No Polls for You!

Hat Tip, to Not Henry Kissinger

no polls for you!_0_0.jpg

There has been a stark decrease in the amount of polling recently. Let's take a look at RCP for example.

They typically don't try to bake in the "special sauce", like Nate Silver, and his imperfectly, perfect model over at 538. What National polling data, has been published there since New Hampshire?

Right away, it's a little harder than one would expect at this point in the Primary Season.

national1.png

Suddenly there hasn't been a National Tracking poll for a week? Let's take a look here....

Bernie +10, Bernie +3 and Biden (lulz) +3

...

national2.png

...Bernie +8
.... hmmm. This isn't working.

I know! What do you notice as a trend in the polling data released since then.... Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas...

And yet, they don't seem to be selling us these numbers very hard, do they? Numbers like: Buttigieg 5, Klobuchar 3 are littered throughout. It's hard for the Centrists, Right Wing Corporate Hacks, to be touting that, when Biden's numbers are collapsing at the same time.

Oh, but don't worry! Black and Brown and Muslim Democrats around the country are going the be Thrilled (!) to back Mike F'Ing Bloomberg! I kid you not! This is what passes for intellectual discourse among Washington insiders.

Share
up
31 users have voted.

Comments

.. There have been quite a few complaints aimed at the DNC for changing the debate rules to eliminate the donor requirement, thereby clearing the way for Michael Bloomberg, in particular, to participate. What virtually all these posts fail to mention is the fact, that, as of this writing, because of insufficient recent polls, and the lack of a single earned delegate, Bloomberg has yet to qualify for any of the debates with the revised rules. (He's currently one poll short of qualifying based on 10% in DNC-approved national polls.)

up
18 users have voted.
PriceRip's picture

@JCWeb

          … but where there is the will there is a way … WinkWinkYes 3Yes 3

RIP

up
13 users have voted.

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert J. McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman. From a press briefing during the Vietnam war.

@PriceRip
there is a way out

up
4 users have voted.

@JCWeb
for them to get out the approved poll that gets Bloomberg into the "debate" on Wednesday.

Note the DNC added the Las Vegas Review Journal to the approved list of pollsters. It came out on Friday and Bloomberg was either not included in the poll and polled too low for the summary report.

up
7 users have voted.

@Marie … Interesting. Didn't see the DNC bending over backwards to add new pollsters to their "approved" list last fall when Tulsi or Yang needed one or two more polls to make a debate.

up
10 users have voted.

@JCWeb
However, if this addition was intended to help Bloomberg, it didn't work out. There were a few polls that would have worked for Bloomberg, but as they've been releasing polls for months, adding one of them would have been blatant rigging. This appears to be the first primary poll by LV Review/AARP and it's a NV poll and in-state pollster; so, the DNC could make a reasonable case for its addition.

up
5 users have voted.

@Marie I assume that the Las Vegas Journal you mention is the largest local newspaper in NV, similar to the Des Moines Register in IA, which also made the DNC "approved poll" list. However, by contrast, the two largest papers in two other early primary states -- the Boston Globe (in NH) and the Post and Courier (in SC) were not and, of course, as it worked out, those polls, if included, would have helped Tulsi (and possibly Yang) have made the debate stage at crucial moments. So, more DNC shenanigans and unexplained inconsistencies about who makes their "approved" list.

And, of course, there's the inconsistency in their elevating Fox News to the approved poll list for deciding who makes the debate, while denying Fox the opportunity to host any of the DNC debates, despite the fact that Chris Wallace is probably one of the most incisive questioners in the media today.

up
1 user has voted.

@JCWeb @JCWeb
the DNC can put a thumb on the scale without the any awareness by ordinary voters.

up
0 users have voted.

@Marie
He's made it to his first debate.

What a change from 12/9-12/11/2019 when NPR issued its last poll. Bloomberg up 15 points. The other numbers are interesting as well:

Sanders 31 (from 18)
Biden 15 (from 26)
Bloomberg 19 (from 4)
Warren 12 (from 17)
Buttig 8 (from 13)
Klob 9 (from 4)
Yang -- (from 5)
Steyer 2 (from 0)
Gabbard 0 (from 1)

Tomorrow is only a day away.

up
2 users have voted.
Wally's picture

Kyle Kulinski breaks it down:

up
10 users have voted.

@Wally
so called bully Bernie Bros hang-out, and if they aren't imaginary, who are they really? Paid fake Bernie supporters?

My experience:

2004 -- the meanest bloggers were the Clarkies, and they were vicious and relentless. Edwards supporters during the primary were the nicest.

2008 -- a high percentage of HRC and Edwards supporters were total bullies (and rather stupid as well).

2016 -- the bullies were with Trump and HRC.

up
9 users have voted.

@Marie
it's not an effective ad.

Any campaign with limited funds wouldn't have approved and aired such a poorly crafted ad.

up
5 users have voted.

@Marie … it's a very ineffective ad and kind of makes the opposite of its intended point. The visuals in the first part of the ad bombard the screen so quickly that the viewer is unable to process the message, so one tends to ignore them. The second part, where Bernie is speaking, makes it seem like a pro-Bernie ad. Then, the final part, questioning why, makes it seem like Bloomberg is the one questioning the need for civility in campaigning. Really poor ad, IMHO, and one that should boomerang against Bloomberg, yet the MSM seems to be eating it up for some reason.

up
3 users have voted.

@JCWeb
breakdown of the ad.

Of course the media is gaga over the ad and anything pro-Bloom. It's all about the Benjamins; they chase moneybags when they are open. Unlike 2016, no Super Pacs with tens of millions ready to throw to the media. (Bush $122 million, Rubio $110 million, Cruz $54 million, Clinton millions during the primary; and they got it all.)

When Perot ('92) and Trump ('16) announced that they'd fund their campaign, the media took about a nanosecond to cover them; licking their chops about all that new cash to come their way. But with Perot and Trump is was partially a con -- they only meant that they would seed their campaign with loans they expected to recoup with contributions. In the end, those two did have to eat their seed money (approx $66 million in Trump's cash) which wasn't exactly chump change. (Romney, without a bold "I can pay for my campaign announcement," did the same thing in '08 and lost approx $50 million. He didn't repeat that ploy in '12.) (Steve Forbes was another one.)

Bloomberg is the real deal. Far wealthier than Trump and the others. And willing to spend whatever it costs. In 2019, the combined spending for all the Democratic presidential campaigns, excluding Steyer, was approximately $350 million. In a month or so at the end of 2019, Bloomberg spent $221 million. Steyer's $200 million was spread out over 2019, but with not much impact. He'll keep spending at that rate or more, half or more of which will flow to ads, for as long as he's in the race. IOW to get it all, it's in the interest of the media to keep Bloomberg in the race all the way to the general election.

How much is it all? The HRC campaign, including outside spending, cost $1.11 billion. Trump's cost $634 million. It depends on how much wealthy Republicans contribute to Trump Super Pacs. Many may prefer Bloomberg to Trump. Back of the envelope minimum for Bloom to November is $3 billion.

up
2 users have voted.
GreatLakeSailor's picture

@Wally
.
.

up
11 users have voted.

Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor & Big Peace.

@GreatLakeSailor
could you some work. Clearer images of those people being man-handled by cops for no reason. IOW shock the public the way the images of cops with dogs attacked AA in the south shocked the nation sixty years ago. Also add a second video of Bloomberg justifying his horrendous Kim Crow policy.

up
6 users have voted.
edg's picture

"There's this enormous cohort of black and Latino males, age, let’s say, 16 to 25,” Bloomberg said, “that don't have jobs, don't have any prospects, don't know how to find jobs, don't know what their skill sets are, don't know how to behave in the workplace where they have to work collaboratively and collectively.”

Source: PBS News Hour's 2011 interview of Mike Bloomberg

up
15 users have voted.

with no polls you can announce whatever result you want and no one will notice. "Bernie only won by 3 points? Sure, why not?" (He can't get 1991 delegates that way)

up
13 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

@doh1304 You always bring an even greater level of earned cynicism than I can muster.

up
8 users have voted.

@konondrum
I have a PhD in cynicism.

up
11 users have voted.

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

was a sparse for NV, SC, and the Super Tuesday states at this point in the primary election cycle?

As of now, there's only one February poll of NV and SC. One also for NC and TX, ST states. Most recent poll in the other states:

CO - 8/14-8/19/2019
OK - 7/17-27/2019
UT - 1/18-1/22/2020
CA - 1/25-1/27/2020
MA - 10/16-10/20/2019
ME - 10/14-10/21/2019
VA - 9/3-9/15/2019

Republicans in SC have been making some noise about ratf**king the Democratic primary. (Doing what Trump asked NH Republicans to do, not knowing that it's not an open primary.)

up
6 users have voted.

@Marie I've heard or read a couple of reasons, not sure if all are valid. I've heard or read that polling organizers want something like 50K and DNC and other sponsoring organizations are reluctant to fork over the cash. I've also heard or read that, with more households going away from landlines to cell phones only, that it is more costly and problematic to do robo poll calls to cell phones than if you were polling just landlines. Again, just reporting hearsay, can't speak to the truth of the matter.

Of course, the Machiavellian in me would note that at this point, in 2016, there were just two candidates left in the Dem primary, so the DNC didn't need to use these "approved polls" as gatekeepers for which candidates make the debate stage, like has been the case this cycle. And, of course, the absence of relevant polls at times has served the purpose of preventing certain candidates from making the debate stage -- notably Tulsi Gabbard, who hit 5-6% repeatedly in NH polls leading up to the primary, but was excluded from the pre-NH primary debate because only a couple of those polls were "qualifying," while several pollsters that would be "qualifying" simply stopped polling in the relevant period -- best example being Quinnipiac, which had Tulsi at 6% in a Nov. 10 and guess what, no more NH polls from Quinnipiac after that. Go figure.

up
7 users have voted.

@JCWeb
about Q in NH. Tulsi got there in later polls, but never in the right time period or not in enough approved polls. She's been handicapped from day one by her low national name recognition, far too little money to boost that, and very limited TV coverage and what she did get was very negative.

That land-lines v. cell phone excuse has been around since at least 2000. What we get are fast and cheap polls that mostly reflect name recognition by ill-informed voters.

up
1 user has voted.

No one wants to argue if Nate's model is imperfectly perfect, or perfectly imperfect.

THESE are the questions that must be considered.

up
2 users have voted.

@konondrum
Does anybody still pay attention to Nate's forecasting?

He made his reputation during the 2008 presidential election. But that one was so easy to get right that grinding through the numbers wasn't necessary.

He's not a social scientist; and therefore, lacks the ability to add that component which more often than not either confirms the stats or calls them into question.

up
4 users have voted.

@Marie It should also be noted that he did a great job in 08 when he was publishing under a pseudonym (Poblano) and doing it unpaid. Once he got the big buck contract with NYT his work went in the crapper.

up
2 users have voted.

@wouldsman
it's only that it was good enough in '08 when the numbers were good enough and conformed to all the other relevant factors.

An example. In 2016 and for some period of time, the LATimes/USC tracking poll had Trump with a slight lead. I puzzled over it, Silver dismissed it as an outlier. The consistent results over that period of time meant either a) they were consistently getting bad samples or b) they were detecting what other pollsters weren't. Odds for both a (particularly a tracking poll) and b are low; so, which one is it? In this case b was correct.

up
0 users have voted.

@Marie Anything to talk about, besides Bernie being in the National lead. Or leading in Nevada. Or California and Washington, etc.

up
2 users have voted.

@konondrum
Didn't know if commentators hear had engaged in such arguments in the past.

up
1 user has voted.

nevada.png

Nothing to see here.

up
2 users have voted.

sanders vs field2.png

Chuck Todd probably won't want to lead with that graphic at the debate I'm guessing.

up
3 users have voted.

@konondrum

up
4 users have voted.