and that man's behaviour has almost zero effect on the changing climate are never going to convince the man made climate believers. Neither is going to happen.

However, if the goal is to make a better life for our grandchildren let's first focus on an issue that should have very little difference of opinion because it can be proven with very simple math- the debt.

There should be absolutely no doubt that the growing debt will eventually lead to a disaster for our grandchildren yet there is doubt amongst the debt deniers. Again, simple math- the same math we apply in sabermetrics should leave zero doubt of the danger of the debt. All of the Democrat candidates want to add to this debt. Many Republicans have no problem contributing to the debt. Both are groups are debt deniers.

One of the first comments posted in the last article commented on the bravery of one candidate bringing up the issue of climate change. No, political bravery is committed by those who actually try and address the national debt. Coming out and saying, "we can't afford this" or " we have to address entitlement spending" is politcal suicide given that every demagogue and media type will go on the attack.

I hope this post makes my point clear.
5:41 AM Aug 12th
 
MarisFan61
Speaking as a strong believer in climate-change-and-we've-had-a-big-role-in-it-and-we'd-better-do-stuff-about-it (BTW those are 3 somewhat separate things), I'm also 100% with what Bill says:

"....while the Climate Change deniers are (I think) clearly wrong, not everything which is said by the Climate Action Advocates is true. SOME of it is true, much of it is true, but a great many things are said about Climate Change which are just complete nonsense, and many other things are said which may be true or may not...."

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" made me angry. There were half a dozen or a dozen times where I wanted to raise my hand and interrupt and say, "But what about...."
And, if I were to take everything he presented at face value, all those data and charts, my takeaway would have been the opposite of what he was meaning to indicate. I would have concluded that we might as well take no action, because, in view of the 'long tail' nature of the causes-and-effects, i.e. the inertia-like continuation of the phenomena once set in motion, we're already screwed -- it's too late. Finally I just fell asleep.
10:30 PM Aug 11th
 
bertrecords
People here may also be interested in the climate change analysis of Nate Silver. 2012 may seem an eternity ago, though. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13588394-the-signal-and-the-noise
Sorry to belabor while off-topic.
9:24 PM Aug 11th
 
bertrecords
Gfletch-- "In our little world" where actual data often matters and where emotional arguments are not taken so seriously, we have a unique situation.

Facts and careful analysis are why we are here. Why else would we be here? As to subject matter, I don't really care. Baseball is one subject. A unique presidential polling methodology is a fine diversion from that. Climate change, why not? It is the thought processes and analysis that are the interesting parts. Just because the world at large "spins wheels" doesn't mean data driven people can't and don't make real progress.

We are flooded with data, yet few of us can untangle it into anything useful. Bill untangles. Others here do also. I am not saying every post written here is worth reading.

I tend to agree with what Bill is saying today on climate change. Prof. Muller (first post and Berkeley Earth) does too. But, that doesn't in itself prove we are right or wrong. Someone else here may have better arguments than what I have found. A data oriented person, and maybe not the general public, will change his/her mind based on solid analysis.

I am convinced your interpretation is correct, though. EOM.


9:05 PM Aug 11th
 
Gfletch
Interesting though not surprising that another polling article provokes comments only about the climate change comments, and those comments are all about climate change instead of how Bill used it as an example of a 'spinning your wheels' problem. The only comment that didn't comment on climate change unfortunately clearly belonged to another debate and had nothing to do with the "spinning your wheels' issue.
5:56 PM Aug 11th
 
bertrecords
I hope that we all recognize the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this contribution to an increase in the temperature of the Earth.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/​
4:28 PM Aug 11th
 
tkoegel
Since Mr Lein insists on reposting the Laughlin work from 2010, perhaps it would be helpful for me to post the NYTimes column collecting the response of a variety of earth scientists to that of Laughlin. My favorite quote is from Professor Carl Munsch of MIT:

"Laughlin’s case is different, and suggests willful ignorance. The physics argument seems simply that (1) past climates have been very different from today (true); (2) the changes are large compared to what we see from global warming, or expect to see, anytime soon (true). Ergo (3), there’s nothing to be done. (Physics arrogance is real, as are non sequiturs.)

I’m reminded of the old joke about the man falling off the Empire State Building who as he passes the 30th floor says “so far so good.” Civilization arose and thrives in a rather narrow climate range. And the earth never before had 6+billion people. I wonder if Laughlin has views about proliferation of nuclear weapons? After all, the amount of energy releasable is a tiny fraction of what we get from the sun — so why worry?"

You can find the collection here: dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/scientists-react-to-a-nobelists-climate-thoughts/

As to the term "climate change denier" . . . who needs to get into a battle of politically correct nomenclature? Rather than using that shorthand, why not acknowledge that Laughlin denies that it makes sense to response to the human contribution to climate change? And that the vast majority of scientists, particularly those in disciplines that directly focus on the climate (as opposed to theoretical physics) disagree with him.
11:57 AM Aug 11th
 
MattGoodrich
I'd support Frosty the Snowman. I imagine he's very concerned about climate change.

10:31 AM Aug 11th
 
LesLein
Hopefully you’re not aware where the term “climate change denier” came from. It’s an attempt to group skeptics with Holocaust deniers. The link has quotes from over 40 people who say so, many are prominent: www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html.

The first problem is that is cheapens the Holocaust, something I’m sure no one here wants to do. The second problem is that while the Holocaust really happened, there’s little evidence we’re in anything resembling a catastrophe. Over the last 80 years the annual death rate due to climate has declined by 98% (https://books.google.com/books?id=QO8KDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=moral+case+for+fossil+fuels&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7u_u9i_vjAhVnvlkKHRuLABwQ6wEwAH​oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=98&f=false). The trend is the opposite of what would happen if we in the midst of a catastrophe.

The third problem is that most skeptics, or at least the educated ones, don’t deny climate change. They point out that the climate has been changing all along. Robert Laughlin, Nobel Prize, Physics, writes:

“Six million years ago the Mediterranean Sea dried up. Ninety million years ago alligators and turtles cavorted in the Arctic. One hundred fifty million years ago the oceans flooded the middle of North America and preserved dinosaur bones. Three hundred million years ago, northern Europe burned to a desert and coal formed in Antarctica. The great ice episodes themselves were preceded by approximately 30 smaller ones between one and two million years ago, and perhaps twice that many before that …

“The geologic record as we know it thus suggests that climate is a profoundly grander thing than energy. Energy procurement is a matter of engineering and keeping the lights on under circumstances that are likely to get more difficult as time progresses. Climate change, by contrast, is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself. The earth doesn’t include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning. Far from being responsible for damaging the earth’s climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them. Were the earth determined to freeze Canada again, for example, it’s difficult to imagine doing anything except selling your real estate in Canada. If it decides to melt Greenland, it might be best to unload your property in Bangladesh. The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.”

No one can call Professor Laughlin a denier.

10:19 AM Aug 11th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Speaking of our grandchildren, the sooner we can find a consensus on the danger of the national debt, deficits and the upcoming crisis in terms of entitlement spending, the better off our grandchildren will be. That shouldn't be too difficult given the simple math involved.

Unfortunately the Democrats and many Republicans have absolutely no interest in curbing spending to prevent our grandchildren from being crushed by debt.

I haven't watched the debates. Has the debt and spending even been mentioned?
11:01 PM Aug 10th
 
bertrecords
Here is where I would look regarding climate change: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Richard-Mullers-stance-on-climate-change

Dr. Muller brings genuine scientific skepticism and genuine scientific chops.

I used to go to noaa.org for climate change info. But, the site has been dumbed down lately and may not serve your purpose at this point.
10:17 PM Aug 10th
 
shthar
Frosty the snowman, is a card carrying communist!
7:10 PM Aug 10th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy