Elizabeth Warren Moves Into First Place

May 7, 2019
 

Polling Results 5-7-2019

Elizabeth Warren Moves Into First Place

 

            Good morning, everybody.  I was away from my computer all day yesterday, first of all spending the day at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington and then travelling back home to Kansas, so I have not yet had the opportunity to read your comments from yesterday.

            Elizabeth Warren slightly over-performed expectations in yesterday’s poll, which, since the top three were very close anyway, was enough to push Warren ahead of Buttigieg and Harris and into first place in my polling.   Based on previous results we would have expected Warren to get 57% in yesterday’s poll.  She actually got 59%--not a huge difference, obviously, but enough to improve her score from 1052 to 1069.   The 17-point improvement is actually a 28-point improvement, because of. . . .see next paragraph, below the current results.  These are the current results:

 

Position

First

Last

Current

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1069

2

Pete

Buttigieg

1056

3

Kamala

Harris

1050

 

 

 

 

4

Joe

Biden

930

 

 

 

 

5

John

Kasich

623

 

 

 

 

6

Donald

Trump

584

7

Bernie

Sanders

536

8

Beto

O'Rourke

509

 

 

 

 

9

John

Hickenlooper

468

 

 

 

 

10

Cory

Booker

396

11

Amy

Klobuchar

372

 

   

 

12

Bill

Weld

276

13

Andrew

Yang

231

14

Howard

Schultz

229

15

Julian

Castro

220

16

Kirsten

Gillibrand

215

17

Tim

Ryan

211

 

   

 

18

Tulsi

Gabbard

189

19

Jeff

Flake

188

20

Jay

Inslee

132

21

Eric

Swallwell

126

22

Michael

Bennet

113

 

   

 

23

John

Delaney

72

24

Seth

Moulton

69

25

Mike

Gravel

68

26

Wayne

Messam

36

27

Marrianne

Williamson

33

 

 

 

 

            I had not previously polled Michael Bennet, who just entered the race.   Bennet got 6% in yesterday’s poll, which gives him a score of 113, which means that about 113 of each 10,000 respondents would choose Bennet, or 1%.   This 1% has to come out of the "scores" of the 26 candidates previously included in the polls, which means that they each lose 1%.   So Elizabeth Warren moves up from 1052 to 1069 despite the 1% downward technical adjustment, which means that her 17-point gain is actually a 28-point gain.  That’s not 28%; that’s 28 hundredths of one percent.  It is not a big deal, but it does move her into first place in my polling. 

            For the third straight poll, Cory Booker performed markedly below the expectations created by the first three times that he was polled.   Booker had a predicted performance based on the previous polls of 23%, but came in at 17%.   Most of that ground was not actually surrendered to Elizabeth Warren; most of it was actually lost to Bill Weld, who out-performed expectations by a margin of 18 to 14.   This causes Booker to fall in the scores and Weld to move up, obviously, but in neither case it is enough to effect their positions in the rankings.   Booker remains in 10th place and Weld in 12th place, although the space between them shrinks from 170 points to 120 points. 

            The rankings are the same as yesterday except that:

1)      Warren passed Buttigieg and Harris,

2)     Bennet moved from "not polled" to 22nd, which pushes the bottom five candidates down a notch,

3)     Tulsi Gabbard moved ahead of Jeff Flake, which is a technical adjustment based on a re-evaluation of older polls based on the information from the new poll, and

4)     Seth Moulton edged ahead of Mike Gravel (69-68), again based on a re-evaluation of the older polls based on the information from the new poll.

To help you get a little bit better understanding of the process, we have now polled Elizabeth Warren five times.  Each poll gives us 3 data points by which to evaluate her, which is her performance versus each of the other three candidates in each poll.  Her worst "score", among those 15, is 1007, which is based on poll #24 (May 3), in which Warren got 47%, and John Kasich got 32%.    Based on the sum total of the other polling, we would have expected Warren to beat Kasich by a slightly wider margin than that (I think 48-31), so that leads to a slightly lower score for Warren.   Her best "score" is 1141, based on her performance compared to Beto O’Rourke in the same poll, May 3; in that one Warren beat O’Rourke 47-18, which is a wider margin than she would have been expected to beat O’Rourke, based on the other polls, so that leads to a higher score.

Triangulating Warren’s positions based on the poll results and the standing of the other candidates, we thus have scores for Warren in the range of 1007 to 1141.   These are the 15 "polling positions" that we have for Elizabeth Warren:

 

            1048, based on beating John Hickenlooper 45-21 in Poll #6

            1078, based on beating Bernie Sanders 45-22 in Poll #6

            1011, based on beating Tim Ryan 45-12 in Poll #6

           

1015, based on beating Tulsi Gabbard 67-16 in Poll #7

1059, based on beating Jay Inslee 67-9 in Poll #7

1068, based on beating Eric Swallwell 67-8 in Poll #7

1090, based on beating Howard Schultz 68-13 in Poll #22

1089, based on beating Bill Weld 68-16 in Poll #22

1073, based on beating Wayne Messam 68-2 in Poll #22

1091, based on beating Mike Gravel 47-2 in Poll #24

1007, based on beating John Kasich 47-32 in Poll #24

1141, based on beating Beto O’Rourke 47-18 in Poll #24

1073, based on beating Michael Bennett 59-6 in Poll #26 (yesterday)

1137, based on beating Cory Booker 59-17 in Poll #26

1031, based on beating Bill Weld 59-18 in Poll #26

 

So she is undefeated, having finished first in all five polls in which she has appeared, which I did not know until I prepared that summary for you, since the calculation process does not record poll results as wins or losses.   No one has beaten Buttigieg or Harris in a poll yet, either.  Sooner or later they will bump up against one another in a trial heat.  

Thank you all for reading.  I appreciate your interest in my interests.  Tomorrow’s poll candidates will be Julian Castro, Beto O’Rourke, Jeff Flake and Tulsi Gabbard.  In today’s poll, with 589 votes cast so far, Joe Biden is over-performing a little bit, while one of the four candidates is dramatically underperforming based on previous results. 

 
 

COMMENTS (16 Comments, most recent shown first)

BarryBondsFan25
Whatever he is, Steven is associated with the website. As a paying customer I associate Steven with BJOL. As a paying customer I don't appreciate somebody associated with the website taking veiled shots at me. This is one of the reasons why I never read Steven's articles.
5:34 AM May 11th
 
FrankD
Is Mr Goldleaf an employee of BJOL? I thought he was just allowed to write his missives, presented here, for free? If he is an employee, where do others sign up for this gig?
9:59 PM May 10th
 
BarryBondsFan25
Right, Frank D. I don't understand Mr. Goldleaf. As an employee of BJOL, he should refrain from insulting about 30 to 40% of the paying customers.
9:36 PM May 10th
 
FrankD
to Steven: need to chill. You want people to read your articles here but you insult those who disagree with you by claiming how fantastic you are and people who disagree with you are not capable of thinking - they just get mad if their view is challenged. Whereas your are self-reflecting with deep thought when you views are challenged. Your comments prove this to be untrue. And at least the last line or your response is correct: The problem is you.
8:28 PM May 10th
 
BarryBondsFan25
I agree, Steven definitely needs to chill. Please chill Steven.
11:15 PM May 8th
 
Steven Goldleaf
I need to chill because I'm agreeing with them? Or because I'm advising steve161 to relax? I thought (and think) THEY need to chill--they're attacking Bill's methods (that I admit I don't really understand myself) for bias here, when I think Bill is far too smart to produce work so fundamentally flawed as to contain an uncorrected and obvious bias. They THINK they're being pwned by Bill's polling, when that's the one result I'm sure is not happening. When they don't understand something, they get mad. When I don't understand something, I assume the problem is me.
2:03 PM May 8th
 
Marc Schneider
Steven Goldleaf,

I think you need to chill a bit. I don't see the need for being abusive toward Republicans/Trump supporters. I don't like him and would never vote for him, but I don't think there's a need to turn this into Facebook.

Personally, I don't care about polls at this point. Since I know I'm going to vote for the Democrat regardless (albeit, in some cases, possibly reluctantly), I don't really care.

And speaking of the electoral college, which someone mentioned, it actually doesn't matter who I vote for. My vote means virtually nothing where I live (blue state). It's like a straw poll for MVP. That's my rant for the day.
1:37 PM May 8th
 
thoughtclaw
If the Republican candidates weren't included, people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat would be forced to pick someone they would probably never actually vote for.
11:07 AM May 8th
 
hotstatrat
So, what are the best sources for understanding what these candidates have done in the past and what are their current strategies for making the world a better place? . . . besides their home websites?​
8:27 AM May 8th
 
Steven Goldleaf
Relax, steve161. They're used to pwning the libs. It's very upsetting to face stats that seem to show (I said, "SEEM to show", son) them getting pwned instead. I'm mildly surprised none of them has yet labeled Bill's poll "FAKE NEWS" or called EW "Pocahontas" or Mayor Pete "Buttplug". But it's still early, give them time.

And I agree with you and with them. I don't really get what the point is here, or why this wouldn't be better, or just as good, if it were limited to the declared Dems or to all 60 people who have been mentioned as possible candidates, including Al Gore, John Kerry, HRC, and Al Sharpton. But I don't understand numbers so well, so I'm willing to see how this shakes out, and as Bill gets better at explaining his methods.

I guess it's interesting to see people like Booker or Beto doing not so well. Logic tells us that with 20-odd candidates someone is going to gain a little traction early on and someone is not, so this is a way to quantify what that actually means before Iowa and New Hampshire. Maybe this will be more significant as time goes on, and these results are just the first few games of spring training.
7:39 AM May 8th
 
steve161
Judging from the comments today and yesterday, the Trump supporters fail to understand how this poll works. I have a certain degree of sympathy for them, because I fail to understand what it is supposed to predict (if anything): who will be the Democratic nominee? Who would win if presidents were elected from a field of all candidates without party labels? How well Bill's Twitter followers mirror the electoral college? Something else?
7:15 AM May 8th
 
wdr1946
Donald Trump is receiving about 5% of the vote. This sounds like an accurate poll, doesn't it? It seems to me that it was hacked somewhere along the way by the Democratic National Committee.
2:43 AM May 8th
 
dburba
@Tudorfever, that's only a valid point if you assume no one who leans right won't vote Democrat. With Trump's low favorabilities, it's possible that there are plenty of right-leaners who would vote blue if the right candidate presented him/herself, and in that regard this poll is interesting.
11:50 PM May 7th
 
TudorFever
This is a great exercise to identify the favorite Democrat, but it has zero validity in determining whether that person could defat Trump. Your readers clearly lean left, and the few of us who lean right checked out of this process a long time ago when you kept rolling out an endless string of obscure Dems.
11:29 PM May 7th
 
evanecurb
My screen tilted to the left when I saw this poll.
6:41 PM May 7th
 
Steven Goldleaf
Can we skip the whole election process and just go with your poll results? Thanks.
3:19 PM May 7th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy