Remember me

Poll Results 5-10-2019

May 10, 2019

Poll Results 5-10-2019

            Well, we can write off the theory that John Kasich has only done well in these polls because he was the only Republican on the list.   Somebody had suggested that for why Kasich was doing as well in my polls as he has, but yesterday I polled Kasich against Trump and two minor Democrats.   The predicted results for the poll, based on previous polls, would be that Kasich would beat Trump, 45-42.  In fact, he walloped Trump, 51-24.    That is much more under-performance by Trump than it is over-performance by Kasich, but what it suggests is that, in fact, TRUMP was only doing as well as he had in the previous polls because he was the only Republican on the list, but that Republicans, given a choice, would prefer Kasich.  

            Of course, in yesterday’s poll, the two Democrats also over-performed, and no doubt their "scores" from yesterday are misleading/inaccurate, and will be out of line with their real support.   We have Michael Bennet now pegged at 185; he’s probably not actually that strong, and I know that, but I also know that my system will adjust for that and correct his score with additional polling.   It’s like a basketball rankings.   Sometimes a team that isn’t that good will go 18-for-26 shooting three-pointers, just as a fluke, and beat a much better team.   It screws up the rankings for a while, but it happened.   Michael Bennet doing unrealistically well because he was the stronger Democrat in the field is like a basketball team overperforming in a single game because they have a 7-foot center, not really that good, but they happened to be matched up against a pretty good team whose regular center was injured/not able to play so they were using a 6-8 backup at center, so your 7-footer scored 30 points and you won 72-64.  Same thing; matchups matter in the short run.   But we’ll poll everybody repeatedly, and after 5 or 6 polls we’ll actually know where everybody is and how they are doing.

            Back to Kasich, we have now polled him five times.  The first time, April 25, he was matched up against Gillibrand, Cory Booker and Klobuchar.  He finished first in the poll with 37%, but his "score" from that poll, evaluated by all of the information that we know have, is only 558—his worst performance in any of the five polls.     We polled him the second time on April 30.   He was matched up in that poll against Biden, Delaney and Moulton, and he got only 33%, far behind Biden with 60%, but his "score" from that poll is 627.   We polled him the third time on May third, a week ago today, against Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke and Mike Gravel.    He got 32% in that poll, Warren got 47%, but that’s actually a really strong performance against Elizabeth Warren, who is first in my polling and will move further ahead tomorrow, since she is over-polling significantly in the poll that is currently running.    His score from that poll, in isolation, would be 718—the best that he has done. 

            We polled him again on Sunday, against Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Gillibrand.   He got 30% compared to Buttigieg’s 43%, but again, Buttigieg was much weaker in that poll than in most of the others.   Based on that poll, Kasich would get a score of 679.     Yesterday, thumping Trump 51-24, he gets a score of 676.   So he’s now been polled against Biden, Warren, Buttigieg. Beto and Trump, four or five heavyweight contenders, and he’s done reasonably well every time. 

            These are the updated standings:











































































































































            Marianne Williamson, who is dead last in my polling, has qualified for the Democratic debate stage based on the number of individual donors.   I don’t know much about her.   I gather that she is an author.  

            Anyway, Trump dropped 96 points and dropped from 6th to 8th in the rankings based on his very weak showing yesterday against Kasich and two minor Democrats.   That’s a huge change in the rankings, and it sets off a string of "secondary adjustments" in the polling; everybody else is pushed up or down 10 points or 20 or sometimes 30, based on a re-evaluation of previous polls with the new score for Trump.   A 30-point loss is only 3/10th of one percent; it’s not actually a massive change; even Trump’s 96-point loss is a little less than one percent.   It just seems like a big number because, on most days, the secondary-effect movements are 3 points or less for almost everybody.  

            I think I am going to make some changes to the list process.  I think what I am going to do is:

1)      I’m going to add Stacey Abrams to the polling group, which will make 28 candidates.  I don’t really see that there’s a disadvantage to doing that; with daily polls people get tired of seeing the same names pop up again and again.  

2)     Tomorrow, I’m going to run a poll which is three random names and Stacey Abrams,

3)     Sunday I will do a poll of the four people who have been polled least often, whoever those are, and then

4)     Next week I will poll the candidates in order of their strength.   When we have 28 candidates each one would be polled once a week—4 times 7 is 28.   I think next week I’ll do the four strongest candidates against one another on Monday, the next four on Tuesday, the third heat on Wednesday, etc., getting down to the four weakest candidates (at the start of the week) being polled on the following Sunday.  

Then I’ll have to do something else the week after that, or I would wind up running the same polling groups again and again, thus not learning much.  Maybe I’ll go back to random groupings, but make the groups so that everybody is polled only once a week; I don’t know.   Anyway, thanks for participating/thanks for reading. 




COMMENTS (13 Comments, most recent shown first)

BBF: Your post seems to confirm Chris' impression, in your belief of what facts of those are on Trump's side.
Pardon my saying, but you've been had.
3:52 AM May 12th
chrisbodig- I support Trump. I don't support Trump because I'm on the train or because I don't accept facts. Quite the opposite actually. The facts relating to most subjects (collusion, obstruction, illegal immigration, the economy etc.) are on Trump's side. Trump has been surprisingly very good in terms of pushing a conservative agenda. That's why I support him.

I find those who do not accept simple facts to be many deep blue state Democrats and Never Trumpers. Not all but most.
2:28 PM May 11th
To those who are asking questions such as "what is the point" of what Bill is doing, I recommend scrolling back to May 6th and his article "Introduction to the Polling System."

I'm a baseball statistics junkie who has been reading Bill's work since 1982 and also a politics junkie so I love this polling project.

I looked at all of these polls and have noticed that Trump has polled at 27%, 28%, 26% and 24% (the lowest result being in the poll featuring Kasich). I think it's safe to say that the "Trump voter" among Bill's followers is in that range; that's less than the national average but it makes perfect sense.

If you're following Bill James or on this site, you're interested in the analysis of baseball and its statistics. It means you likely have an inquisitive mind, that you don't accept basic numbers at face value, that you are open to learning new things.

It stands to reason that a James follower would be more likely to be an independent voter than an average sampling of the U.S. population.

As someone who knows a great number of Trump supporters but am not one, I can tell you that my frustration with many of them is that they do not care about facts. They believe Trump when he says "fake news" and believe all of the rest of the garbage he spews.

This is not ALL Trump supporters and, I suspect, not reflective of those who are interested in Bill James, to those of you who are on this site. There's a second segment of Trump supporters who are "on the train" simply because they're Republicans and he's the leader of their party. Period. They don't like the Tweets or lies but accept him and his policies as preferable to what the Democrats are offering. My guess is that's most of you on BJOnline who support the President.

Therefore, I don't think it's surprising at all that a disproportionate amount of people in the James universe (people who THINK) would prefer a Democrat or a Republican such as John Kasich.
1:45 PM May 11th
Two-thirds of the polling group being of Blue Tribe sympathies means this exercise isn't likely to provide any useful insight into how the Red Tribe will vote. But it seems to me like it could provide VERY useful insight into which candidates poll the strongest among the Blue Tribe (or at least the non-radical wing thereof.)

It is of course no great revelation that the Blue Tribe prefers almost any other Republican over Donald Trump, nor that they especially prefer John Kasich in a world where they absolutely have to vote for a Republican. But I think Elizabeth Warren's strong performance (thus far) in Bill's polls is verrrry interesting...

It SEEMS to me like all the Democratic Party needs to do to secure the White House next year is nominate a centrist candidate who isn't Hillary Clinton. (Nothing has greatly changed since Bill's Open Letter to Kansas Democrats in 2016.) But of course the universe is complicated and I could be wrong in ways I can't even suspect, and I think this exercise of Bill's is likely to provide useful information.
11:32 AM May 11th
I wish I lived in the world that is reflected by these results, but it's pretty obvious that I don't. So I ask again: what's the point?
7:21 AM May 11th
Bill wrote this:

"My polls are only instructive about those people who happen to follow Bill James on twitter and who care enough to vote; that’ s all. I’m not trying to make it more than that. "

But, by writing about these polls he is making 'it more than that'. Anybody who has an audience has an amplifier, Bill has chosen to amplify these polls. I've paid little attention to the results of the polls, I'll confess I have not read any if these missives completely, I've skipped several, only to peruse to the comments. But Bill goaded me to comment - perhaps that was the goal of this exercise.
10:47 PM May 10th
Bill explained his method in the first polling article. If somebody really doesn't understand what Bill is doing, they shoud re-read the first article rather than projecting what they believe others whom they disagree with politically are thinking/saying.
10:23 PM May 10th
bottom to top to get the timing
10:16 PM May 10th
I put these here at a new story so these comments will be read and possibly there will be a response (read from top to bottom to get the timing correct)

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?

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.

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.

I agree, Steven definitely needs to chill. Please chill Steven.

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.

10:13 PM May 10th
when is Bill gonna answer Hey Bills?
9:53 PM May 10th
Steven Goldleaf, where did your "friends on the right" say that Bill is dealing lefty hogwash from the bottom of the deck? If you do not know what Bill is doing why can't you just simply say, "Hey Bill, what are you doing? I don't understand." Why do you insist on creating conflict?
9:20 PM May 10th
This is a self-selected sample and only reveals the bias of the those who elect to answer to Bills tweets .... I don't think anything nefarious is going on here. And it is way early.

If anybody in Bill's group want to see any of these clowns, including Trump, come here to Iowa. Many of these pols are here every week and just wait till fall/winter - its funny to see them 'act country'. Kerry came here, and went pheasant hunting: they showed him going to a sporting goods store where he asked: "Where can I get me a huntin license?". Even Trump came here and switched to being for Corn Alcohol. I dunno why people from the coasts think Iowa is a third world country or a state still in the 1930s. Bill has said the same about Coastal views of Kansas.

Back to the 'poll' -even as a sample of Libs it has a huge Mass. bias. Where was Trump ranked 4 years ago?
7:54 PM May 10th
Steven Goldleaf
Bill, if you get the time, could you explain a little more about what you're trying to do here? There are a lot of our friends on the right of the political spectrum who seem convinced that you're dealing lefty hogwash from the bottom of the deck, and I know several things about that: you're far from an ideologue, pretty far from a kneejerk lefty, but mostly that you're far too smart to pull a dumb stunt like that, much less to do this much work only for the pleasure of demonstrating that Trump stinks on ice. Are you trying to show how people across the spectrum, but left-leaning (because that's your Twitter followers), feel about the Democratic field at this early stage? I think you're shooting for something like that. I also feel that these are VERY early preliminary findings, sort of like the first few games of spring training, proving nothing but giving some early signs of who's got game and who doesn't. I definitely think this isn't at all about Trump or the final election results of 2020, but your inclusion of Trump and Kasich here, coupled with your not saying very explicitly what exactly is the purpose of these polls, is leading our right-leaning friends to conclude incorrectly as to your aim here. A word or two of clarification, please?
6:36 PM May 10th
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy