August 2 Poll Report

August 2, 2019
 

August 2 Poll Report

            Good afternoon everybody.  Yesterday’s poll had a big winner, a little winner, a little loser and a big loser.   Pete Buttigieg "won" the poll in the sense of having the highest percentage, but Andrew Yang was the BIG winner, Buttigieg the little winner, Klobuchar the little loser, and O’Rourke the big loser.  This is  a summary of the poll in the form we use every day:

Scores

O'Rourke

343

Yang

435

Buttigieg

974

Klobuchar

463

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

O'Rourke

15

Yang

20

Buttigieg

44

Klobuchar

21

Actual

O'Rourke

6

Yang

28

Buttigieg

48

Klobuchar

18

 

            Yang over-achieved by 40%, Buttigieg by 9%, Klobuchar under-achieved by 14%, O’Rourke under-achieved by 60%.  This is a kind of a classic form for a poll, the easiest to interpret.  Sometimes you have one winner and three losers; sometimes you have three little winners and one big loser.  Those are easy to interpret, too.  Sometimes everybody matches expectations based on previous polling.   Sometimes you don’t really know who won the poll or why.  

            It is pretty clear here:  Yang is on the march, Buttigieg is stable and solid and still one of the strongest candidates with my Twitter followers, Klobuchar is not dying but kind of in the doldrums, and Beto should drop out.  Soon.   The argument for him to stay in the race is that he could position himself to become secretary of education or homeland security or something, and the best way to do that is to hang in the race until he has a sense of who is going to win, and then do what he can to build a relationship with them.   But that only works if he has credibility, and that’s going fast.  

            Since yesterday:

            Andrew Yang is up 34 points,

            Pete Buttigieg is up 21 points,

            Amy Klobuchar is down 11 points, and

            Beto O’Rourke is down 53 points. 

            All of those as a result of yesterday’s poll; the poll removal from mid-June was a non-event, and there were no meaningful secondary effects.   These are the updated standings:

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1835

2

Kamala

Harris

1032

3

Pete

Buttigieg

995

4

Joe

Biden

824

5

Donald

Trump

516

6

Andrew

Yang

469

7

Amy

Klobuchar

452

8

Bernie

Sanders

405

9

Cory

Booker

380

10

Julian

Castro

378

11

Beto

O'Rourke

290

12

Tulsi

Gabbard

273

13

John

Hickenlooper

261

14

Kirsten

Gillibrand

252

15

Michael

Bennet

222

16

Bill

Weld

214

17

Jay

Inslee

213

18

Howard

Schultz

166

19

Steve

Bullock

136

20

Tim

Ryan

134

21

John

Delaney

108

22

Seth

Moulton

101

23

Marianne

Williamson

97

24

Mike

Gravel

92

25

Bill

de Blasio

91

 

            The real news is that Yang has separated himself from Castro.  As recently as a week ago, eight days ago actually, Castro was ahead of Yang.  They were both moving up the standings in the wake of the first round of debates, but they were trading positions as they moved up.   Yang is now clearly ahead, in this sample.     

            I’m seeing independent signs that Yang has something going.  My son is supporting Andrew Yang.  A pretty girl in an elevator is wearing a Yang for President hat.  There are two Yang yard signs in my neighborhood.  Something’s happening; I don’t know how sustainable it is. 

            I thought I would take a minute to share my thoughts about our beloved President, in short form; I would do this on Twitter, but you know. . .too many angry people on Twitter.   So here it is, in 89 words:

1)     Trump has many personal characteristics which make him an unsuitable President,

2)     He got the support that he did in ’16 because he made valid points which remain valid,

3)     He can EASILY be defeated in 2020 by any Democrat who recognizes his valid points, but

4)     There is a real chance he will be re-elected if the Democrats fail to address his issues. 

5)     Therefore, the critical issue for a candidate, from my standpoint, is that they NOT double-down on the things that cost Hillary the election. 

Thank you all for reading.

 
 

COMMENTS (8 Comments, most recent shown first)

OldBackstop
Thanks for taking the time to answer, Bill, and, again, I apologize for my ignorance. My only request was that you include the preamble and precise wording of the question in the daily report on the answers, as they are, literally, different every day.

This is a Day One statistical polling rule, so those of us, whoever is left, attempting to glean why you are 30 points off on the president.



