August 13 Poll Report

August 13, 2019
 

 

August 13 Poll Report

Good afternoon.   I did a poll yesterday and am not trying to do them every day anymore, but I will not be able to post polls for the next two days because of work commitments, so I decided to post this one today.  John Hickenlooper overachieved at the expense of the dormant Howard Schultz in yesterday’s poll:

Scores

Hickenlooper

263

Schultz

163

Ryan

147

Weld

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Hickenlooper

33

Schultz

21

Ryan

19

Weld

27

Actual

Hickenlooper

39

Schultz

11

Ryan

22

Weld

27

 

If you’re color-blind and the blue highlighting causes trouble for you reading the chart, let me know and I won’t do that again.  The four candidates listed above control 8% of the Support, and predictions for the poll were 81% accurate.  Since yesterday’s report, John (Higgledy) Hickenlooper is up 12 points as a result of the poll, and Bernie Sanders is up 39 points as a result of the removal of an old poll, while Howard (Coffee Man) Schultz is down 14 points as a result of yesterday’s poll, and Cory Booker is down 24 as a result of an old poll. 

Tim Ryan, although not marked in green and not up 10 points (1/10th of one percent) since yesterday, continues to crawl forward through the list.   Since reaching a low of 80 (8/10th of one percent) on June 27, he has hit 82, 88, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 105, 108, 117, 120, 124, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140, 148 and now, as of today, based on his slight overachievement in yesterday’s poll, 152.   It looks like he won’t make the next debate, and it will be interesting to see whether that stops him or does not.  I wouldn’t pre-judge the issue.  It is likely that some candidates will drop out when they don’t make the next debate, and, based on what I have seen so far, people are not ready to embrace any of the leaders, so the support when someone else drops out could go to Ryan or Bullock or Gabbard or someone else who isn’t on the stage to make an ass of himself.  Or herself. 

As you may recall if you read these reports, I am now removing two old polls a day, gradually cutting down the number of relevant polls from 50 to 40.   We’re now at 47.   These are the current Support Scores:

 

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1881

2

Kamala

Harris

976

3

Pete

Buttigieg

966

4

Joe

Biden

773

5

Andrew

Yang

500

6

Donald

Trump

489

7

Amy

Klobuchar

461

8

Bernie

Sanders

424

9

Cory

Booker

421

10

Julian

Castro

375

11

Tulsi

Gabbard

350

12

John

Hickenlooper

275

13

Beto

O'Rourke

269

14

Michael

Bennet

258

15

Kirsten

Gillibrand

229

16

Jay

Inslee

226

17

Bill

Weld

217

18

Tim

Ryan

152

19

Howard

Schultz

149

20

Steve

Bullock

144

21

John

Delaney

112

22

Marianne

Williamson

110

23

Seth

Moulton

99

24

Bill

de Blasio

87

25

Tom

Steyer

56

 

While there are quite significant differences between my polling and the Old Fogey polls, there is a strong degree of agreement in one respect.   At the moment there are nine Democrats who have qualified for the next round of debates, and these are the nine highest-rated candidates in my polling, with one exception.   Beto O’Rourke has qualified for the next debate although, in my polls, he has fallen behind numerous other candidates; yesterday’s victory for John Hickenlooper puts Hickenlooper ahead of O’Rourke with my audience.  Otherwise, though, the eight candidates who have qualified for the Debate Stage are the eight strongest Democrats, and the next man who is likely to qualify for the debate, Julian Castro, is the next-strongest candidate. 

Thank you all for reading. 

 
 

COMMENTS (14 Comments, most recent shown first)

MarisFan61
For whatever reason, and I have no idea what, in the betting odds Yang has moved ahead of Buttigieg to be the leader of the "someone else"s -- i.e. behind Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Harris. (Not in polling, but betting odds.)

BTW, I'm not one of the bettors -- I don't get into that. But, as I've said, I regard the odds as the best indicator at any moment.
11:12 AM Aug 18th
 
MarisFan61
.....should have included, no evident high talent for personal engagement, which is as important as all those other things combined.
11:13 PM Aug 17th
 
MarisFan61
Hologr: Nothing on why Yang?

I was hoping you could shed some light on what it might be that knowledgeable people see in him. With no disrespect intended toward Yang, I'd have to say this thing which admittedly would be hard to defend as respectful: He seems to have nothing to offer, with the possible exception that he's not ridiculous, like Trump was in 2015-16 and has continued to be. As far as I know, he hasn't shown any breadth of familiarity with issues, nor depth of thought, and has no relevant experience.

I realize that some or most of what I just said could be inaccurate and unfair. I'm inviting you to tell us if that's so. But as of now, I'm slightly baffled that he's been doing even as well as he's been doing, which includes that the betting odds are showing him with a finite chance. Bill has mentioned, along with how some of the other candidates have their "natural constituencies," that Yang, as an Asian, has a core of support among Asians, which I didn't and don't know to be so, but maybe that's a lot of where his 2-3% comes from. If so, it wouldn't require any rebuttal to what I said up there and I'd fully understand it. I would even sort of embrace it.

BTW, not really related, although it's about Yang: Under the category of "Did y'all know," which I wonder because I haven't noticed it mentioned anywhere:

Yang's "$1000 a month for everybody" proposal is essentially identical to an early proposal of George McGovern in 1972. The dollar amounts aren't nearly equal, even with inflationary adjustment, but they're of similar order of magnitude. McGovern proposed a $1000 yearly benefit per person (equal to maybe $6000-$7000 now), which, among other things, was to replace the welfare system. It was widely ridiculed and so he scrapped it pretty quickly.
10:59 PM Aug 17th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Today Yang called Trump a fat slob. Isn't that fat shaming? I guess when you're < 1% you have to do something to get your numbers up.
1:32 PM Aug 16th
 
MarisFan61
Hologr: I hope you and others won't mind if I ask you for this tangent, which I'd be very interested in and which I suspect others would be too:

WHY YANG?
(I'm surprised. And genuinely curious.)

You seem to be someone who has a good feel and a good basic idea about the game, and that's why I'm surprised. From anything I can tell about Yang, he seems as serious or AS DEEP of a candidate as, say, Marianne Williamson; i.e. not very.

Why Yang?

BTW, if perchance it's that you're a campaign member (paid or otherwise compensated), I understand that that could be a reason, and that little more would necessarily be needed. :-)
5:04 AM Aug 16th
 
hologram
It should be noted that I have 38 years in political campaigning, including some time from before I could vote, myself.

Warren is running an excellent campaign. She has earned her surge and has been on a steady rise by "playing the game." She's visiting demographics, she's listening, she's kissing the babies, and she's making the famous "plans." RCP average captures this.

However, that's not the campaign I'm attached to: I'm in the Yang Gang. And news and fogey polls have all but shunned us. Which I find interesting because as I read back through the articles, today, I see movements for Yang as it correlates to campaign key moments. Key things we were doing that had ZERO impact in the press, and had some minimal effect in betting markets, are pronounced in Bill's analysis. Two key correlations, and I have to wonder: What is this dark magic? And is he using it in betting markets, because he could be shorting Beto or short-term buying Yang, or any number of positions as his data seems more accurate to my "on the ground" view of these campaigns.
1:59 AM Aug 16th
 
MarisFan61
hologr: Movement in terms of....??

If you mean 'fogey' polls, I don't know of charts or graphs per se, but you can do a virtual graph in your head (or draw one) by looking down this webpage on "RealClearPolitics":
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/

What I was referring to and which I consider (controversially, I know) a better indicator of the "at-this-moment" picture at any time is the betting odds, and there are webpages where you can see those.
Here's one:
https://electionbettingodds.com/DemPrimary2020.html#chart

BTW in looking online for these, I saw that there are any number of current articles reporting Warren's current surge in the polls. It is even more pronounced in the betting odds.
1:18 AM Aug 16th
 
hologram
Technically, I think Hologram Yang would be a lot closer to that than Actual Yang. tinyurl.com/y2gvxeqx

¯\_(?)_/¯
12:55 AM Aug 16th
 
shthar
Yang is the Johnny “Celestial Comet” Chung of presidential candidates.
8:42 PM Aug 15th
 
hologram
Is there a chart showing movement of these candidates over time? I have to say, there are two "moments" in this election cycle that these stats seem to have captured that I saw reflected in ZERO polling data and only mildly reflected in betting markets.

I've been a booster of the Yang campaign since early days. There was huge momentum going into the first debate. You caught that. We felt sucker-punched by MSNBC, but coming up on the second debate, we could feel that momentum, again. Then the second debate was a HUGE success, but the press 100% ignored it. https://youtu.be/7J6gChvG46Q

And yet ... $1.1 million dollars raised, 87% from new donors. Polling data? 0%. 1%. Same-old-same-old. The #YangGang was scratching our heads. How do your have a solid debate, raise tons of new donors, and yet the polls don't even MOVE?

But it was captured, here. You saw it.

Now, I'm pretty much leaning into my own confirmation bias, but I'm curious to see a graph-over-time. If that's elsewhere on the site, can someone point it out to me?
8:18 PM Aug 15th
 
MarisFan61
I'm looking at the more recent trend, and it is so.
10:38 AM Aug 15th
 
OldBackstop
Warren was 15 percent on PredictIt June 15 and 15 percent Tuesday, Maris.

No surge, certainly not warrant a 2 to 1 edge in Wonka points, or whatever these are.

Anyone looking at this race six months ago could look at organization and endorsements and know the Final Five. The other 20 guys panhandling camp followers will be folding before Oct. 1.

And all those interesting polls and 90 articles will be in the dustbin of history, wasted genius like the ten prime years Edison took off the mine for silver
10:42 PM Aug 14th
 
MarisFan61
Elizabeth Warren is surging, big time, in the last few days -- not so much in the actual fogey polls (that's a pretty little surge) but for sure in the "betting odds," which I consider the very best indicator at any given time, the best predictor of what's happening and especially what's going to be happening at least near-term in the broad public opinion.

So, depending on what exactly it is that Bill feels that his polling indicates, this could be a big feather in the cap for his method.

Bill: If you feel like saying -- and I realize you might not, for various reasons including that you might feel that only an idiot would need to be asking :-) but at least as far as I can tell, it isn't clear:

Is this a feather in cap for your method?
Which I guess is the same as asking, has it been part of your notion that your results predict how the candidates will be doing later on?
Some of what you've said suggests it; well actually much of what you've said suggests it, but also some of what you've said -- like, when you talked a few weeks ago about what your polling had shown for Buttigieg and Warren -- it seemed you were talking about it being a clearer reflection of a current picture than other things are, not a predictor.

I also remain skeptical that your main interest in doing this really is the per se subject matter itself, as opposed to testing a method that you're wanting to apply to something else.

In any event, folks: Warren is surging.
Biden, after having firmed up, is falling again.
Sanders, in a move that I don't think can be said to have been forecast in this polling (he has been showing tinily better here but not substantially), seems to be firming up and moving back into the serious running.
7:10 PM Aug 14th
 
OldBackstop
The Hickmeister has zero shot of making the debate... he only has 13, 000 donors of the required 130,000.

One point many miss is that the 2 percent polling requirement isn't just national polls.. it can be an "early state" polls.

I agree that one or two candidates who miss the first debate may soldier on and slip into the second-- your totals still count. But it would be a zealot or a defender in general. Those guys and girls will largely drop out and endorse a leader, hoping for brownie points and to be Minister of Socialism or something.
3:11 PM Aug 13th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy