Tulsi: Very Interesting Iowa YouGov Poll
A new YouGov/Hofstra poll from Iowa has some very interesting numbers regarding Tulsi's candidacy.
What they did is combine all Democratic, Independent, and Republican respondents and put them all together to determine the Iowa caucus. Now, this would never happen because Republicans and I believe Independents are not allowed into the Iowa Democratic caucus. But, here are the results with all respondents combined, just voting for a Democratic candidate:
Biden: 14.8%
Warren: 12.6%
Sanders: 9.2%
Gabbard: 9.0%
Buttigieg: 5.3%
Harris: 3.0%
Compare with the Democratic-only responses:
Biden: 27.5%
Warren: 26.6%
Sanders: 12.3%
Buttigieg: 8.1%
Harris: 4.8%
Booker: 3.1%
Gabbard: 2.1%
In the first results (all combined together), the breakdown for Tulsi's support is as follows:
Democrats: 2.1%
Republicans: 11.4%
Independents: 14.5%
Other: 17.7% (these are people who chose none of the above categories, maybe Libertarians or Greens and such)
Some things to take away here--at least how the situation exists in Iowa.
First, Tulsi has the least support from Democrats, the most from Independents and Other. Bernie Sanders support from Democrats is also lower than Independents and Other. This indicates to me that the Democratic Party is really not into progressive policies at all, but that Independents and Others are much more favorable to them.
Second notice: Tulsi is pulling more support from Independents (14.5%) than Bernie is (12.4%), and Tulsi is getting far, far, far more support from Republicans (11.4%) than Bernie (1.6%) is (Republican's don't like Bernie at all). Interestingly, Bernie has more support from the Other category (25.9%) than Tulsi does (17.7%). If similar stats hold true in other states, in primaries that include Independent voters, Tulsi could get more support from Independents than Bernie does.
Third notice: That top set of numbers basically indicates total popularity of Democratic contenders among the entire populace (of Iowa, at least). Tulsi is one of the top contenders there in 4th place. She ranks nearly equal to Bernie, and not all that far behind Warren and Biden. Buttigieg is behind her by quite some distance.
Final note: In this Iowa poll, unlike other recent Iowa polls, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are much more in their typical positioning. A couple of recent polls have shown Buttigieg around 25% and Klobuchar around 7% in Iowa. Some very strange differences in the polls going on lately in Iowa.
Comments
this is interesting
https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/regfaq.html#7
...and may make the poll have more validity.
EDIT to add a nice 3.5 min ad
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzBwjtNj9X4]
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Question about Numbers ...
In the breakdown of sources of Tulsi's support, how come the numbers don't add up to 100%? (Sorry, but haven't had time to check out the poll data myself.)
Too bad the 9% doesn't "qualify" for any of the Dem debates since Hofstra and You Gov aren't among the 18 "approved" pollsters -- but if You Gov did a poll with CBS, it would count. More lack of DNC transparency.
Also interesting that this poll is really at odds with a couple of other recent Iowa polls that you see getting widespread media attention that have Buttigieg leading or near the top in the 20 - 25% range.
Unfortunately
they only use the Democratic numbers--even for qualifying polls. Never a mix with independents and republicans. So here in this poll, Tusli would only be at 2.1%.
Sorry, for not making my question clearer ...
But these are the numbers I was referring to in my earlier post:
In the first results (all combined together), the breakdown for Tulsi's support is as follows:
Democrats: 2.1%
Republicans: 11.4%
Independents: 14.5%
Other: 17.7% (these are people who chose none of the above categories, maybe Libertarians or Greens and such)
These total to around 45% and seems to me that they should add up to 100%. What am I missing?
Oh, I see
No, that's the total from each demographic that *would* choose Tulsi. So, no reason for it to add up to 100%.
2.1% of Democrats would. 11.4% of Republicans would. 14.5% of Independents would vote for her in Iowa. And 17.7% of people from Other parties would.
In other words, the first results of the original post would be if the entire population of Iowa could vote in the Democratic caucuses (Tulsi would get around 9.0%). If only Democrats are included, she gets 2.1% of the vote.
Found It ..
Thanks. I found the underlying poll data and posted a link with some comments below. Think it might be national and not limited to Iowa, though. Also surprising to see that RCP and 538 are not as of yet listed it at all.
YouGov polls
seem not to be as well regarded at least in IA as, say, DMR/Selzer. 538 rates YouGov only a B-, while giving Selzer an A+.
I think the very interesting poll from Selzer released the other day showing Boot emerging as a strong front-runner and Biden continuing to slide is far more worthy of attention, even if some of the results won't go over well here and even as I strongly suspect the Bernie number is a bit lower than it probably is.
My dos centavos.
a bit OT
you seem to be c99's biggest TG fan.
what is your take on her "wait for more information" on Bolivia?
not hostile here.
My take on Bolivia
As I have commented at least twice recently: Tulsi is not going to expend limited resources on what is nationally a very minor issue. Some one quote a poll in which .07% of Democrats care about foreign policy. Is this failure to criticize Bolivian coups going to become another Assad-lover albatross to be hung around the neck every time Tulsi speaks? In national politics, dear political wonks, Bolivia MEANS NOTHING! Face it. Get over it.
You got anybody better on Regime Change? Bernie's luke-warm objections perhaps?
my comment addressed to apenultimate
please note "not hostile here".
I have been supportive of TG.
My comment was not intended to be hostile
I'm for Tulsi. Thus, we stand together here.
Bernie has a better response now
I still think that people want to hear what Tulsi has to say about it because that is where she has been most vocal. Regardless if we use our military or we use another country's, forcibly removing an elected president is a coup. I think it's strange that she is still gathering information after so many people have been killed.
Where some see problems...
others see opportunities.
An excellent statement by Bernie that will play very well with Latina,o,and x voters as well as the anti-war crowd.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Good stuff from Bernie but I have one question for him
How does that statement square up with him referring to Hugo Chavez as a "dead dictator"? Evo Morales and the late Hugo Chavez had a lot more in common than what Bernie mentioned so how can anyone with so much information available have such a different view of the two leaders?
"..Bolivian president Evo Morales, Chavez's close friend and ally, delivers a tearful statement on television, Virginia Lopez reports:
Bolivian President Evo Morales extended his condolecences to the Chavez family and to the Venezuelan people, in an appearance with members of his cabinet.
Fighting back tears, Morales said they felt "destroyed" by the news of the passing of his revolutionary counterpart.
"It hurts, but we must stand united in this process of liberation, not only of Venezuela but of the whole region..." Morales said. "Chavez is now more alive than ever".
What about what former President, and election monitor, Jimmy Carter said on Hugo Chavez's death?
"Former US president Jimmy Carter has released a lengthy statement on Chavez's passing. Over years of observing Venezuelan elections, Carter says, "We came to know a man who expressed a vision to bring profound changes to his country to benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized":
President Chávez will be remembered for his bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment. During his 14-year tenure, Chávez joined other leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean to create new forms of integration. Venezuelan poverty rates were cut in half, and millions received identification documents for the first time allowing them to participate more effectively in their country's economic and political life.
At the same time, we recognize the divisions created in the drive towards change in Venezuela and the need for national healing. We hope that as Venezuelans mourn the passing of President Chávez and recall his positive legacies — especially the gains made for the poor and vulnerable — the political leaders will move the country forward by building a new consensus that ensures equal opportunities for all Venezuelans to participate in every aspect of national life.
Although we have not agreed with all of the methods followed by his government, we have never doubted Hugo Chávez's commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen. (my highlights)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-death-venezuel...
Bernie also praised Venezuela
. . . earlier on before Chavez instituted electoral changes that many people see as undemocratic:
Also, Bernie's unfortunate statement about Chavez should be considered in the context of Bernie being hounded and taunted by Clinton forces because of saying things such as the the quote in the block above.
Bernie just totally screws up sometimes on war & foreign policy
Like back in 2015 when he said Saudi Arabia needs to “get their hands dirty” — as if the Saudis funding radical Islamists around the world or creating a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen isn’t already tens of thousands of lives’ worth of dirt.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bernie+sanders+saudi+hands+dirty
Bernie had some less than stellar advisors in 2016
Then there's this now, too:
Evo Morales: My greeting and thanks to brother @BernieSanders, US presidential candidate, for highlighting our task of poverty reduction and denouncing the #GolpeDeEstadoEnBoliva. The international community demands Bolivia's return to democracy.
Still waiting for Tulsi to join la lucha.
Wow!. Bernie wasn't lukewarm on Bolivia at all!
I was a tiny bit disappointed by him previously tweeting that "it appeared to be a coup" but here he says it was a military coup, plain and straightforward and praises Evo for giving the indigenous a voice and for his work in alleviating poverty.
It amazes me that anyone who supports Tulsi would think that Bolivia is a minor issue especially since her main issue has been regime change.
This is how I feel too
Tulsi has made regime change a focal point of her candidacy, but now she doesn't say anything about the violent coup in Bolivia? I read a comment on this subject where it said that maybe she is only concerned about regime change when it's our military doing it. I don't believe that Warren has said anything about yet either, but see my essay for what she says about Maduro and Venezuela. Very disappointing.
I think Bolivia is a case of regime change war
As such, I expect her to be very strongly interested in what’s happening there, and I think she should be speaking out forcefully, linking it to all the other coups the U.S. has supported just in the 21st century.
Really
I kind of agree with Alligator Ed here--in a non-hostile way, of course (you'll need to forgive Ed-- alligators are naturally hostile).
Her saying anything on it is really a minor point. Anything she says won't have much of any effect.
Actually, in general, I've been warming up more and more to Tulsi's policy positions, and I believe she is perhaps the *only* candidate that can possibly start healing the divide in this nation--I think those poll results above speak to that a lot. Even though her policies are very similar to Bernie's, this country has a psychosis against *socialism*, which Bernie pretty much bills himself as, and he doesn't have the military chops to sway conservatives.
A lot of people think this country will eventually head to civil war because of the divide. I'm not quite there . . . but I think any of the Democratic candidates besides Tulsi is likely to create more of a rift. Yes, I even mean Bernie regarding that . . . his policies--if implemented--would likely change minds in the working- and middle-class conservatives 10 years down the road. But, in the short term conservatives will flip out and stock up on guns, just like when Obama was elected.
I'm actually thinking through her policies more and more. And the more I think, the more I like them. I'm actually coming to consider her M4A+ plan as equal to Bernie's and having a better chance at actual passage. A lot of the concerns about duplicative coverage don't really concern me--why would private insurance cover anything that M4A does under Tulsi's plan, seeing as M4A will have much greater price negotiating power. At the same time, Tulsi's plan takes away a Republican argument against M4A (I want to keep my private insurance!).
In one of Jimmy Dore's interviews with Tusli this past week, he said Bernie's plan was better than Tulsi's, but used some false framing to prove it. He pointed out that Australia's healthcare plan, which he kind of equated with Tulsi's plan, did not let you choose your doctor and only covered shared hospital rooms (i.e., you can't have a private room), but that private insurance was available (at a cost of course) that allowed people to choose their own doctor and get private rooms. Depending on the details of Tulsi's M4A+, something along those lines could happen; but the same is true of Bernie's plan. Will Bernie's plan cover private hospital rooms? (I'm guessing not, since that's expensive; so, private insurance there!)
So, I'm not really sure Bernie's plan is superior to Tulsi's. If Bernie's plan doesn't allow private insurance at all, then watch those cost savings go bye-bye as patients ask for every drug known to humanity and private rooms and every test, all the time. Every plan needs to define what it covers and what it does not--it's the details of that that really count.
Been having a lot of deep introspections regarding Tulsi lately, and in just about all of them I continue to be impressed by her reasoning.
ok, no problem
fwiw,I meant that I was not being hostile.
Thanks, irishking. I come in peace.
The truth of that statement has been borne out in practice. You say I can have that test free even though there is only 1 chance in 40,000 that I have the problem? I want that test---NOW!
So how does no private insurance happen?
They have supplemental medicare plans to cover the costs that medicare doesn't. Medicare does not cover everything so would M4A cover everything?
And if it doesn't how Constitutional would it be for Congress to pass a bill preventing a person from buying insurance when insurance is a valid and legal product? I don't think that such a bill would be constitutional. It would almost be like Congress declaring that you could not buy a car or a house. Congress would have to come up with a really good reason not to permit health insurance.
It doesn't
at least not with the current Congress Critters.
Every Other
The vast majority of other countries with nationalized health care have a role for private insurance.
I don't know the details of all of 'em, but besides Australia, I'm sure that France and Germany also have large roles for private insurance, for example.
I know the UK is very strict what its health care pays for. Many drugs that are approved in other countries are not covered by the national plan in the UK. I'm not sure if they have private insurance, though.
Another problem with the phrase “Medicare for all”.
“They have supplemental medicare plans to cover the costs that medicare doesn't.“. Medicare for All does not have co-pays or deductibles, and the patient’s portion is not 20%, but 0%. I don’t think there are any premiums, although a quick read of the bill didn’t clarify that for me. It covers more than current Medicare, including drugs (albeit with a small co-pay). The use of the term “Medicare” can be confusing, because it implies a much less comprehensive program.
Nice to know.
But it is a slippery slope. There will be huge temptations to add in deductibles and co-pays and to delete coverage just because "we can't afford it," which of course is a pretext to deprive the undesirables from getting free health care.
All polls are suspect
but when a poll looks counterintuitive (such as Bernie having a poor showing with independents relative to his performance in 2016) the most constructive policy is to examine why, not take the poll at face level. This poll looks like they got their results by rolling dice, but there are many possible reasons, with a varying degree of nefariousness, including my own bias.
On to Biden since 1973
Agreed. The MSM has demonstrated that it is no longer
in the business of reporting the news, but rather is now in the business of manipulating it. There's no reason to believe that major polls don't suffer from the same affliction.
Like every other poll this early
in the race, I take this with a grain of salt. However, this poll continues to affirm what some other polls have and that is that Tulsi Gabbard has great crossover appeal in the general election.
Personally, I believe it is due to two main things. First, is the anti regime change stance she has taken. I saw this personally in my four plus years with a Peace vigil. Regardless of self described political leanings, most people are simply sick of war. The second thing and this is extremely important, is that Tulsi Gabbard treats all Americans regardless of political affiliation as being important. This is something that so many Americans who were left behind in the culture wars and the rhetoric wars strongly desire.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Amen to that
Tulsi will not indulge in tribal smearing of other viewpoints, in contrast to the "greatest President who we could ever have" but who didn't get the job.
Des Moines Register Poll out -- Buttigeig 9 points up
Tulsi is at 3%
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2019/11/...
Another Iowa poll
a month or two back (couldn't find it again just now) was showing something similar.
Both Dems and Independents who were likely (Democratic) caucus-goers were polled. Bernie's support was a bit higher from I's than D's - Yang's also IIRC. D v. I support was about equal for Biden, Boot and Klobuchar. For Warren and Harris, independent support was dramatically lower than from Democrats but Gabbard's independent support was six times higher 1% D, 6% I (again, IIRC).
In the fine print of a different poll, it showed that about as large a percentage of Trump voters had a Very Favorable opinion of Gabbard as did Democrats (about 7%).
In checking comments to Gabbard's videos you'll find lots of favorable ones from Republicans and Independents - but almost all with the caveat "she's the only Democrat running that I would even consider voting for".
No candidate can win just on their base and it's hard to see anyone aside from TG pulling in enough Independents and disaffected Republicans to win in the general.
To me she seems like the most likely, and probably only potential nominee with a shot at beating Trump - not that that will stop the PTB from trying to stamp out her candidacy.
Only the corporate/Deep State vetted are to be allowed -
voter choice will be strictly of the Coke or Pepsi sort if the establishment can possibly manage it.
Curious ...
I keep looking for this poll to be reported at the mainstream sites, RCP and 538, but for some reason it doesn't show up. Anyone know why? Maybe because it has Tulsi higher than anywhere else? Kinda suspicious, as other polls that include all voters (not just Dem voters) are listed, some of which are accepted by the DNC (of course, this one is not).
Looking at the underlying data (which I just now located), there's a lot of interesting stuff in there, like the fact that while Biden and Sanders win head-to-head vs Trump, Warren comes out even and Bloomberg (already matched in H-to-H while other higher polling candidates aren't) comes up short. Also disappointing to see climate change/environment not among the several specific issues surveyed.
One final point: I don't see anything in the underlying data to suggest this is an Iowa-only poll. In fact, when it uses the phrase "your Democratic primary or caucuses," that suggests it is national in scope, or at least covers multiple states.
Direct link: https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/gov-policy-internat...