10:15 PM Aug 3rd
 
bjames
You have asked your presidential polling question quite differently and with a different lead-in most days. This, told Fogie pollster purchasers like myself for the last three decades, would be akin to bunting and running to third base.


No complex concept can be described in a few words. You can write a few words that tell YOU exactly what it is that you are doing, but the audience will read those few words differently than the way you intend them.

This is not really an issue about POLLING as much as is an issue about WRITING, about communicating clearly. If you will pardon my saying so, my humble opinion is that I know one hell of a lot more about writing than the people who sold you on that stupid, anal-retentive idea about always using the same words do. What they are really telling you is "be afraid." "Be afraid of saying ANYTHING in the polling question that colors the answers. Be afraid of saying anything that will get you criticized by all of the old morons who all agree that they know the right way to do it."

But they DON'T know the right way to do it, at all. The only way to communicate any complex concept is to surround it with DIFFERENT word-images of what you are saying. Explain it one way, then explain it a different way, then explain it a third way, and a fourth way, and a fifth. Eventually people will get it. If you just keep saying stuff the same way over and over, they are never going to get it.

And don't write in fear. Misunderstanding is not the exception; misunderstanding is the norm. I've been married to the same woman for 40 years; we misunderstand what the other is saying all the time, a dozen times a day. It's normal.

You're never going to understand what I am doing, Old Backstop, because frankly you're not intellectually agile enough to get there. You have a fixed idea of what OUGHT to be done in polling, and that's not what I am doing, so in your petty little mind, what I am doing is just wrong. It's always going to be wrong.

But it's not wrong; it's just different that what you are used to. You're blocked from understanding because you are convinced that you already understand. That's normal.

I've written this a billion times, but. . . analysis begins with the recognition of your own ignorance. You don't analyze anything based on what you KNOW; all analysis is based on focusing on what you do NOT know, on what is being systematically locked out of the discussion by common agreement. If you can reach the point of SEEING the gap where there ought to be understanding, then you can figure out how to build understanding into that space.
12:37 PM Aug 3rd
 
OldBackstop
Well, honest enough. Since I have been a paid subscriber to your site for nearly a decade, and quite a few of my polling queries were deleted this week, may I re-ask a few to see what might provide light and not offend?

You have asked your presidential polling question quite differently and with a different lead-in most days. This, told Fogie pollster purchasers like myself for the last three decades, would be akin to bunting and running to third base.

Might you repeat the exact question and preamble on your daily report for those of us trying to track and assess the project?

Thank you and sorry to offend.
11:44 PM Aug 2nd
 
bjames
OldBackstop
? Bill, I put up some graciously worded questions about your methodology..apparently they were deleted? Is this the new procedure here?


It is for you, yes. I've run out of patience with you.
10:47 PM Aug 2nd
 
OldBackstop
? Bill, I put up some graciously worded questions about your methodology..apparently they were deleted? Is this the new procedure here?
10:25 PM Aug 2nd
 
LesLein
I liked Yang in the portion of the debate I watched, but was dubious about his plan to give me $1000 a month. It gets worse when examining the fine print:

https://taxfoundation.org/andrew-yang-value-added-tax/

I think we need to avoid the VAT:

1. It’s embedded in prices. Politicians will love it.
2. It’s expensive to administer, especially for small business.
3. It’s regressive and will require a lot of exemptions to get passed.
4. Since it’s embedded in prices, its first implementation will drastically increase the cost of living, possibly affecting indexes that affect entitlements.

Again, Yang seems highly intelligent, witty, and likeable. I have doubts about his main plan.

I agree that Beto is done. De Blasio should drop out too, though New York would suffer if he returned to work full time.

9:58 PM Aug 2nd
 
MWeddell
Bill,
It's hard for me to follow the 89 word argument without you telling us (or reminding us, if you've written this before) what you regard as Trump's valid 2016 points and what you regard as the things Clinton did that cost her the 2016 election.
4:14 PM Aug 2nd
 
337
Better move for Beto is to run against Cornyn in 2020, I think. Maybe less do-able than his run against Cruz in 2016--Cruz is more dislikeable than Cornyn, but the Texas demographics may be changing fast enough to cancel out Cruz's dislikability, especially if it's a change-election and the Dems GOTV, and Beto came purty close to winning in 2016.
2:34 PM Aug 2nd
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy