June 10 Poll Report

June 10, 2019
 

June 10 Poll Report

 

            Tulsi Gabbard did poorly in yesterday’s poll, ceding a little bit of support to Julian Castro and a little bit to Jay Inslee:

Scores

Inslee

187

Castro

205

Gabbard

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Predicted

Inslee

33

Castro

36

Gabbard

30

Actual

Inslee

36

Castro

38

Gabbard

26

 

            Gabbard thus sinks to 165 (1.65%), a new low for her.  As has been the case for several days in a row, the removal of the old poll had more impact on the standings than the addition of the new one.  The stale poll removed from the standings was the poll of April 20—Gillibrand, 20; Booker, 44; Castro, 15; Flake 21.   Castro thus was in both polls of interest—the new one added and the old one taken away.   The net result was +8 for him, but he is still within the envelope of where he has been in recent weeks. 

            Four candidates moved by five points or more since yesterday; well, three candidates and one guy that I have been including in the polls since I thought he might become a candidate.   Kirsten Gillibrand, discussed yesterday since she is moving up solidly in the poll, gains another 17 points due to the removal of the April 20 poll.  Castro adds 8, Gabbard loses 5, and Flake loses 19 due to the removal of the April 20 poll.  These are today’s standings:

Rank

First

Last

Current

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1651

2

Pete

Buttigieg

1138

3

Joe

Biden

1137

4

Kamala

Harris

820

5

Amy

Klobuchar

506

6

Bernie

Sanders

504

7

Cory

Booker

451

8

Beto

O'Rourke

433

9

Stacey

Abrams

361

10

Donald

Trump

313

11

Kirsten

Gillibrand

309

12

Bill

Weld

267

13

Andrew

Yang

243

14

John

Hickenlooper

235

15

Julian

Castro

213

16

Jay

Inslee

190

17

Howard

Schultz

177

18

Tulsi

Gabbard

165

19

Jeff

Flake

144

20

Michael

Bennet

129

21

Steve

Bullock

98

22

Eric

Swalwell

94

23

Tim

Ryan

76

24

Seth

Moulton

76

25

Mike

Gravel

71

26

John

Delaney

66

27

Marianne

Williamson

59

28

Bill

de Blasio

50

29

Wayne

Messam

25

 

            The total movement of all candidates was only 79 points, which is very low, the lowest total of the last eight days.   Fewer points move when we poll the tail-end candidates as opposed to the stronger candidates.  

            It is a clear pattern that my voters are losing interest in the people who are not actively campaigning—Abrams, Flake, and Schultz.   Due to secondary effects of other candidates moving, Amy Klobuchar has passed Bernie Sanders in my poll, and Wayne Messam has established a new low for any candidate, 25 (or one-quarter of one percent.)  Don’t want to make anything out of the Klobuchar/Sanders thing, which may turn around tomorrow, and Messam was at 25.51 yesterday, 25.48 today—really nothing, but it rounds different.  

            In the next round of polling I am going to place the candidates in trial heats based on a combination of their standing in the poll, and a random number.  In this round I was placing people in trial heats strictly by their poll number, but I can’t do that every week or I would be polling the same groups over and over.   By using a random number, I can put strong candidates against strong candidates and weaker ones against generally weaker, but stirring the pot a little bit.  Also, in the last two rounds, since I have 29 "candidates" and 29 is not a number that divides evenly by four, I was running three groups of three, which I hate to do because I get only six positioning points out of a three-person race, whereas I get 12 positioning points out of four-person race, and I need as much information as possible to get a clear picture of where everybody stands.   I realized that was stupid; what I should do instead is just run through seven trial heats of four candidates each, and then whoever is not in that round is in the first heat of the next round.   I don’t know if that makes sense. . . .anyway, thanks for voting, and thanks for reading.   

I’m still trying to figure out how to do this.   I have decided not to remove Flake or Messam from the poll until at least after the late-June Democratic debate(s), which will be sort of a re-set button for some of the campaigns. 

 

 

In 2016, when there were a large number of Republican candidates, I thought that what Fox News ought to do in, let’s say, the 7:00 hour, was to arrange a long series of one-on-one debates among candidates, Jeb Bush against Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz against Mike Huckabee, etc., and each day have the public vote on who won the debate, and keep a running tally of wins and losses.   Let’s say you did that every day, half hour a day for three months, five days a week, you’d have 60-some mini-debates; each candidate would get about seven chances to make their case against another candidate, one on one.   I thought it would be great television and would get tremendous ratings, and also that it would be a public service, giving candidates a real chance to say what they had to say.   So I’ll suggest that now for MSNBC or CNN or whoever.   I think the "Town Halls" are not that interesting because they give the candidates too much space to schmooze and emote and bloviate, rather than discussing the issues.  I watch them, but I rarely come out of the experience with a different perspective on the candidate than I went in with. 

 

 

 
 

COMMENTS (4 Comments, most recent shown first)

steve161
Oh, I'll read it, but I doubt it'll be half as interesting or original as Dave's baseball writings.
12:32 AM Jun 11th
 
bjames
I don't know how much you want secondary political stuff, but I'd be happy to post it here, if you think there's interest.


Oh, by all means, Dave. I mean, nobody has to read it if they don't like it.
7:47 PM Jun 10th
 
meandean
It'd also be nice if debates, y'know, were debates. Having them all be one-on-one would obviously help with respect to that.

I'd like to see what would happen if there were no moderators and the candidates were responsible for asking each other questions. What questions you ask is as informative as what answers you give, really.
2:49 PM Jun 10th
 
DaveFleming
On your Fox News idea: I had a very similar idea for the Democrats this year, and actually wrote an article about it which I pitched around (to Slate and a few other sites). Didn't get picked up, but it was the same general gist.

I don't know how much you want secondary political stuff, but I'd be happy to post it here, if you think there's interest.
2:07 PM Jun 10th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy