Poll Report May 22, 2019

 

None of the Above

 

            Every day, when I do my polls, a few people are kind enough to tell me that I need a "None of the Above option."   Well, no, actually, I don’t need a "None of the Above" option; I don’t need that, at all.  If you think that the poll needs that, that’s because you don’t understand what I am doing with these polls, and I would anticipate that you don’t.   It’s new and different and it has never been done before, so it is natural that people are going to confuse it with the things which HAVE been done for the last century or so, and which are still being done.   But I don’t need a "None of the Above" option, and let me explain why. 

            Because we already know.   We’re just polling four people at a time.  There are 30 candidates on my list now; I assume you’re not going to vote for 29 of them.  There might be three or four people that you COULD vote for, but there are probably 26 or 27 that you wouldn’t.  I know this.   The system knows this. 

            Each poll that I post is not a free-standing event, as it would be if it were being done by Quinnipiac, Marist, Gallup, or some other group of educated, reputable pollsteristas.   Each poll simply feeds more information into the network.   The network doesn’t need to be TOLD that 99% of you don’t want to vote for Wayne Messam, Marrianne Williamson, John Delaney, Mike Gravel, Francis Underwood or Everett Dirksen, because it already knows that.   Telling it that doesn’t add ANY information to what it already has.  

            Each polling group is used to re-establish the position of those four candidates relative to the other people in that poll.   It’s a point-conservation method; points are being moved around among the four people in the poll.  If it was a weak group going in, it will be a weak group coming out.  If it was a strong group going in, it will be a strong group coming out.   It doesn’t change how that group stands relative to the other 26 candidates.

            Well, it does, but not very much.   Mathematically, this is what we’re doing.   In yesterday’s poll, Amy Klobuchar went in at 410 points, and Eric Swallwell went in at 118.   We call these the "initial values".   What the initial value is doesn’t matter at all, at all, at all, for reasons that I will explain later, but Klobuchar and Swallwell come in at 410 and 118.  There are 528 points to be shared between them.   Klobuchar beat Swallwell in this poll, 42 to 6, which is a 7-to-1 ratio.  We thus divide the 528 points that Swallwell and Klobuchar hold between them in a ratio of 42 to 6, or 7 to 1.   528 times 42, divided by 48, is 462, so the 42 to 6 ratio is 462 to 66.   Klobuchar gets a "position point" for that matchup of 462, and Swallwell gets a position point of 66. 

            Klobuchar came in at 410 and Cory Booker at 453, which is 863 points.   Booker beat Klobuchar in the poll 43 to 42, which is 43-42 ratio (duh).   When you split 863 points in a 43-42 ratio, you get 437 points for Booker, and 426 for Klobuchar.  Klobuchar gets a score from that matchup of 426.

            In each poll of four candidates  there are six comparisons like that (A to B, A to C, A to D, B to C, B to D, and C to D.)  Each of those six comparisons results in two "position points", so there are 12 position points resulting from each four-person poll.   I have done 42 polls so far (the 43rd is running right now) so that results in 504 position points, each one of those estimating the position of one candidate relative to another, and, inferring from that, relative to the field as a whole.   

            If we used one of the four spaces in a twitter poll to collect "None of the Above" votes, that would cut the number of comparisons in the poll from 6 to 3 (A to B, A to C, and B to C), thus reducing the number of positioning estimates that result from each poll from 12 to 6.   That is ALL that it would do; it wouldn’t do anything at all to make the specific candidates being polled that day stronger or weaker; it would merely reduce the amount of information coming out of the poll.   Rather than 504 estimates of how one candidate is positioned relative to another, I would have 252.   That would make the current estimates dramatically less accurate, less meaningful, but otherwise the same. 

 

How the Math Works

            To finish the explanation of the math, Amy Klobuchar has now been polled eight times.  Since we get three "relative position points" from each poll for each candidate, we now have 24 different estimates of where she stands relative to the field of candidates.   Two of those 24 estimates give her scores in the 500s, 13 of them give her scores in the 400s, and the other 9 give her scores in the high 300s.   Adding these three from yesterday to the group (which makes 24), we then re-calculate her average, which was 410 before.   After one round of re-calculations, she goes up from 410 to 414, while Eric Swallwell goes down from 118 to 114. 

            In the second round of calculations Klobuchar has an initial value of 414, and Swallwell an initial value of 114.   This makes a total of 528, just as it did before, and we split those, just as we did before, in the ratio of 42 to 6, which (again) makes 462 for Klobuchar, 66 for Swallwell.   Sometimes, in a four-person poll, one person will go down 7 points, another person goes up 2, another up 2, the fourth person up 3.   Then the total (528, as here) won’t be exactly the same, so the candidate scores different in the second re-calculation than he/she did in the first.    You use the output calculations from the second re-calculation as the input scores for a third re-calculation, etc.   After about three rounds of re-calculation the scores aren’t really moving anymore, but I do 60, 70 rounds of re-calculation every day anyway; you reach the point at which the input scores are the same as the output scores through 14 or 15 decimal points.  

            If you can establish the relative standing of A to B and the relative standing of B to C and the relative standing of C to D, then you can establish the relative standing of A to D, even though you have not put A and D in the same poll.   To explain why it doesn’t matter what the starting positions are. . . suppose that you have four candidates:  Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon.   These are their starting values—100 points each:

 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

 

            We have just four polls to place them relative to one another, and we have just two Presidents in each poll.   In Poll #1, JFK beats Nixon, 58 to 42.   There are 200 points to be divided; we divide them 58-42, that makes a score of 116 for Kennedy, 84 for Nixon:

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0

 

              In Poll #2, Eisenhower beats LBJ, 59 to 41.  We split those 200 points, then, in a 59-41 ratio, which makes 118 to 82. 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0

 

 

              In Poll #3, John F. Kennedy is compared to LBJ, and beats him 68 to 32.  We split those 200 points 68-32, which makes 136-64. 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0
Poll 3		136.0	64.0

 

 

            In Poll #4, Eisenhower beats Nixon, 64 to 36.  We split those 200 points 64-36, which makes 128-72:

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0
Poll 3		136.0	64.0
Poll 4	128.0			72.0

 

 

            We now have an average of the two polls for each of the four candidates—123 for Eisenhower, 126 for Kennedy, 73 for Johnson, and 78 for Nixon:

 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0
Poll 3		136.0	64.0
Poll 4	128.0			72.0
Average	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0

 

 

            We then repeat the process, using these averages as the input numbers.   In the second round, we get output numbers of 122.1 for Eisenhower, 126.8 for Kennedy, 72.0 for Johnson, and 79.0 for Nixon:

 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0
Poll 3		136.0	64.0
Poll 4	128.0			72.0
Average	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Cycle 2	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Poll 1		118.3		85.7
Poll 2	115.6		80.4
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.6			72.4
Average	122.1	126.8	72.0	79.0

 

 

            We repeat the process a third time, using the output numbers (the averages) from the second round as the input figures for the third round:

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0
Poll 3		136.0	64.0
Poll 4	128.0			72.0
Average	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Cycle 2	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Poll 1		118.3		85.7
Poll 2	115.6		80.4
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.6			72.4
Average	122.1	126.8	72.0	79.0
Cycle 3	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	122.1	126.8	72.0	79.0
Poll 1		119.4		86.5
Poll 2	114.6		79.6
Poll 3		135.2	63.6
Poll 4	128.7			72.4
Average	121.6	127.3	71.6	79.4

 

 

            We repeat the process a fourth time, using the output numbers from the third round as the input numbers in the fourth round.  

 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0
Poll 3		136.0	64.0
Poll 4	128.0			72.0
Average	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Cycle 2	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Poll 1		118.3		85.7
Poll 2	115.6		80.4
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.6			72.4
Average	122.1	126.8	72.0	79.0
Cycle 3	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	122.1	126.8	72.0	79.0
Poll 1		119.4		86.5
Poll 2	114.6		79.6
Poll 3		135.2	63.6
Poll 4	128.7			72.4
Average	121.6	127.3	71.6	79.4
Cycle 4	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.6	127.3	71.6	79.4
Poll 1		119.9		86.8
Poll 2	114.0		79.2
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.7			72.4
Average	121.4	127.6	71.4	79.6

 

 

            After ten cycles of repetition the scores are not moving, and they will never move again, no matter how many cycles you repeat the process:

 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Poll 1		116.0		84.0
Poll 2	118.0		82.0
Poll 3		136.0	64.0
Poll 4	128.0			72.0
Average	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Cycle 2	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	123.0	126.0	73.0	78.0
Poll 1		118.3		85.7
Poll 2	115.6		80.4
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.6			72.4
Average	122.1	126.8	72.0	79.0
Cycle 3	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	122.1	126.8	72.0	79.0
Poll 1		119.4		86.5
Poll 2	114.6		79.6
Poll 3		135.2	63.6
Poll 4	128.7			72.4
Average	121.6	127.3	71.6	79.4
Cycle 4	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.6	127.3	71.6	79.4
Poll 1		119.9		86.8
Poll 2	114.0		79.2
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.7			72.4
Average	121.4	127.6	71.4	79.6
Cycle 5	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.4	127.6	71.4	79.6
Poll 1		120.2		87.0
Poll 2	113.8		79.1
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.6			72.3
Average	121.2	127.8	71.4	79.7
Cycle 6	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.2	127.8	71.4	79.7
Poll 1		120.3		87.1
Poll 2	113.6		78.9
Poll 3		135.4	63.7
Poll 4	128.6			72.3
Average	121.1	127.9	71.3	79.7
Cycle 7	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.1	127.9	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.4		87.2
Poll 2	113.5		78.9
Poll 3		135.5	63.7
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	121.0	127.9	71.3	79.7
Cycle 8	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.0	127.9	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.4		87.2
Poll 2	113.5		78.9
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.7
Cycle 9	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.5		87.2
Poll 2	113.5		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.8
Cycle 10	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.8
Poll 1		120.5		87.3
Poll 2	113.4		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Cycle 11	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Poll 1		120.5		87.3
Poll 2	113.4		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.4			72.3
Average	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Cycle 12	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Poll 1		120.5		87.3
Poll 2	113.4		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.4			72.2
Average	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Cycle 13	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Poll 1		120.5		87.3
Poll 2	113.4		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.4			72.2
Average	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8

 

 

            JFK winds up at 128.0, Ike at 120.0, Nixon at 79.8 and LBJ at 71.3; that’s all the information there is in those polls.  Actually, the numbers are still moving here, but they are moving on the second or third digit.   We repeat the process 60 or 70 times so that they are only moving on some very, very out-there digit.

            Suppose, however, that for the first cycle, rather than giving each President 100 points, you give all 400 points to Richard Nixon.  In the first round of the process, this seems to make a difference:

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
				400.0
Poll 1		232.0		168.0
Poll 2	0.0		0.0
Poll 3		0.0	0.0
Poll 4	256.0			144.0
Average	128.0	116.0	0.0	156.0

 

 

            Although Nixon starts out with all 400 points, in the first round he loses to JFK, 58-42, so JFK gets 232 of those 400 points, Nixon the other 168.   After one round, Nixon is down to 156.0 points.  After two rounds, he is down to 108.2:

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
				400.0
Poll 1		232.0		168.0
Poll 2	0.0		0.0
Poll 3		0.0	0.0
Poll 4	256.0			144.0
Average	128.0	116.0	0.0	156.0
Cycle 2	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	128.0	116.0	0.0	156.0
Poll 1		157.8		114.2
Poll 2	75.5		52.5
Poll 3		78.9	37.1
Poll 4	181.8			102.2
Average	128.6	118.3	44.8	108.2

 

            And after three rounds, Nixon is down to 90.2:

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
				400.0
Poll 1		232.0		168.0
Poll 2	0.0		0.0
Poll 3		0.0	0.0
Poll 4	256.0			144.0
Average	128.0	116.0	0.0	156.0
Cycle 2	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	128.0	116.0	0.0	156.0
Poll 1		157.8		114.2
Poll 2	75.5		52.5
Poll 3		78.9	37.1
Poll 4	181.8			102.2
Average	128.6	118.3	44.8	108.2
Cycle 3	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	128.6	118.3	44.8	108.2
Poll 1		131.4		95.2
Poll 2	102.3		71.1
Poll 3		110.9	52.2
Poll 4	151.6			85.3
Average	127.0	121.2	61.7	90.2

 

 

            When we start out with all 400 points assigned to Nixon, it takes more cycles of repetition to get to the correct numbers, but after 15 cycles the numbers will arrive at exactly the same numbers we had before, when everybody started out even:

 

	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
				400.0
Poll 1		232.0		168.0
Poll 2	0.0		0.0
Poll 3		0.0	0.0
Poll 4	256.0			144.0
Average	128.0	116.0	0.0	156.0
Cycle 2	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	128.0	116.0	0.0	156.0
Poll 1		157.8		114.2
Poll 2	75.5		52.5
Poll 3		78.9	37.1
Poll 4	181.8			102.2
Average	128.6	118.3	44.8	108.2
Cycle 3	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	128.6	118.3	44.8	108.2
Poll 1		131.4		95.2
Poll 2	102.3		71.1
Poll 3		110.9	52.2
Poll 4	151.6			85.3
Average	127.0	121.2	61.7	90.2
Cycle 4	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	127.0	121.2	61.7	90.2
Poll 1		122.6		88.8
Poll 2	111.3		77.3
Poll 3		124.3	58.5
Poll 4	139.0			78.2
Average	125.1	123.5	67.9	83.5
Cycle 5	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	125.1	123.5	67.9	83.5
Poll 1		120.0		86.9
Poll 2	113.9		79.2
Poll 3		130.1	61.2
Poll 4	133.5			75.1
Average	123.7	125.1	70.2	81.0
Cycle 6	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	123.7	125.1	70.2	81.0
Poll 1		119.5		86.6
Poll 2	114.4		79.5
Poll 3		132.8	62.5
Poll 4	131.0			73.7
Average	122.7	126.2	71.0	80.1
Cycle 7	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	122.7	126.2	71.0	80.1
Poll 1		119.6		86.6
Poll 2	114.3		79.4
Poll 3		134.1	63.1
Poll 4	129.8			73.0
Average	122.1	126.9	71.3	79.8
Cycle 8	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	122.1	126.9	71.3	79.8
Poll 1		119.9		86.8
Poll 2	114.1		79.3
Poll 3		134.7	63.4
Poll 4	129.2			72.7
Average	121.6	127.3	71.3	79.7
Cycle 9	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.6	127.3	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.1		87.0
Poll 2	113.8		79.1
Poll 3		135.1	63.6
Poll 4	128.9			72.5
Average	121.4	127.6	71.3	79.7
Cycle 10	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.4	127.6	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.2		87.1
Poll 2	113.7		79.0
Poll 3		135.3	63.7
Poll 4	128.7			72.4
Average	121.2	127.7	71.3	79.7
Cycle 11	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.2	127.7	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.3		87.1
Poll 2	113.6		78.9
Poll 3		135.4	63.7
Poll 4	128.6			72.3
Average	121.1	127.9	71.3	79.7
Cycle 12	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.1	127.9	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.4		87.2
Poll 2	113.5		78.9
Poll 3		135.4	63.7
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	121.0	127.9	71.3	79.7
Cycle 13	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.0	127.9	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.4		87.2
Poll 2	113.5		78.9
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.7
Cycle 13	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.7
Poll 1		120.5		87.2
Poll 2	113.5		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.8
Cycle 14	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	121.0	128.0	71.3	79.8
Poll 1		120.5		87.2
Poll 2	113.4		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.5			72.3
Average	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Cycle 15	Ike	JFK	LBJ	Nixon
	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8
Poll 1		120.5		87.3
Poll 2	113.4		78.8
Poll 3		135.5	63.8
Poll 4	128.4			72.3
Average	120.9	128.0	71.3	79.8

 

              These are exactly the same numbers we arrived at when everybody started out with 100 points.   Those are the only numbers that you can arrive at, if you’re splitting 400 points between those four candidates based on those polls.   The process of the analysis drives the numbers to the only possible conclusion that it can arrive at.  

            In this example we are positioning just four candidates based on four simple polls.   In my daily Presidential polls I am positioning 30 candidates based on 42 polls, but the process is the same.   All of the polls (so far) count toward the standings.   After I have done 50 polls I will start removing the oldest polls out of the data, but so far they all count.

             

Yesterday’s Polls

 

            The candidates in yesterday’s poll were Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Eric Swallwell and Steve Bullock.  The expected results of this poll, based on previous polls, were:

 

Booker

42

Klobuchar

38

Swallwell

11

Bullock

9

 

              This was the first time I had polled Governor Bullock, who just jumped into the pool, so actually his expectation was not established by previous polling; it was just a guess, although I happened to guess about right.   The actual results of the poll were:

Expected	Booker	42	Klobuchar	38	Swallwell	11	Bullock	9
Actual	Booker	43	Klobuchar	42	Swallwell	6	Bullock	9

 

            So Swallwell did not do swell in this poll, with 4% of his support fleeing to Klobuchar, and another 1% to Booker.   These, then, are the updated standings:

Rank	First	Last	Current
1	Elizabeth	Warren	1229
2	Pete	Buttigieg	1033
3	Joe	Biden	940
4	Kamala	Harris	890
5	John	Kasich	710
6	Stacey	Abrams	550
7	Beto	O'Rourke	536
8	Bernie	Sanders	494
9	Donald	Trump	467
10	Cory	Booker	459	UP 7
11	Amy	Klobuchar	419	UP 9
12	John	Hickenlooper	346
13	Bill	Weld	275
14	Kirsten	Gillibrand	248
15	Andrew	Yang	238
16	Julian	Castro	219
17	Howard	Schultz	195
18	Tulsi	Gabbard	194
19	Jeff	Flake	181
20	Jay	Inslee	176
21	Michael	Bennet	157
22	Tim	Ryan	139
23	Eric	Swallwell	110	DOWN 8
24	Mike	Gravel	79
25	Seth	Moulton	71
26	John	Delaney	67
27	Marrianne	Williamson	38
28	Wayne	Messam	32

 

 

What the Hell You Doin’ Here, James?

 

            A couple of weeks ago I had a outbreak of posts from annoyed readers who were either (a) wanting to know what I was doing with these polls, or (b) demanding that I stop doing it, depending on one’s viewpoint and on the specific annoyed reader.  You can better understand what I am doing by observing what I am doing than by having it explained to you, but I’ll try to help. 

            The pivot point in the history of American polling, as I would guess many of you know, is the Literary Digest Presidential poll of 1936.  The Literary Digest, a popular magazine with a large circulation, conducted straw polls to predict the winner of the Presidential contest in 1916, 1920, 1924, 1928 and 1932, and they were correct every time.  They were the Gold Standard of polls.   They predicted who would win state by state, and they got most of the states right, always.  

            In 1936, the Literary Digest not only predicted that Alf Landon  would beat Franklin Roosevelt; they predicted that he would beat Roosevelt by a wide margin.  Public faith in the Literary Digest poll was such that many, many people simply assumed that Landon was going to win. In fact, Landon lost 46 of the 48 states.   They had polled 2.4 million people, which is about 3,000 times as many as a modern pollster would reach—yet they got it completely, massively wrong.  A young pollster, George Gallup, polling a much smaller number of people, predicted correctly that Roosevelt would win a landslide victory.   This launched the career of George Gallup, literally killed the Literary Digest, and charted the course which polling has followed to the present day. 

            In retrospect, the Literary Digest made a long series of polling mistakes.  First, their outreach sample was biased toward those with money.   They polled their own users first; that was a relatively high-income sample.  They built on that by lists of phone users and registered automobile owners, but in 1936 not everybody had a telephone or an automobile.  Those who did tended to be more wealthy than those who did not, and they tended to vote more Republican.

            That, however, was not the big problem.  The bigger problems were (1) that they allowed self-selection in their voters, the return of mail-in cards, (2) that their poll was way too far out in front of the vote, and (3) that the widespread belief that Landon had the election in the bag caused Republicans to take their foot off the pedal.  When you allow self-selection of the voters—as my Twitter polls do, for example—you allow a campaign to take advantage of that by driving their supporters to participate.  Second, they were polling people in July about how they would vote in November.  And third, the Republicans’ belief that they were going to win the race was the exact same mistake the Hillary made in 2016, when she didn’t go to Wisconsin because she thought she didn’t have to.  It created an imbalance in voter motivation. 

            For the last 83 years, polling has been marching down a narrow path—a path defined and restricted by the mistakes that were made in 1936, and have been repeated countless times in different disguises since 1936.  One by one, mistake by mistake, we have learned things to do and not to do—make sure that you have the right mix of Democrats and Republicans, the right mix of men and women, the right proportion of minorities, the right mix of young and old and in-between.  Make sure you have got mostly registered voters, the right number of "likely" voters.  They call this "scientific" polling, although that is not a good name for it.  A set of guidelines is static.  Science is not static; it evolves rapidly.

            Scientific polling, frankly, is not all that damned good.  The reputable, upstanding, Skienterific pollsteristas are currently trying to tell us that 31% of Democrats or 38% of Democrats or some such number are currently supporting Joe Biden.   Frankly, I think they’re full of shit.   I think these are stupid estimates.  I don’t believe them; I don’t 50% believe them, I don’t 10% believe them.   They’re just wrong. 

            It’s not that these polls are not professional, or that the practices they believe in are not valid practices.  It is that they are using a simplistic, outdated polling model that blurs the truth more than it reveals it.  It has two huge problems.  One is that, that by their own rules, they are required to poll people who are not prepared to give them a thoughtful answer.   The other is, in essence, that they are using an out-of-focus camera.  I am trying to show them how they can focus their camera. 

            Look I understand the problems with Twitter polls.   In all likelihood, despite your warm and generous efforts to explain the problems to me, I understand these problems a great deal better than you do.   I do not actually believe that Elizabeth Warren would beat President Trump by a ratio of 1229 to 467 in a public vote, any more than you do.  

            But on the other hand, I don’t believe that Joe Biden has 35% support among Democrats, either.   These polls walk up to people and ask them who they are supporting for President.  People haven’t thought about it; the first name thsy many of the come up with is Joe Biden, so a good many of them say "Joe Biden."   They haven’t yet focused on the issue.   You’re not really getting "support"’ you’re getting name recognition, which doesn’t actually mean anything in a contest of this nature, because, by the time people vote, everybody will know both of the names.  

            Sometimes they don’t walk up to people; sometimes they call them on the phone, but that’s really the same thing; they are polling people who are not prepared to answer the question.   The other thing they do sometimes is, they show people a list of all the Democrats running for President, and they ask which one do you support?   People look over the list; don’t know that guy, don’t know that woman, is that a real name or a made-up one?   They don’t know.   You could add "Yogi Berra" to the list of people being polled and he’d get 8% because people would recognize the name and not be able to place it.   

            And, by their logic, you have to poll 800 people to have "statistically significant" results.   Which is PURE BS; granted, it is BS based on misunderstood statistical theory, but it’s BS.   Under those circumstances, you don’t get any type of legitimate discrimination between one down-list candidate and another.  

            When we poll only 4 people at a time, each of those people has a fair chance to stand out from the other three.   The "norm" isn’t four or five percent apiece; it is 25%.   You have an opportunity to support the candidate that you have seen something in that you like. 

            You can believe it or not, but the people who respond to my Twitter polls know the difference between Wayne Messam and Tulsi Gabbard, and we know for certain that they do.   We know that they do because every time that we poll Wayne Messam, he gets a position point between 22 and 45, and every time we poll Tulsi Gabbard, she gets a position point between 162 and 256.   This is true of every candidate in the group; they go up and they go down, but they’re not getting random outcomes.  They’re getting predictable outcomes.   That can only happen if people KNOW who they are voting for. 

            Because of this method that I have developed here, my readers actually KNOW how Julian Castro stands in comparison to Michael Bennett, how the support for Stacey Abrams compares to the support for John Hickenlooper, and whether John Kasich is getting traction in the Republican Party or whether he is not (he is.)  Granted, they only know these things within the boundaries of my twitter following, but that is something.   Outside that poll, who has ANY answer to these questions? 

 

            It has always been the central goal of my career to contribute to the discussion—not to contribute to the discussion for a moment, but to contribute to the discussion in such a way that the discussion is permanently different than it was before.  In my view, there is a spin-your-wheels discussion, in which the same cycles repeat themselves over and over, generation after generation, and there is a knowledge based discussion which builds understanding over time.  I have always tried to contribute to the knowledge-based discussion, while participating no more than necessary to the spin-your-wheels discussion. 

            Regardless of what you think that I am doing here, what I think that I am doing here is changing the discussion—not changing it today, very  much, not changing it tomorrow, but in the long term, profoundly changing it.   A lot of the attacks on my polling system, from my readers, have been based on the assumption that what I am trying to do is merely a flawed version of what pollsters have been doing for a hundred years—but I don’t think it is a weaker version of what others have done before; I think that it is new, original, and that it is superior to what other pollsteristas are doing.  I believe that, in time, what I am doing in these polls will be imitated by other pollsters until some unforeseen derivative of this polling method becomes the standard, normal way that political polls are done.   I believe that that will happen because I believe that when you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your website.  I’m not saying that I’m right; you can believe what you want to believe.   But I believe in what I am doing.