Tulsi Polls at 6% in New Hampshire Emerson Poll (Non-Qualifying)

Tulsi Gabbard seems to be gaining significant ground in non-qualifying New Hampshire polls. The latest Emerson Poll of the state shows her at an all-time poll high of 6%. This meshes with early-August non-quallifying polls from Gravis at 5% and Boston Globe at 3.2% in the state.

But somehow, the single qualifying poll of New Hampshire since August, a CBS/YouGov Poll, has Tulsi at only 1%. Odd that, right?!?

In this latest Emerson poll, Tulsi is just a bit behind Kamala Harris, who shows up at 8% in the state.

Share
up
10 users have voted.

Comments

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

Aristotle voter file of 983,944 registered voters with 235,727 landlines, and a random sample of22,000 drawn. Voters with only cellphones were not included. The online sample was of 349registered voters supplied by Dynata and mTurk.

Good for Tulsi, but the overall results showing Biden and Warren ahead of Bernie is highly suspect since the Emerson poll sampling specifically excluded cellphone users who didn't also have a landline, which pretty much excludes everybody under 60.

The lengths the polling companies go to pretend only old people vote in the primaries....

up
6 users have voted.

Peace Sells

Wally's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger
. . . isn't out of the realm of possibility.

I've notinced that Emerson national polls have widely oscillated of late. One month Bernie ahead of Warren, then Warren ahead of Bernie, then Bernie way ahead of Warren.

The variance in all the different polls on RCP (not Revolutionary Communist Party) is pretty wild.

I'm not going to pay much attention to them until after the New Year, and then only the state polls.

I like playing around with them to try to make some sense out of them, but the best anyone can come up with is speculation.

up
5 users have voted.
Shahryar's picture

is a really terrible idea. Especially in September of the year before the election. I'm not telling anyone here anything you don't already know. It's a sham from the DNC to stifle voices. They've shown they know how to lose elections and I think they're going to do it again while blaming everyone else.

up
8 users have voted.

interviewed by Dave Rubin this week. From the clips I saw presented in a harsh TYT critique, TG didn't always strongly defend the progressive cause. One of the TYT hosts said it was b/c she tends to want to play both sides of the political spectrum -- Rubin now clearly being from the Right tho he may not admit it -- and so didn't push back on some of his loaded RW-framed questions on gun control and immigration in particular. These clips did not look good for Tulsi the progressive.

Haven't yet seen the whole interview myself, but wonder if the TYTers engaged in some misleading cherry picking. Others here may have seen the whole thing and may have a different take.

up
3 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@wokkamile

TYT takes multi-millions of $$ in funding from the neoliberal establishment. They carried water for Hillary in 2016. It's my impression that most of the TYT hosts, including the one you're referring to (Emma Vigeland?), are essentially auditioning for jobs at MSNBC. They really want to become "important", meaning part of the mainstream media.

Jimmy Dore parted ways with TYT a while back, for good reason.

up
4 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@Centaurea the two female TYTers (Vigeland and Kasparian) were hitting Tulsi not from the Dem establishment center but from the left. As I don't watch TYT, I couldn't say whether they've been as tough on some of the centrist candidates and Liz Warren.

Kasaparian I know (like a few anti-Tulsi skeptics here) has long been critical of Tulsi on grounds of Modi and some other things in past years which are perceived as Tulsi having RW tendencies.

Anyway, I'm watching the full Tulsi now and might have another comment later.

up
2 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@wokkamile

Therefore, any attempt by them to "hit from the left" is suspect.

They're saying things that aren't true. They're framing Tulsi as "positioning herself as a progressive", the inference clearly being that she isn't actually progressive. As "proof", they implied that Tulsi only started supporting M4A recently, which is not correct.

They seem to be very confused and disturbed by the fact that Tulsi is reaching out to a wider audience than the one they're comfortable with. Oh, noes!!! She's talking to right-wing interviewers!!! (So is Bernie, for that matter.) She's not playing the political game in the way that the Dem and Repub duopoly has taught us over the past 40+ years.

Tulsi is not operating inside of the TYT hosts' comfort zone. Good. That's one reason why I like her. She's stepping off the duopoly's playing field and onto her own.

up
4 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@Centaurea those TYTers were legitimately left -- I couldn't say, tho being TYTers they likely aren't too far left. I merely noted that in attacking Tulsi mostly for not pushing back enough against RW talking points Dubin, they took a calculated stance to her left to accomplish their purposes.

I agree with the complaints about TYT and their commenters -- the self-confident but very confused middle-brow Cenk Uighur is still peddling R-gate nonsense. And TYT is now a big money operation, so we can assume all hosts at TYT have been bought and paid and won't go too rogue in their commentary. This in very stark contrast to the doesn't give a flip Jimmy Dore, whom I support via Patreon, a very valuable and funny voice for independent progressive thought.

But sometimes even TYTers can get it right, and as I watched nearly all of Tulsi's hour-plus interview, overall I felt the criticism on the pushback point was valid, and I am a Tulsi supporter. She was much too soft and friendly in agreeing to accept the right-libertarian frame of most of Dubin's questions. I found it a frustrating experience to watch. I will probably continue to back her, just not with the same level of enthusiasm.

up
1 user has voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

. . . it should be obvious that Tulsi is not going to get more than a handful of delegates if that. And my guess is that she'll eventually release them to Bernie and then she'll support blue no matter who even if it isn't Bernie.

And I've already noted above what I think about all the polls up above.

Just as Warren is oft dogpiled as not being left enough (myself included), maybe some folks critisizing Tulsi for not being left enough have valid points to make, too. Hey, if folks can criticize Bernie for not being left enough or even "not left", what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

I've noticed that Uygur, Vigeland and Kasparian, while saying nice things about Warren, also make it very clear that they support Bernie (at this point in time and probably through the nomination process). I've also heard them being critical of Warren. And Vigeland really put Warren on the spot in an interview where she asked about Warren's votes for increasing Trump's military budgets. It makes some sense to criticize them for not being left enough, but "not left"?

For me, it doesn't seem that Tulsi's positon on the size of the military budget or when and how to use the US military has been defined enough. It's obvious that she keeps making militaristic appeals even as she rightly speaks against US-initiated regime change. And it does seem that she has recently taken some other positions that certainly can be considered decidedly centrist and even right of center.

up
3 users have voted.

@Wally backing Bernie. Again, I am not a regular listener so wouldn't know these things. It does however seem an odd way to audition for a job at Msnbc.

On the issue of Tulsi's "militaristic appeals" -- not sure to what you refer. Her tough stance on fighting terrorism? I agree with it, and I'm an unreconstructed 60s type liberal (nowadays, "progressive"). We might disagree however if she is calling for the US to always be leading the military charge. I'm in favor of a multi-national effort, the US not leading. Or alternatively a joining with Russia in this effort, as Putin offered at the UN back in 2015, an offer Obama unwisely refused.

So yes, if that above position makes me "not left enough" too for some, then so be it, and I can sympathize on this score with Tulsi and Liz.

up
2 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

That's the first time I've ever seen them linked together in any way.

I just have questions about Tulsi's militarist gung ho-isms while appreciating her earnest opposition to regime change wars.

But Warren's votes to support and increase Trump's military budgets, that's a deal breaker for me.

up
3 users have voted.

noteworthy things about the debates. But, Tulsi, who is not far from Harris, doesn't even qualify to participate because the DNC is using only certain polls.

Why they chose only certain polls is no doubt another aspect of the "transparent" process that Perez touts so dishonestly. You have to give him points for nerve, though, given his corrupt email was among those that wikileaks exposed. What a fun guy, relying on collective amnesia. Then again, media helps him: How often have you heard an interviewer confront him with that datum?

up
6 users have voted.