July 22 Poll Report

July 22, 2019
 

July 22 Poll Report

 

            Good morning everybody.   Cory Booker had a great poll yesterday, a great poll.  Booker, who had been dropping like a rock in these polls, appeared yesterday morning on Face the Nation, and apparently made a very favorable impression on some people.  Early in the morning, while the Face the Nation show was running or would just have run, Booker was actually leading in my poll, which was quite a thing; Booker went in with a Score of 306, Joe Biden a score of 936, so Biden would have been expected to beat Booker three to one.   Booker faded gradually as the day went on, but still wound up with 38% of the vote, which was twice what we would have expected.   This is the summary of yesterday’s poll:

Scores

Booker

306

Biden

936

Delaney

127

Hickenlooper

268

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Booker

19

Biden

57

Delaney

8

Hickenlooper

16

Actual

Booker

38

Biden

44

Delaney

6

Hickenlooper

13

 

            The relative performances of Biden, Delaney and Hickenlooper, one to another, were almost precisely what we would have expected based on previous polling, so if we left Booker out of this it would be an almost zero-impact poll.  Booker’s tremendous day makes it a relatively high-impact poll.  My predictions for the poll (based on previous polling) were only 62% accurate, which makes this the most surprising poll since the poll of July 3rd, which was a poll of four candidates in the 1% range.  Since yesterday:

            Cory Booker is up 39 points.

            Tulsi Gabbard is up 15 points due to the removal from the data considered relevant of the June 1st poll.

            John Delaney and John Hickenlooper are down 8 points each due to yesterday’s poll, and

            Joe Biden is down 35 points due to his underperformance in yesterday’s poll. 

            These are the updated standings:

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1851

2

Pete

Buttigieg

972

3

Joe

Biden

901

4

Kamala

Harris

817

5

Donald

Trump

603

6

Amy

Klobuchar

458

7

Andrew

Yang

446

8

Julian

Castro

432

9

Bernie

Sanders

401

10

Cory

Booker

345

11

Beto

O'Rourke

331

12

Kirsten

Gillibrand

289

13

Jay

Inslee

269

14

Tulsi

Gabbard

265

15

John

Hickenlooper

260

16

Bill

Weld

220

17

Michael

Bennet

195

18

Howard

Schultz

170

19

Tim

Ryan

124

20

John

Delaney

119

21

Bill

de Blasio

104

22

Marianne

Williamson

97

23

Steve

Bullock

94

24

Seth

Moulton

83

25

Mike

Gravel

81

 

            And I thought I would close with a note about the Iowa caucuses.  Several readers have suggested that it would be better if I could somehow focus the poll on Iowa voters or Iowa caucus voters.   It would not be better if I were to do this.  What would be much better is if we could get the national pundits to stop paying so much attention to something that really don’t matter very much.  The Iowa caucuses really don’t matter very much.

            The Iowa caucuses hold the attention of political commentators and others who are easily distracted by bright shiney objects because they are the next event on the schedule for a long time.  The political analysts are like sports talk show hosts, who talk almost entirely about what is going to happen next.   This always puzzles me.  They don’t know a damned thing about what is going to happen next, but they talk about it all the time.  Political commentators do the same thing; they get hung up on their thoughts about what will happen next.

            But if you look at the history of the Iowa caucuses, you see that, in general, it doesn’t make any difference who wins them or who does well.  Ronald Reagan lost in Iowa in 1980, and there was no Republican caucus in 1984.  George Bush lost there in 1988, finishing an embarrassing third behind a TV evangelist.  Bill Clinton lost there in 1992, getting only 2.8% of the vote, and there was no Democratic caucus in 1996.  Mike Huckabee won the Republican vote in 2008; John McCain finished fourth.  Trump lost in Iowa in 2016. 

            The only people who win Iowa and win the Presidency, mostly, are the people who are in complete command of the race—and even they may not win.  Hilary Clinton won there in 2016, but the news story coming out of it was that she almost lost; she won 49.8% to 49.6%, in a two-horse race. 

            The Iowa caucuses are very much like that thing that happens in a baseball game, when one team scores three in an inning, the announcers will tell you how important it is for the other team to "answer" in the next inning.  It's nonsense.  It is not that the next inning doesn't count; it just doesn't count any more than any other inning.  Iowa is like that; it isn't that it doesn't count; it just doesn't count any more than any other state.  If you guys want to talk about it, you go ahead, but I don’t think it’s necessary to give it any extra weight.  

 

 
 

COMMENTS (10 Comments, most recent shown first)

MarisFan61
.....I'd say that's a reason not to re-measure Booker that quickly!
(Give it some time to sift out.)
12:49 PM Jul 24th
 
myleshandley
I have a minor suggestion for the selection of candidates and a minor quibble about the methodology that may or may not be important.

First, the suggestion: It seems very evident to me that Cory Booker's strength should be measured again, and quickly. He vastly, vastly overperformed in that poll for some reason. It's possible that a morning show is the reason; it's possible the candidate mix was in his favor in that poll; we aren't sure. The only thing we ARE sure of is that Booker's current support is in flux. It would make sense to measure it again to get more information (and that should be done with completely different candidates)). If you look at the current poll, where everyone is tracking extremely closely with their predicted scores, it sort of "confirms" their track positions, as it were.

Last, the quibble: If you look at Trump's support in your polls, you'll see that his support is extremely durable (the 4 poll positions I have for him are 25, 28, 29, and 25 again). The reason for this, I believe, is that most people will have placed him either first or last in their ordered list of preferred candidates. With 4 democrats in a poll, you may get people who have those 4 candidates as their 2nd-choice, 5th-choice, 8th-choice, and 12th choice - the poll is a great way of sussing that out. It seems extremely unlikely that Trump is ANYBODY'S 5th to 12th favorite candidate among respondents.

Another way to think about Trump's support: if you replaced his name in these polls with the words "select this option if you were born between Jan 1 and April 4," I think you'd get a very close proxy of his support regardless of the candidates polled. Another way of testing this is to measure his support in polls with the "prime-time" candidates (where I hypothesize he'll over-perform) against his support in polls with the "publicity-seeking" candidates (where I hypothesize he'll under-perform).

I freely admit I could be mistaken in my analysis, and thank anyone reading my pablum.
9:34 AM Jul 24th
 
OldBackstop
Have taken a look at it, I must say, I am totally befuddled that Booker would show enough strength to warrant the ink on the page of your comments.

In Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina and the general (in RCP aggregate) Booker is at close to margin of error zed. In none of those is he at three percent, he is generally averaging two percent.
12:27 AM Jul 24th
 
MarisFan61
P.S. re CNN's 'draft lottery': Not that I suspect anything dirty (really), but, any of the rest of you thought it seemed as though they were doing 3-card monte with those cards before putting them in the drum?

They couldn't have done a better job of it if they tried to make it look like they were doing a 3-card monte act.
5:16 PM Jul 23rd
 
MarisFan61
Agree totally with what Les cited from Rolling Stone. Whether or not CNN modeled it on the NBA Draft Lottery, it felt exactly like the NBA Draft Lottery, both in the basic process and in their frenzied emotion.

Re whether Iowa matters or not: I think it's possible that everyone here is right, at least sort of.
It sure has seemed like it maters, at least in winnowing down the field, sifting out the weaker candidates as Rwarn said, and in fact it has seemed to be true that there are a certain limited number of tickets to be "punched" from there. (BTW I think it would be a somewhat higher number than usual this time. Usually I think they say 3, maybe 4. To the extent that any such thing applies this time, it'll be at least 4-5.)

BUT, even if the above has been so, it's quite possible that whatever things have gotten 'determined' by Iowa would have resulted identically anyway before long.
4:03 PM Jul 23rd
 
OldBackstop
Yeah, Clinton the Prettier bailed on Iowa his first round, but it was a huge deal when he got a second place in New Hampshire ..Comeback Kid, remember.

Thet's because it was so shocking. But history is of limited use now because of how early Super Tuesday is. If you don't have points on the board before then, you will NOT raise the money to even compete there.

One could argue the February contests will be even more important. Watch the fundraising pour in to the early leaders.​
2:16 PM Jul 23rd
 
rwarn17588
I agree with Bill that Iowa does not have a big effect on who ultimately will become the nominee for president. The state historically seems to often be an outlier in its results.

However, Iowa IS useful for one reason -- it sifts out the weaker candidates, and those often are gone by New Hampshire. All this hand-wringing over too many candidates on the Democratic side will be moot less than 10 days after Iowa, much like it was with the GOP primary four years ago.
8:13 AM Jul 23rd
 
vandorn
While, despite being a native Iowan, I agree with Bill's point about the importance of the Iowa caucuses, Bill Clinton's 2.8% share of the Iowa vote in 1992 had nothing to do with a disappointing showing or a showing expected to have predictive value. That showing was because Iowa senator Tom Harkin was a presidential candidate and the rest of the Democratic field conceded the caucuses to him and didn't campaign there. With no competition for Harkin the media followed suit and ignored the state that year. It wasn't really a situation that has relevance to the other presidential campaigns.
2:57 AM Jul 23rd
 
OldBackstop
If there is still a scrum going into Iowa, say 8 candidates, they have got to have a finish in the Top 3 in one of the two caucuses and three primaries in front of the largest ever Super Tuesday, 14 states, inc. CA and TX. That is a lightning quick four weeks, and the money will be moving.]

All those aren't important to everyone, but one could prove a lifeline for someone.
11:04 PM Jul 22nd
 
LesLein
Rolling Stone says CNN covered the debate scheduling like it was the NBA draft lottery.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/cnn-debate-lottery-draw-media-stupidity-861287/

6:51 PM Jul 22nd
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy