August 6 poll report

August 6, 2019
 

 

August 6 Poll Report

Good afternoon everybody.   I have not posted anything for two days because I have been wholly occupied with other tasks, so I have some catching up to do here.   Since my last report, Mike Gravel has pulled out of the race and, I think, thrown his miniscule support to Bernie Sanders, and also I have now polled Tom Steyer four times, so I can now add his Support Score to the data.  He is polling about half of what Mike Gravel was, so. . .not a big impact there.  

Despite three polls having been taken since my last report and two changes to the roster of competitors, actually not a lot has changed.  The sum total of plusses and minuses for the three days (183 points) would be about the average number for one day.   But I’ll run down the polls one at a time anyway.   In the poll of August 3, Bill Weld got the largest vote share, but Tim Ryan was the winner in the sense of doing better than predicted by previous polls:

Scores

Steyer

64

Weld

219

Moulton

101

Ryan

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Steyer

12

Weld

42

Moulton

19

Ryan

26

Actual

Steyer

9

Weld

40

Moulton

18

Ryan

33

 

Ryan is helped by that poll, but not a lot because there aren’t a lot of points on the table there.   Ryan has been steadily gathering a little bit of support, not much as a share of the whole, but quite a lot relative to where he was.   On June 26, just before the first round of debates, I had him at 80 (8/10th of one percent.)   He crossed over 90 on July 1, hit 100 on July 6, 110 on July 13, 120 on July 15, 130 on July 23, and now, today, he hits 140.   I’m not saying that makes him a viable candidate, but he is gathering together a small band of followers.  Predictions for that poll were 86% accurate, and the four candidates represented about 5% of the total support. 

In the poll of August 4th, Jay Inslee over-achieved by 15 points and won the group, in part because I included in the poll a candidate (Mike Gravel) who had withdrawn the previous day, but this is no less noteworthy for Inslee because he picked up the support, rather than Michael Bennet, who has a similar score:

Scores

Gravel

105

Inslee

219

Bennet

227

de Blasio

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Gravel

16

Inslee

34

Bennet

35

de Blasio

14

Actual

Gravel

9

Inslee

49

Bennet

35

de Blasio

7

 

That poll was 70% consistent with previous polling, and the candidates represented 6½% of the total market.  The biggest surprise of the three days of polling, actually, was that the much-maligned Beto O’Rourke showed that he is still clearly preferred by my respondents to the weak group against whom he happened to be pitted:

Scores

Schultz

172

Williamson

99

Hickenlooper

266

O'Rourke

293

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Schultz

21

Williamson

12

Hickenlooper

32

O'Rourke

35

Actual

Schultz

12

Williamson

11

Hickenlooper

25

O'Rourke

52

 

Previous polling had suggested that O’Rourke’s support had declined to the point at which he was not much stronger than John Hickenlooper.  This poll showed pretty clearly that he is still much stronger than Hickenlooper, as he over-performed by 17 points, although most of that actually came at the expense of the inactive Howard Schultz, who is expected to resume campaigning in September.  Predictions for that poll were 67% accurate, and the candidates represent 8% of the total support. 

Since my last report:

Donald Trump is up 34 points as a result of the removal from the data of the poll of June 16th,

Beto O’Rourke is up 18 points as a result of doing well in yesterday’s poll,

Michael Bennet is up 18 points as a result of the removal of the poll of June 15th, in which Bennet got only 8% of the vote,

Bernie Sanders is up 8 points as a result of the removal of the poll of June 14th from the data,

Jay Inslee is up 7 points as a result of the poll of August 5th, in which Inslee got 49%, and

Tim Ryan is up 5 points as a result of the poll of August 4th, explained before. 

Bill de Blasio is down 6 points as a result of his poor performance in the poll of August 4th,

Howard Schultz is down 9 points as a result of his poor performance in yesterday’s poll,

Kamala Harris is down 12 points as a result of the removal of the poll of June 15th, in which she got 64% of the vote, and

Kirsten Gillibrand is down 14 points as a result of the removal of the poll of June 14th, in which she got 38% of the vote. 

Also, in the future I am going to change policy and no longer report changes smaller than 10 points, since a 10-point change in Support represents only 1/10th of one percent, and thus should probably be considered not statistically significant. 

Candidates in green (below) are those whose support scores have improved at least 33% in the last thirty days.  The green list had at one point swollen to 12 candidates, but it is gradually coming under control; we are down to eight now.  Marianne Williamson is finally off the list, at least temporarily; she’s still up 32%, and could easily pop back onto the list.  Julian Castro has also dropped off the list, and that is more serious, first because he is a more serious candidate, but also because he has failed to sustain his improvement after the June 27-28 debate.  He vaulted forward from 205 on June 27 to 458 on July 13, but has since dropped back to 372, up only 3% in the last month.  For his sake I hope he raised some money in there, because if he didn’t his moment has come and gone.  These are the current Support Scores:

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1844

2

Kamala

Harris

1010

3

Pete

Buttigieg

991

4

Joe

Biden

779

5

Donald

Trump

541

6

Andrew

Yang

474

7

Amy

Klobuchar

453

8

Cory

Booker

436

9

Bernie

Sanders

407

10

Julian

Castro

372

11

Tulsi

Gabbard

325

12

Beto

O'Rourke

310

13

John

Hickenlooper

261

14

Michael

Bennet

244

15

Jay

Inslee

226

16

Bill

Weld

220

17

Kirsten

Gillibrand

211

18

Howard

Schultz

163

19

Steve

Bullock

142

20

Tim

Ryan

140

21

John

Delaney

111

22

Seth

Moulton

101

23

Marianne

Williamson

99

24

Bill

de Blasio

86

25

Tom

Steyer

54

 

I’d like to add a brief editorial opinion if I could.  A lot of people are saying that the lesser candidates have failed and aren’t drawing any support and it is time for them to drop out, etc.  I really don’t agree with that.  It’s a long, long, long time until the election, and a pretty long time until Iowa.  The good part of a long campaign is that it gives candidates time to become known, time to say what they have to say. 

As I see it, there are a lot of good people in this race, and others who are at least interesting and might be someone that I could enthusiastically support.  Michael Bennet, John Delaney, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan, Steve Bullock, Tulsi Gabbard. . .these seem like substantial people who have something to say.  I say, let them say it before you force them off the stage.  Let them make their case; let them show us what they’ve got.   If you don’t want to watch or listen, nobody is forcing you to.   But I say, knock off the complaining and the ridicule about the lesser candidates.  There is value in listening to them. 

Thank you all for reading.   I am also going to attach here and re-publish the report of August 3rd, since (a) I didn’t get around to posting that one until after midnight eastern time, and (b) Tulsi Gabbard’s performance in that poll was more significant than anything that has happened in the last three days.   Thank you all for your interest in this effort; thank you all for voting. 

 

 

 

August 3 Poll Report

            Good afternoon everybody.   In the first sign of movement as a result of the end-of-July debates, Tulsi Gabbard has taken a major step forward.  In Poll #115, the poll taken on August 2nd, Gabbard took points away from all three competitors, and moved forward by 52 points in the Support Score standings.  This is the summary of yesterday’s poll:

Scores

Gillibrand

252

Harris

1032

Castro

378

Gabbard

273

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Gillibrand

13

Harris

53

Castro

20

Gabbard

14

Actual

Gillibrand

6

Harris

47

Castro

17

Gabbard

29

 

            The predictions for the poll were 69% accurate—7 points off on Gillibrand, 6 points off on Harris, 3 points off on Castro, and 15 points off on Gabbard.   Removed from the data considered relevant was the poll of June 13, which was Elizabeth Warren (44%), Pete Buttigieg (26%), Joe Biden (25%) and Cory Booker (5%).  Booker has rallied strongly in recent weeks, so the removal of that old and terrible poll helps him quite significantly.   Since yesterday:

            Cory Booker is up 57 points as a result of the removal of the June 13th poll,

            Tulsi Gabbard is up 52 points due to beating expectations in yesterday’s poll, although it should be noted that she did not win the poll outright; Kamala Harris still won the poll,

            Julian Castro is down 11 points as a result of his disappointing vote share in yesterday’s poll,

            Pete Buttigieg is down 24 points as a result of the removal of the June 13th poll, and

            Kirsten Gillibrand is down 27 points as a result of getting only 6% in yesterday’s poll.  In my opinion, Gillibrand’s campaign is in serious trouble, and could be headed toward an early pullout.   She had a surge of support in these polls in June, and her Support Score peaked at 364 on June 20.   Now she is at 225.   She has made the Gray List, which now has two entries—her and Joe Biden.  She can fall probably as low as 150 and remain marginally relevant, but if she falls below 150 I think her candidacy is dead. 

            A total of 306 points changed hands yesterday, which is a relatively high total, the highest single-day total in a little more than a week, although only six candidates had notable movements. 

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1830

2

Kamala

Harris

1022

3

Pete

Buttigieg

971

4

Joe

Biden

774

5

Donald

Trump

507

6

Andrew

Yang

468

7

Amy

Klobuchar

448

8

Cory

Booker

437

9

Bernie

Sanders

399

10

Julian

Castro

367

11

Tulsi

Gabbard

325

12

Beto

O'Rourke

292

13

John

Hickenlooper

266

14

Michael

Bennet

226

15

Kirsten

Gillibrand

225

16

Bill

Weld

219

17

Jay

Inslee

219

18

Howard

Schultz

169

19

Steve

Bullock

140

20

Tim

Ryan

135

21

John

Delaney

110

22

Seth

Moulton

101

23

Marianne

Williamson

99

24

Mike

Gravel

95

25

Bill

de Blasio

92

 

            Thank you for your interest.   Sorry this is so late in the day; I am still traveling. 

 

 

 
 

COMMENTS (14 Comments, most recent shown first)

MarisFan61
Well, if your "all day reading" on this subject reflects any reasonable sampling rather than a Fox-ish type of cherry picking, you know differently than what you indicated.
7:24 PM Aug 10th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Maris, I didn't provide the link to the article, Les did. I read the article and found it interesting and agreed with the conclusion.

I'm not "plugged" into anything. I read practically all day and make my own mind up. That's how I approach everything in life: career, current events baseball etc. I have to. My job requires it.
2:47 PM Aug 10th
 
MarisFan61
BBF25: You need to tell us something. :-)

You somehow came upon one of the approximately 1-in-100 scientific takes on the subject that indicate such a view.

How did that happen? Did you do some kind of comprehensive review of the subject and reject, on some scientific basis, the dozens of other takes you came across that indicated otherwise?

Somehow I don't think so. :-) :-)

I'm guessing (strongly) that you're plugged into sources of information that do this cherry picking for you.

You're too smart to fall for that, BBF25.
1:22 AM Aug 10th
 
lidsky
The article is a famous one written in 2010 by a Stanford, Nobel winner for Physics. There are many interesting writings that can be found discussing and arguing for and against it that one can find contemporaneously to it.

His take is basically that
1) The climate is too big for us to really change it.
2) If we are affecting it, there's no way to tell our effect vs regular climate-changing trajectory that it is on.

These are the same statements that were "common knowledge" on our oceans for way too long that let humans pollute the oceans with abandon. Thus I find the argument less than compelling and more anecdotal than science.


Interesting article none the less. I'll choose a quote to comment on:

[italic]Global warming forecasts have the further difficulty that you can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. In principle, changes in climate should show up in rainfall statistics, hurricane frequency, [bold] temperature records [/bold], and so forth. As a practical matter they don’t, because weather patterns are dominated by large multi-year events in the oceans, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation, which have nothing to do with climate change. In order to test the predictions, you’d have to separate these big effects from subtle, inexorable changes on scales of centuries, and nobody knows how to do that yet.[/italic]

This is part of his: you can't measure it so it isn't real part of the article. There's some good correlaries to some baseball statistic discussions.

Regardless, I'm finding the extremes we are seeing in the last decade counter to his point from 19 years ago.

We see it in multiple records being set in temperature (especially) and rainfall as well which he says would be something we would see if there was inordinate inducement on the climate. We may not have seen it when the article was written, but we do see it now.
1:43 PM Aug 9th
 
BarryBondsFan25
The article was a very good read. Conclusion:



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.
5:56 AM Aug 9th
 
hotstatrat
LL: “What would have impressed me would be if one of them pointed out that the earth has been changing its climate for 4.5 billion years“

hsr: but not this rapidly - at least, not with us living on it.

LL: “ and humans can do little to influence it.“

hsr: Not true. We have. Enormously. It's not “maybe“.

LL: “He could point out that alligators and turtles lived in the Arctic 90 million years ago. He could quote the Smithsonian's dinosaur exhibit, which says there were no polar ice caps 66 million years ago.“

hsr: That is true, but we had the last mass extinction right after. That is what we are trying to avoid, although, we are already in it. We reached that warmer period over millions of years - not a few hundred.

LL: “Inslee could also quote Mark Mills' Wall Street Journal article pointing out that renewable energy requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. One wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel; 2500 tons of concrete; and 45 tons of plastic. 90% of solar panels are made in Asia, which relies on coal.“

hsr: So, we should have an honest discussion about what needs to be done, not just dismiss it.
10:31 PM Aug 8th
 
MarisFan61
I'd do it if I thought there was an iota of a chance you guys might actually hear it.
9:57 PM Aug 8th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Please rebut that post Maris. I'd like to see that.
8:00 PM Aug 8th
 
jgf704
Somewhere out there is an alternate universe where people are graveling on without Mike Soldier.
8:01 AM Aug 8th
 
MarisFan61
I almost feel like rebutting that post, except that I well recall this great little cartoon:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
(if it doesn't work as a direct link, copy-paste should work)
12:58 AM Aug 8th
 
LesLein
Inslee has some good credentials but I don't think it's particularly brave to emphasize climate change before an audience of Democrats. What would have impressed me would be if one of them pointed out that the earth has been changing its climate for 4.5 billion years and humans can do little to influence it. He could point out that alligators and turtles lived in the Arctic 90 million years ago. He could quote the Smithsonian's dinosaur exhibit, which says there were no polar ice caps 66 million years ago.

Inslee could also quote Mark Mills' Wall Street Journal article pointing out that renewable energy requires far more materials and land than fossil fuels. One wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel; 2500 tons of concrete; and 45 tons of plastic. 90% of solar panels are made in Asia, which relies on coal.

Anyone mentioning this will likely get my vote.

If you can't read the full article I suggest reading the last 5 paragraphs plus the author's credentials. They are impeccable.

https://theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/#.XUsQH3dFzIU​
1:11 PM Aug 7th
 
MarisFan61
Well, I'd say there's no reason to think it would go likewise!

First of all, I'd say "interest in baseball" is indeed a factor that might tilt a group in some direction in other respects.
But moreover, we KNOW that Bill's Twitter followers ARE politically different from the general population.
10:53 AM Aug 7th
 
taosjohn
I wonder-- the universe of Bill James followers may be an imperfect sample for the actual national position-- but I wonder if it isn't a reasonable indicator for things like where a minor candidate's support is likely to go when he drops out?

If in Bill James world, Bennet's support goes to Inslee, is there any real reason to think that in greater Trumpistan it won't do likewise? It doesn't seem as though an excessive interest in baseball is likely to be a distorting factor versus soccer fans and opera buffs...
9:43 AM Aug 7th
 
hotstatrat
I am not promising to stick with this, but based on the bits that I've seen and read, I favour Jay Inslee. He has an impressive track record. He has experience in executive government and private business. He is the only one brave enough to state that climate change is the most important issue in his summary speech in the last debate. And, I like his demeanor. He isn't perpetually angry like Sanders or outraged like Warren or condenscending like Harris. He is just straightforward and clear - without getting personal. That seems like the kind of President we could use right now.
9:15 PM Aug 6th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy