Poll Results 5-11-2019

May 11, 2019
 

Poll Results 5-11-2019

 

            Poll Update:  Elizabeth Warren, who had an expectation of 60% of the vote in yesterday’s poll based on previous results, actually drew 71%, pushing her significantly further into first place.   Moulton got 4%, which is what I had predicted, but Castro and Hickenlooper both underperformed, Castro getting only 7% whereas I had expected 12%, and Hickenlooper getting 18% whereas I had predicted 25%.   The updated standings:

 

Postion

First

Last

Current

1

Elizabeth

Warren

1158

2

Pete

Buttigieg

1075

3

Kamala

Harris

1030

4

Joe

Biden

903

5

John

Kasich

657

6

Beto

O'Rourke

532

7

Bernie

Sanders

504

8

Donald

Trump

484

9

John

Hickenlooper

427

10

Cory

Booker

406

11

Amy

Klobuchar

380

12

Bill

Weld

287

13

Howard

Schultz

232

14

Andrew

Yang

231

15

Kirsten

Gillibrand

215

16

Julian

Castro

192

17

Michael

Bennet

186

18

Jeff

Flake

185

19

Tulsi

Gabbard

178

20

Jay

Inslee

167

21

Tim

Ryan

160

22

Eric

Swallwell

119

23

Mike

Gravel

77

24

John

Delaney

74

25

Seth

Moulton

74

26

Wayne

Messam

35

27

Marrianne

Williamson

31

 

            Hickenlooper and Castro lost 23, 24 points each.  Hickenlooper clearly does have a base of support.   I have polled him four times now, and he’s done reasonably well every time, not that he has finished first in any polls but he always does OK.  He has twice the level of support of names like Gillibrand, Yang, Castro, Bennet, Swallwell and Ryan. . . .closer to four times the support of Swallwell.   You can stop saying that it is just people voting for a funny name whenever you get tired of the joke.

            There will be no update like this tomorrow.  It’s Mother’s Day; I am going to the Royals’ game with my 95-year-old mother in law, who is a huge Royals’ fan, and then in the evening we are watching a movie with some friends.   I don’t know when I’m going to get my exercise in.   Thanks for reading; appreciate your interest.  

 
 

COMMENTS (14 Comments, most recent shown first)

shthar
Yang, Trump and Gabbard, wasn't that the outfield for the SF Seals in 52?
10:54 AM May 14th
 
chrisbodig
MarisFan61,

I've been wondering about the "why" as well. Maybe it's just for fun. As a baseball/politics junkie, I think it's fun.
Maybe Bill is "testing a method" as you mentioned. I'm inclined to copy this method to determine the most popular Hall of Fame candidates for the Modern Baseball Eras Committee vote this December. Of course, I don't have as many followers as Bill does from which to create the vote.
11:19 AM May 13th
 
MarisFan61
So.....are you really primarily interested in these details, or is it more just to get a sense of the basic political leanings of your followers ("who are these guys...."), or is it mostly that you're just using this topic as a means to test this method that you developed?

(Not allowed to say "All of the above.") :-)
9:10 PM May 12th
 
bjames
I wasn't going to do a poll report today, but I have a minute I didn't expect to have because the Royals game was short and there was no traffic. Yesterday's poll changed NOTHING, almost didn't move the needle on anybody. The three people who had been polled before (Yang, Trump and Gabbard) got precisely the same percentages relative to one another that we would have anticipated based on the previous polls, so they didn't move. Abrams' strong performance is interesting, but I won't include her in the data until I have polled her three times.
6:19 PM May 12th
 
MarisFan61
(How about both of the two of us trek down to 5th Ave.....)
3:13 PM May 12th
 
hotstatrat
typo from me, too: the first sentence should have "so" not "to": . . .so we can feel confident we are choosing the best one.
3:04 PM May 12th
 
MarisFan61
(dam, typo again -- who else would shoot someone on 5th Avenue for us to have an edit function?) :-)

In that last post (just below), that last pgph is supposed to be:

Beyond that, I'm at a loss. The one thing I feel sure about (then again I felt sure Trump couldn't win Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania) is that he's NOT doing all this work just because he's so interested to see the presidential preferences of his Twitter followers.
3:01 PM May 12th
 
hotstatrat
MF, SG, and all: Bill might be doing Maris's no. 2: testing his methodology as a way to choose a winner in a political/popularity constest.

or/and, perhaps, he wants us to examine the candidates in a systematic way to we can feel confident we are choosing the best one. It is overwhelming to compare dozens of candidates all at once, so we are have a baseball season of candidate contests comparing just enough to have a serious comparison - and see who wins over the longer more well examined season.
3:00 PM May 12th
 
MarisFan61
I'm 'assuming' (seems valid in this case) that he wouldn't figure it worthwhile to do all this work (because it wouldn't be) :-) just flat-out to see what are the presidential preferences of his Twitter followers.....or really it isn't even that; it's the presidential preferences of those among his followers who care enough to indicate their preferences.

But I can imagine it being a thing that many probably would see as the same thing but which I see as distinctly different, that first thing down there: Seeing for curiosity what are the political leanings of his followers.

Or testing a method that he came up with and is interested to see how it would work for something.

Beyond that, I'm at a loss. The one thing I feel sure about (then again I felt sure Trump couldn't win Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania) is that he's doing all this work just because he's so interested to see the presidential preferences of his Twitter followers.
12:06 PM May 12th
 
Steven Goldleaf
People keep pointing to that statement, but it tells us only what Bill is NOT trying to do for his precise followers. He's also NOT seeking to knit us cute little skullcaps out of pink yarn, nor mow our lawns for us on alternate Saturdays. I'm trying to find out what the purpose of this polling IS. If it's instructive, what is it seeking to instruct? The names of the declared candidates? Which ones an oddball selection of voters favors? Seems like a lot of trouble to go to for stuff we're all capable of speculating about without all the fancy and elaborate polling contortions.
9:48 AM May 12th
 
nettles9
Bill James, May 6, 2019: “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.“​
9:10 AM May 12th
 
Steven Goldleaf
That's essentially what I'm asking, Maris: what's the purpose, the point, the goal of this exercise?​
7:14 AM May 12th
 
MarisFan61
Bill: I have a question which IMO very oddly, nobody seems to have asked (I looked through all the comments on all these articles), and which, as near as I can tell, you haven't said.

What is your interest to be doing this?
(You said up-top in the Intro that you were going to say there why you're doing it, but I don't find that you did.)

So: What are you primarily doing?

I can only think of two things.
Well, two and a half -- the third one is comic, paranoid, and BJOL-centric.

-- Are you mainly just curious to see what's the political bent of your Twitter followers (knowing that it doesn't reflect any broad public), as a curiosity of its own?

-- Are you mainly just testing a method?
(Sometimes I do such a thing: I come up with a method and a find a thing to apply it to, to test it out; the thing I'm applying it to is arbitrary and of almost no importance to me; it's that I'm testing out the method; and I can easily imagine that you might do such a thing; and BTW I think I just set a record for semi-colons in a sentence.)

....or -- here's the comical paranoid BJOL-centric one:

-- Are you mainly looking to see how the BJOL population will respond about such an exercise that doesn't seem to have the promise to yield anything other than what's the political bent of your Twitter followers, which hardly seems worth the amount of work that you're putting into it -- including, seeing how long would it take for someone to ask the seemingly obvious question of why you're doing this? :-)
(I'm not real serious about this last thing, just wanting to include absolutely every little reason I can imagine for why you're doing this -- and this is all. In case Bill doesn't answer this real soon, I'll welcome other ideas of reasons from the more perceptive and imaginative among us, especially if it's to say that Bill really did say what's the reason and I'm just not seeing it.)

To be clear: It's not that I don't find the material interesting. I'm a total junkie of political polls. I look at political polls (or "probabilities") almost every day of my life, even when no election seems to be in sight. I suffer withdrawal when I don't find any.....​
4:20 AM May 12th
 
MattGoodrich
If you posted pictures of these 27 people and had me match the pictures to their names, there are only 8 that I know for sure I would get. Trump or Sanders are easy but who the heck is Wayne Messam or Eric Swallwell? Yeah, I could Google them and find something out, but I just really don't care. I'm sure their family knows and loves them.
12:42 AM May 12th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy