Tulsi Hits 6% in Recent Wisconsin Primary Poll
Change Research came out with a poll in Wisconsin taken Sept. 27-Oct. 2, which was buried as quickly as possible. It was a poll of 1,002 Democratic primary-voting people. The basic gist is:
Warren: 23%
Sanders: 17%
Biden: 9%
Gabbard: 6%
Buttigieg: 5%
Yang: 4%
Harris: 2%
There are numerous shocking things about that poll--Tulsi's rise (4th place!), Biden's fall (9%?!?), Harris evaporating (2%?!?) . . . When Tulsi is within the margin of error of equaling Biden, you know things are not well in DNC land! A 6% showing is around 60 people.
Change Research is a pretty secretive pollster--the original poll is not available for viewing that I can find. Also, note that in that poll the top 7 candidates make up only 66% of the total--which indicates a lot of undecided voters.
Maybe this is part of what has the establishment freaking out over Tulsi right now. After every debate, she has gained in popularity (excepting the one she wasn't at).
Comments
Warren is pulling away though
I thought that Warren would not do well in the Midwest, so this is a surprise. If she beats Sanders in Iowa that will really be interesting. If Tulsi leapfrogs Biden, then the mainstream media will be apoplectic, with three front runners that the mainstream media and mainstream Democrats hate.
Yes
It really looks as though Warren will be the eventual nominee.
I think the establishment will be generally okay with that--except for the bankers. The DNC, the military-industrial-intelligence complex--they'll be fine with it.
@apenultimate It would be interesting
It would be interesting to see how Warren handles the MIC. She doesn't strike me as being a warmonger, though she has supported the military.
She might not be
a full-on warmonger, but she's not anti-MIC either. I suspect she would knuckle under and give them whatever they want. She doesn't appear to have the spine required to do otherwise.
"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
As long as members of congress put Israel's interests
before ours they will support wars. Period. IMO. Warren hasn't said much foreign policy wise, but she supported Israel's slaughter of Palestinians in 2014 when they ran out of bombs. She voted to send them more. She has voted for the military budget without talking about how every dollar it gets comes out of funding we need. She voted for sanctions on Iran and Venezuela which to me means that she supports our global hegemony. If anyone knows differently let me know.
Apparently holocaust denial is not an issue anymore. Lots of people are denying the one in Gaza with absolutely no repercussions.
Warren's Military Madness
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmdedLoOJx4]
A bit hyperbolic.
She can hardly be put in the Hillary-Henry the K warmongering category b/c she's voted for a few military budgets. Wake me up though when she openly starts soliciting Hank's endorsement a/o begins calling for a regime change military effort in VZ, Syria or Iran.
That said, I'm somewhat less enthusiastic about some of these candidates as compared to the beginning of the year. Bernie's age combined with health issues is of more concern now. Tulsi has disappointed in a few areas, and I'm still annoyed at her soft Rave Dubin interview. Yang with his innovative DP ideas is disappointingly dull on changing the FP mindset.
At the same time as these 3 have disappointed to varying degrees, I am increasingly optimistic re Dem chances of winning the general. Though a generic Bill Maher-approved AnyDem won't be enough. S/he will have to have enough in the policy and personality areas to help generate enthusiasm and turnout. Amy Klobuchar does not fit this bill.
Warren seems to like Maddie Albright Well Enough
And I read somewhere, I admit I don't know how reliable the report is, that HerHeinous set Warren up to meet with Henry Kissinger to discuss foreign policy. My guess is she will also get along with Robert Kagan and his lovely spouse Victoria Nuland Kagan, both of whom were big HerHeinous supporters with the latter having served under her while she was SoS.
BTW, even though I bust your chops (and vice versa), I do appreciate your commentary.
That is certainly the big question.
Does anyone have the ability to take on the Israeli lobby and stop our madness in the middle east? It may be that Trump might have more spine than anyone else. But the deep state (both Democratic and Republican parts of it) seem to have the ability to overrule any of this madness.
Challenging
the Izrul lobby and stranglehold on our Mideast FP is probably way too much to ask for this cycle. We (i.e. Tulsi) are just beginning to challenge the D.C./DNC regime change mindset. A few bold souls are beginning to voice skepticism about our ties with the brutal Saudi regime.
That's already quite a bit to chew over and push back against.
Get back to me on Izrul in 2028 or so.
If we still have elections by then.
If we still have a country by then.
None of these polls have a handle on independent voters
Independent voters now probably constitute more than 42% of the electorate and they can vote in some state primaries but not in others. Wisconsin is an open primary which will allow independents to vote for Bernie, Tulsi, or whoever is running in the Democratic primary there.
And given that there's always a rather sizeable margin of error of around 5% in many of these polls, it remains pretty close to a statistical tie between Bernie and Warren in the Wisconsin poll you note - even aside from it not adequately accounting for independent voters. I don;t think anybody can figure them out given a wide diversity of thinking in their ranks.
Re Wisconsin,
their primary doesn't take place until the first week of April -- that puts it roughly in the last quarter or third of primary contests, a full month after Super Tuesday. Meaning current polling is virtually meaningless, and the outcome may already be decided or inevitable for one fortunate contestant.
As to indies, last I checked, most aren't really indy -- they tend to vote regularly more for one party than the other. Maybe 15% or so are truly indy. In some open primaries, they might be able to help Bernie but also could be drawn to Liz and some of her fairly bold proposals (wealth tax, impeachment) so indy voting could be split between those two. I don't see many of them flocking to the weak tea centrists as these D-indies will be looking for major change, not more incrementalism. And always their support would be influenced by which candidate is doing well by April.
They will also be an important factor for Ds in the general if D-indies turn out as well as they did in 2018 or better. Chances are, imo, indies will meet and exceed their 2018 turnout which, if that occurs, will bode very well for the D nominee.
Altered realities
.
The Media will continue to prop up and shill for Biden, until he decides to quit (which probably won't happen anytime soon).
Warren's support is based on anybody but Biden sentiment. Her policies don't make any sense (open borders, taxpayers have to work to pay for non-citizens, new taxes, I now have to pay "reparations" to other people?, etc.), and she knows little about Foreign Policy aside from spoonfed Establishment talking-points (which are proven over and over to be wrong and reckless). Warren is a phony, and I think her support could just melt away with the right type of dynamic.
If Tulsi Gabbard were to get aggressive in the Debates, she could take Pocahontas down a notch or two, and then reshape the whole race.
But the DNC & Media will never recognize that - Fake Polls!
Does this poll count towards
Does this poll count towards the next debate?
listen to trees
Nope
Wisconsin is not one of the 4 early states, and this pollster is more of a private pollster than a public one (and is not on the DNC's list of approved pollsters). It seems Change Research kind of does polls for hire for entities who want to see what is really going on.
So I had a quick look at Change Research's Website
It's some sort of an online poll, but they claim to have some gimmic that lets them get a useful sample. I wonder if simply by virtue of being online it doesn't select a younger sample than what we see elsewhere. That would explain Biden's poor performance.
Polling works, but the choice of who to talk to is at best black magic, and at worst an open door to deliberately skewing the results. I'm convinced the DNC's "approved polls" deliberately select an older sample to boost Biden at the expense of progressives.
All polling falls apart when unexpected voters show up to vote. That's how AOC beat the polls by 52 percentage points, and how Sanders won Michigan. Sanders always beats his polling since he brings new voters into the system.
The only polls that matter to the pollsters are the last polls before the election. Six months out they are free to set a narrative and many do.
And that's why campaigns commission their own private polls.
The only real world indicators this far out to compare to poll results are rally sizes where support is visible, and small dollar fundraising.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone