August 16 Poll Report

August 16, 2019
 

 

August 16 Poll Report

Good afternoon.  I have not done a poll report for the past two days, have not done one since Tuesday, because I have had obligations I couldn’t dodge.  Tuesday’s poll went more or less as expected; Elizabeth Warren over-achieved by a couple of points, but the poll went 95% as expected:

Scores

Warren

1881

Buttigieg

966

Biden

773

Klobuchar

461

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Warren

46

Buttigieg

24

Biden

19

Klobuchar

11

Actual

Warren

48

Buttigieg

22

Biden

20

Klobuchar

11

 

That doesn’t stir the numbers much.   The poll of Wednesday also went pretty much as anticipated, although Howard Schultz got a shot of adrenaline somewhere:

Scores

Sanders

424

Schultz

149

Hickenlooper

275

Harris

976

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Sanders

23

Schultz

8

Hickenlooper

15

Harris

54

Actual

Sanders

24

Schultz

12

Hickenlooper

13

Harris

51

 

As you may remember, I have also begun deleting two old polls a day from the data considered relevant; until this week I was eliminating one a day, but now two a day, shortening the list of relevant polls from 50 to 40.  We’re now at 46. 

And now I have some bad news that I have to share.  This polling exercise appears to be near an end.  I don’t think I can sustain it much longer. 

In yesterday’s poll the four contestants were Beto O’Rourke, Donald Trump, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang.  The predictions for that poll, based on previous polling, would be that Andrew Yang would win the group with 38% of the vote.

Scores

O'Rourke

269

Trump

489

Williamson

110

Yang

500

Predicted

O'Rourke

20

Trump

36

Williamson

8

Yang

37

 

  Early in the voting, however—four or five hundred votes in—Beto O’Rourke was out-performing expectations by a huge margin.  I didn’t take notes, but he was at something like 58%. 

Well, you know what that means; it means that somebody has re-tweeted the poll to a group of Beto O’Rourke supporters.   That’s fine; the polls can survive that up to a point.  Dave Pinto and Pat Porter re-tweet the polls regularly, which is great, and there’s a guy who re-tweets the polls to a more conservative audience, which I appreciate his doing, because the Twitter audience leans so far to the left that it is in danger of falling off the mound and landing on first base in the middle of its delivery. 

Sometime about mid-day, however, an Andrew Yang supporter noticed this, and responded by re-tweeting the poll to an Andrew Yang support group of some kind.  This kind of got out of hand.   My polls usually get about 1,150 responses, but this one got 3,569 responses.  Yang, whose track record would suggest that he would get about 38% of the vote, a little bit better than that, honestly, since he was running against Donald Trump, but he got 62% of the vote. 

Nothing against Andrew Yang or his supporters or his enthusiastic supporters, but this is how the poll ends.   I gather that this is called "brigading". . .. don’t know what the derivation of that expression is. 

Anyway, I’ve always known that this would happen at some point, and this is how the poll ends.  We’ve had a good run; we had 120-some polls before we got here.  But polls which have an open doorway—that is, polls which allow anyone who chooses to participate to participate—have an inherent problem which will at some point sink them.  Maybe we’re not at that point yet, but it has to happen sooner or later.  Once people learn that they CAN end the poll by doing this, somebody will.

I did not enter the Andrew Yang/Beto O’Rourke poll into the data.   It’s like this:  suppose that your exercise plan is that you swim 30 minutes in your pool every morning, but you wake up one morning and discover that your neighbor’s sewer system has backed up and the overflow ran into your pool. Do you do your swimming that morning, or do you skip it?   You skip it, right?  I am just skipping that pool, not entering the results into the system.   Again, nothing against the people who did this; it was inevitable. 

For now, I’ll continue to post the daily polls, see how it goes.   It’s really easy to see when this brigading becomes a problem; there are many different signals that let you know that’s what’s happening.  I posted a poll today; I’ll post one tomorrow, see what I get.   At some point, the political partisans will flood the system, and I’ll have to stop.   It’s OK; everything comes to an end.  If it isn’t a life or a marriage, it isn’t a big deal.  I’ve gotten a lot out of it, and actually, I think I can continue the process in a different venue.  We’ll see. 

 

These are the current Support Scores for the 24 candidates that I am tracking:

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

Beto

O'Rourke

269

13

Michael

Bennet

258

14

Kirsten

Gillibrand

229

15

Jay

Inslee

226

16

Bill

Weld

217

17

Tim

Ryan

152

18

Howard

Schultz

149

19

Steve

Bullock

144

20

John

Delaney

112

21

Marianne

Williamson

110

22

Seth

Moulton

99

23

Bill

de Blasio

87

24

Tom

Steyer

56

 

John Hickenlooper-Scooper has dropped out of the race since my last post.  Hickenlooper had 275 points, or 2.75% of the support, so when he drops out, those 275 points have to go somewhere.  Because of that, there are 13 candidates who are up ten points or more since the last post.  Basically, they’re splitting up Hickenlooper’s 275 points, and everybody winds up a little bit ahead.  Since my last post:

Pete Buttigieg is up 91 points, almost entirely as result of the removal or an old poll, which was taken just after the South Bend police shooting.   What we learn from this is that that incident has NOT seriously wounded Buttigieg, at least with this audience. 

Also, Kamala Harris is up 22 points, Jay Inslee is up 20, Elizabeth Warren up 19, Howard Schultz up 16, Bernie Sanders up 15, Julian Castro up 14, Amy Klobuchar up 14, Michael Bennet up 13, Tim Ryan up 13, Andrew Yang up 11, Bill Weld up 10, and Tulsi Gabbard up 10.   

Joe Biden is down 16 points because. . .well, he’s Joe Biden; his campaign is slowly dying, he just hasn’t figured it out yet.  He’s down 168 points in the last month, and 436 points in the last two months. 

Thank you all for reading.  We’ll hope that we can continue for a little while longer, anyway.  

 

 

 

 

 

OOPS.   The standings posted above are the old standings, before today.  These are the updated standings:

 

 

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1900

2

Pete

Buttigieg

1057

3

Kamala

Harris

998

4

Joe

Biden

757

5

Andrew

Yang

511

6

Donald

Trump

488

7

Amy

Klobuchar

475

8

Bernie

Sanders

439

9

Cory

Booker

415

10

Julian

Castro

389

11

Tulsi

Gabbard

360

12

Michael

Bennet

271

13

Beto

O'Rourke

270

14

Jay

Inslee

246

15

Kirsten

Gillibrand

234

16

Bill

Weld

227

17

Howard

Schultz

165

18

Tim

Ryan

165

19

Steve

Bullock

149

20

John

Delaney

116

21

Marianne

Williamson

115

22

Seth

Moulton

103

23

Bill

de Blasio

92

24

Tom

Steyer

58

 

 

 
 

COMMENTS (20 Comments, most recent shown first)

MarisFan61
I've reviewed them, multiple times to see if there was anything between the lines that I had missed.

Here's a challenge: If you think YOU really know, please state it.
It's fine to copy/paste from Bill.

Heads-up: If you do it, be ready for us to explain how it doesn't do what you evidently think.
7:00 PM Aug 18th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Maris- I said most know, not all. If you are in the latter group, review the first articles about the polling project.
1:38 PM Aug 18th
 
MarisFan61
re BBF, "Most know exactly what the purpose of the polling is. That was outlined back in May" -- Well, no.
10:59 AM Aug 18th
 
DavidTodd
https://lefsetz.com/wordpress/2019/08/15/warren-leads-in-iowa/
5:53 AM Aug 18th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Isn't it bliss, don't you approve?


Thank you for the obvious gfletch. Most know exactly what the purpose of the polling is. That was outlined back in May. You should go back and re-read it if you're still confused or unsure.

I'm not so sure why you're so bent out of shape over somebody highlighting the candidates major policy proposals. Doing so may actually enhance the polling. For example, those voting on Twitter perhaps weren't aware that Yang wants to create a new $2 trillion entitlement without cutting one federal program. His website surely doesn't clearly state that. Instead it falsely implies that Milton Friedman would have approved of Yang's plan.

I'll keep highlighting major policy proposals, thank you.


5:30 AM Aug 18th
 
Gfletch
Most of us - but clearly not all of us - understand that Bill's polling articles aren't about who should be elected or what policies should be adopted. I've got an idea about the intent of Bill's polling experiment, but I'm not certain. But I am absolutely certain that they are not about espousing ignorant partisanship.
3:42 AM Aug 18th
 
BarryBondsFan25
LesLein- You're exactly right.

Both Warren i.e. America's mother in law and Kamela Snoop Harris told the lie that Michael Brown was murdered. That lie was debunked three years ago by the Obama Justice Department and the official autopsy report. No matter to Warren and Harris though. They have a campaign to win and the truth is just not going to get in their way. Of course for the most part, the media ignored the shameless lie.

As for Yang, he is going to create a $2 - 3 trillion new entitlement- freedom dividend. He shamelessly points to Milton Friedman as somebody who agreed with this type of "dividend." Of course Friedman did not. Friedman was in favor of a negative income tax to replace the welfare state and all other government handouts. Yang of course is not in favor of ending welfare etc.
8:15 PM Aug 17th
 
hologram
OldBackstop: As soon as some social media savvy fan of 1 percent polling candidate John B. Teamster

If it makes you feel any better, our campaign is at 3%. Also, my buddy and I were inputting roto stats from the Sporting News into his Apple IIc back in 1988. Not sure what the intersection of political wonks and fantasy ball nerds is, but here I am.

ventboys: the flooding, the ballot-stuffing aspects -- are part and parcel of the real thing

There's no perfect way to measure "campaign enthusiasm." Trump held large rallies in 2016, and Clinton dismissed them as irrelevant. Trump's on-line army took over Twitter and 4chan and Reddit, too. All of that was dismissed. In hindsight, we should all take a page that "maybe it counts for something even if we don't know what that something is.

Completely agree, and hope the experiment continues as flooding becomes the norm.
4:35 PM Aug 17th
 
ventboys
Backstop, anything short of banning you from the site is more than you deserve. Go eat your young or something. Get back under the fridge.
12:57 PM Aug 17th
 
bertrecords
As someone with a product development background, I am always surprised by the smug dismissal of work that is the slightest bit creative. We live in a society that has mostly stopped trying. Thanks for trying.

11:59 AM Aug 17th
 
OldBackstop
Alright...sigh, if I hadn't taken so much grief about Bill calling me a "dipshtt" and numerous other invectives for raising the impossibilty of any serious result on a twitter sample, I wouldn't bring this up, but you wasted a lot of your time and a little bit of a lot of your fans:
===========
OldBackstop, June 7: "I guess my small town political experiences just look down the road and see an inevitable train wreck as the BEST upside of success. As soon as some social media savvy fan of 1 percent polling candidate John B. Teamster or Partial Birth Pro Patty or Reparations Rajai gleens these getting publicity of any value, they will cause a viral vertical tsunami with a single retweet to a special interest group list."
===========

I took a lot of crap for that, Bill.


11:30 AM Aug 17th
 
ventboys
I actually think the politickin' part -- the flooding, the ballot-stuffing aspects -- are part and parcel of the real thing. Your small experiment, if continued all the way through the election process, could get sufficiently flooded and stuffed to actually become a relevant source of information.

It would take a lot of flooding -- and it would take a lot of time -- but the key to any polling exercise is to get close enough to a representative sample to be meaningful, right? If every official Twitter feed from the candidates knew about your poll and got competitive about it, the winners would be the largest group.

Right?

And that's how elections go, right? The most votes wins?

It'll take time, and you will have to deal with your obsessed hecklers and stubborn message board meglos, but why stop now, when you are actually breaking into larger audieneces? If it was me doing this, I'd steer into this skid like I'm trying to break the land speed record.

There would be some ridiculous polls along the way, but so what? I think it would be fun to see, say, an Inslee poll where he destroys Harris, Trump and Biden. Why not? Make your icon a straw hat, invite readers to compete for their favorite sons (and daughters, of course), and see where it takes you.
11:28 AM Aug 17th
 
LesLein
Have Warren and Harris smeared any more cops lately? Warren should take a portable chalk board to her appearances. That way she could scratch it and make even more screeching sounds.
10:08 AM Aug 17th
 
OldBackstop
Told ya so told ya so!
12:43 AM Aug 17th
 
MarisFan61
Oh OK -- I also thought you meant you were stopping!
(I wouldn't have asked unless I thought you were.)
11:52 PM Aug 16th
 
bjames

(5) Ultimately, I'm super disappointed that your decision is to stop. And that's beyond my own guilt in the reason why. I do think it "was working."?


I haven't decided to stop; I'm just acknowledging that I soon will have to stop. The end is in sight.
10:50 PM Aug 16th
 
hologram
(0) I'm sorry. I always hate ruining something accidentally.

(1) I think most of the questions others are asking were answered by the May 22nd post.

(2) My bad. I brought out #YangGang. There are ... um ... well, there are tens of thousands of us on Twitter at any given moment.

(3) I looked at the anomalies in standings for Warren (out front was not shocking, but by an enormous margin was) and the current poll with Beto leading (dude is "stick-a-fork-in-me" done). So, I shared the poll. And my friends shared the poll. Together, we form a sort of "bucket brigade," but Twitter sharing is not linear, it is exponential. Hence all the people swarming the poll ("brigading"). You can also look at the meaning of it as "this is a whole brigade that suddenly shows up."

(4) I would definitely be curious if the methodology can survive the next cycle. There are plenty of Trump supporters on Twitter, too, and they often show up to Twitter polls. I know of one that is presently topping 50,000 votes with Yang and Trump about even. Your August 13th poll somewhat predicts that outcome, as well. Letting the "brigading" happen by allowing polls to run for a few days would give supporting campaigns the ability to mobilize. You can also "tag" their candidates to get their attention on purpose.

(5) Ultimately, I'm super disappointed that your decision is to stop. And that's beyond my own guilt in the reason why. I do think it "was working."​
10:43 PM Aug 16th
 
bjames
that much for sure. I personally would go further and say that I think it hasn't been clear even roughly what was your main underlying interest/goal.


Don't worry about it, Maris. We'll both be dead before it changes the world of polling.
10:08 PM Aug 16th
 
MarisFan61
Re this: "I’ve gotten a lot out of it....

Please: What?

No sarcasm or anything like that. It's just that (really) for sure it hasn't been fully clear exactly what was your main underlying interest/goal in this -- that much for sure. I personally would go further and say that I think it hasn't been clear even roughly what was your main underlying interest/goal.

And maybe you're not ready to make clear what that was.
But even if so, it's a milder and more limited question to ask, what all is the lot that you've gotten out of it.

BTW I'm not the only one who'd be interested to hear what you can (finally!) tell us.
8:16 PM Aug 16th
 
bjames
OOPS. The standings above are not correct. Those are the standings before they were updated. I'll try to post the corrected ones here. . .doubt that this will work:


Rank First Last Support
1 Elizabeth Warren 1900
2 Pete Buttigieg 1057
3 Kamala Harris 998
4 Joe Biden 757
5 Andrew Yang 511
6 Donald Trump 488
7 Amy Klobuchar 475
8 Bernie Sanders 439
9 Cory Booker 415
10 Julian Castro 389
11 Tulsi Gabbard 360
12 Michael Bennet 271
13 Beto O'Rourke 270
14 Jay Inslee 246
15 Kirsten Gillibrand 234
16 Bill Weld 227
17 Howard Schultz 165
18 Tim Ryan 165
19 Steve Bullock 149
20 John Delaney 116
21 Marianne Williamson 115
22 Seth Moulton 103
23 Bill de Blasio 92
24 Tom Steyer 58

8:11 PM Aug 16th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy