July 30 Poll Report

July 31, 2019
 

July 30 Poll Report

            Good afternoon everybody.   There was a debate earlier tonight, and I apologize for not getting the poll report posted (a) yesterday, when I did not get one written, or (b) earlier today, when I had one written but, being in the car all day without access to the internet, had no way to post it.  Also, I could not get the debate on the radio, so I don’t know what happened.  Anyway, I have a double-update to report on, although the cumulative changes from two days ago are actually not all that large.  This is the poll that ran on Sunday, July 28:

Scores

Moulton

82

Trump

583

Bullock

112

Gravel

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Moulton

10

Trump

68

Bullock

13

Gravel

10

Actual

Moulton

24

Trump

29

Bullock

28

Gravel

19

 

            Trump’s support is "hard", inflexible, so when we poll Trump against weaker opponents they score higher than they normally would, and Trump much lower than his Support Score indicates.  This has no real impact on the accuracy of the Scores; all that happens is that the weaker candidate temporarily moves up 20 points--about one-fifth of one percent—and then those 20 points are re-distributed to the other weak candidates in future polls.   If you compare this to the standard, normal levels of inaccuracy which are reported daily in the Old Fogey Polls, you can see that this is a trivial problem, but people focus on it and bitch about it because the process is new, so people haven’t learned how to read it. 

            I remember the same thing when I was inventing Baseball Stats every year, which actually I still do although no one pays any attention to them anymore.  But anyway, I would invent, say, Runs Created, and people would complain that it didn’t deal with Sacrifice Flies in the right way or some damned thing, so people who wanted to reject the whole idea of Runs Created would focus on the failure to deal with Sacrifice Flies or whatever and continue to evaluate hitters based on the pre-sabermetric statistical triad of home runs, RBI and batting average.  

            But the process of petty criticism, annoying as it is—annoying as you all are—is a productive process, in that it leads in time to the refinements that eliminate some of the bugs.   I sort of think of what I am doing here as being parallel to the early Runs Created method, which didn’t deal with stolen bases or caught stealing or double play balls, or parallel to the Value Approximation Method, which was a forerunner of Win Shares.  Saying that I believe in what I am doing is a way of saying that it CAN be improved, not a way of saying that it can’t be improved.  Traditional polling has reached a dead end; its limitations are difficult to remove.  You can believe it or not, but in my own mind what I am doing is opening up the process. 

            In the other new poll, the poll that ran on Monday, July 29, Amy Klobuchar picked up a couple of points vs. expectations off of Bernie Sanders:

Scores

Steyer

62

Sanders

411

Gillibrand

284

Klobuchar

457

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Steyer

5

Sanders

34

Gillibrand

23

Klobuchar

38

Actual

Steyer

7

Sanders

33

Gillibrand

19

Klobuchar

40

 

            The expectations for the poll were 91% accurate, 92% if you save the decimal points.  A departure from expectations of that magnitude has no real impact on the Support Scores.  A poll has impact on the Support Scores when

(a)  The poll does not match expectations based on the Support Scores, or

(b)  We poll the leading candidates.

 

(B) is a larger factor than (a).  What really moves the Support Scores is when we poll the leaders.   The poll yesterday was a poll of three mid-range candidates and one tail-ender, and it pretty much matched expectations, so. . .doesn’t really move the numbers.   It’s like a team taking a one-point lead in the third quarter of an NBA game; you’d rather be a point ahead than a point behind, but it doesn’t really mean anything. Since my last update two days ago:

            Steve Bullock is up 22 points as a result of Sunday’s poll,

            Andrew Yang is up 21 points as a result of the removal of an old poll, from early June,

            Seth Moulton is up 17 points as a result of Sunday’s poll,

            Mike Gravel is up 14 points as a result of Sunday’s poll,

            Tulsi Gabbard is up 14 points as a result of something or other,

            Pete Buttigieg is down 23 points due to the cumulative effects of secondary adjustments from the two polls added and the two removed,

            Kirsten Gillibrand is down 26 points as a result of Monday’s poll and the removal from the data of the poll of June 8, in which she had defeated Andrew Yang 45 to 33, and

            Donald Trump is down 64 points as a result of Monday’s poll. 

            These are the updated Support Scores, the last Support Scores before the second round of Democratic debates:

Rank

First

Last

Support

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1831

2

Kamala

Harris

1018

3

Pete

Buttigieg

981

4

Joe

Biden

800

5

Donald

Trump

519

6

Amy

Klobuchar

462

7

Andrew

Yang

430

8

Bernie

Sanders

410

9

Julian

Castro

383

10

Cory

Booker

355

11

Beto

O'Rourke

343

12

Tulsi

Gabbard

286

13

Kirsten

Gillibrand

259

14

Jay

Inslee

249

15

John

Hickenlooper

233

16

Michael

Bennet

228

17

Bill

Weld

217

18

Howard

Schultz

160

19

Tim

Ryan

138

20

Steve

Bullock

136

21

John

Delaney

113

22

Seth

Moulton

99

23

Marianne

Williamson

99

24

Mike

Gravel

95

25

Bill

de Blasio

88

 

            Thank you all for reading, and for following the process. 

 
 

COMMENTS (7 Comments, most recent shown first)

MarisFan61
Dunno, but take my posts as saying Biden will rise in these polls in the next few days.

Beyond that? Not the slightest idea.
11:06 AM Aug 1st
 
MarisFan61
....Funny, most of the CNN talking heads -- ones whose views I usually regard highly -- felt Biden did only mediocrely. (At least one did feel he did pretty well.) And, they showed a video string of moments where he got confronted/grilled by various of the other candidates, which, in isolation, seemed to support their view. A couple of them said that seeing him as having done OK reflected "the bar being very low."

I see it differently; maybe it's just a different version of "low bar," although to me it was a pretty high bar because I thought it was almost impossible.
I thought the most important thing was for him just to present and sustain a strong 'appearance' -- the manner/demeanor stuff I've mentioned, on which I felt he was weak in his first debate -- very weak. And, I think he did it. He was almost uniformly crisp, and, from what I was able to notice, without any of the anxious and uncertain mannerisms.

How I saw it, if his standing remained as good as it did since the first debate -- i.e. he fell but not awfully, and recovered most of it; some reporting said he recovered it all but I don't think that was right --
....if his standing remained as good as it did since the first debate, this would put him back to "clear front runner." I felt he did exactly what he needed to do -- which is pretty synonymous with doing very well.

For what it's worth, the bettors still seem to be agreeing.
12:19 AM Aug 1st
 
MarisFan61
Biden doing better than I thought possible -- not talking about his content (which IMO is just so-so or somewhat below) but 'manner/demeanor' which IMO is the main department where he needed to show something, and he is.

For what it's worth, the betting odds are showing the same impression: now suddenly again showing him as the perceived most likely nominee, moving slightly back ahead of Kamala.

BTW, it's the second time today that I've been quite surprised.
The first: Yanks making no trade-deadline move. Main reason I felt sure they would was, all the 'experts' (just about all) were saying "The Yankees are going to get a starting pitcher." Some were saying "Maybe two."
Supports what Bill has said about "experts." :-)
8:21 PM Jul 31st
 
BarryBondsFan25
Looks like somebody was triggered.

You forgot to place "gullible" in front of moron as in "gullible moron(s)."
2:28 PM Jul 31st
 
ventboys
You guys are pathetic. It's like a couple of drunken morons crashed the wrong wedding, but they

just.

won't

leave.
1:54 PM Jul 31st
 
BarryBondsFan25
Easy Dipstop, you may trigger a BJOL member with posts like that.

Elizabeth Warren = America's mother-in-law.
8:27 AM Jul 31st
 
wovenstrap
"Saying that I believe in what I am doing is a way of saying that it CAN be improved, not a way of saying that it can’t be improved."

Elizabeth Warren had a resonant bit on the stage tonight that is roughly the same sentiment as this.
2:29 AM Jul 31st
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy