-->
@Paul
thx
Running Primary Poll Thread
Posts
Total:
193
Short Version: Warren is now tied with Biden thanks to Gillibrand dropping out + shifts in hispanic voters towards Warren
Long Version:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b17i8aeg5p/econTabReport.pdf (Last week, PG 166)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf (This week, PG 97)
With a 4 point gain over the last week from 20% to 24%, Warren is now tied squarely with Biden who has been hovering around the mid 20's for a good chunk of the race now. A quick analysis of the, well of the poll analysis, points to where this sudden boost came from
1) Gilibrand dropped out..... Seeing as how she was a champion of female politics and has literally announced she was going to focus on electing more women in Congress than continue her presidential run, its almost certain that what little part of the electorate she held flocked to Warren's side, giving her a slight bump in that regard.
2) Biden's support among women took a shift..... Regardless of any swing Gilibrand had when she dropped out of the race, Biden still went from being the first choice among women from 30% down to 25%, while Warren gained the support of being the first choice of women from 19% up to 24%, the exact same margin that Biden lost among his own support.... Deeper investigation of this shift reveals a stark development in terms of voter demographics in the race which could spell gigantic problems for Biden.
Warren Trends:
Female voters = 20% up to 24% = Net 4 point gain
Voters 45-64 = 20% up to 24% = Net 4 point gain
Voters 45-64 = 20% up to 24% = Net 4 point gain
Voters 30-44 = 20% up to 25% = Net 5 point gain
White voters = 25% up to 20% = Net 5 point gain
Hispanic voters = 14% up to 24% = Net 10 point gain
Voters 65+ = 16% up to 27% = Net 11 point gain
Voters 65+ = 16% up to 27% = Net 11 point gain
The thing with Biden though is that the numbers from Warren's gains didnt necessarily come entirely from his own base.... Biden actually gained 10 points with black voters over the same span (38% to 48% as their first choice), gained popularity with voters aged 30 to 44 (15% up to 19%), gained with male voters (17% to 23%) and even retained the same level of support from voters 45 to 65 (33% to 34%)...... The biggest losses for Biden came from older voters over 65 (down 7%), and female voters (30% to 25%), but this doesn't explain Warrens gains with hispanic voters and voters aged 30 to 44.
There are a couple possibilities for this:
1 - A number of undecided voters have chosen a side.
Quick comparison of the data shows that the percentage of undecided voters dropped from 12% last week to 9% this week, yet the totals for this week combined add up to about 102% so the actual percentage of people who changed their minds could actually be even greater than indicated
2 - Hispanic voters have chosen a side:
Analyzing data specifically from Warrens favorability ratings (shown below)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b17i8aeg5p/econTabReport.pdf (Last week PG 153)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf (This week PG 82)
(continued) shows that her favorability among Latino voters jumped up from 41% favorable up to 47% favorable. The same percentage of hispanic voters who were undecided went from 29% down to 21%, which indicates that Warren had a good week of convincing hispanic voters to like her, which could be driving up her numbers over the past week.
3 - Asian voters also like her more:
Asian voters dont have a demographic representing them in the polls, but numbers from 'others' show Warren going from 39% favorability up to 48% favorability, repeating a similar trend of Hispanic voters, but what makes this demographic different is that the same number of 'other' voters both times have the same percentages of being undecided (about 22.5% both times).... Remarkably, the percentage of 'other' voters that did not view Warren favorably took a massive dive, from 40% being unfavorable down to 30%, which would account for this shift out of the blue.
4 - Hispanic voters find her more electable.
The last chunk of the poll that yields the most data is the 'electability' info, where voters consider if Warren could feasibly beat Trump in a general election matchup regardless of their personal preferences. Warrens numbers mostly stayed stagnate (although her support among black voters dropped 9 points from 53% she could beat Trump to 44%), but her numbers among hispanic voters illustrate a massive shift.... Last week 26% of hispanic voters thought she could beat Trump in a matchup, but now thats up to 36%.... The same number of hispanic voters also declined in the number who thought she would lose to Trump, from 42% thinking she would lose down to 32%)
(Both times the number of hispanic voters who were not sure who would win in a matchup was at 32%)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/b17i8aeg5p/econTabReport.pdf (Last week PG 198)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf (This week PG 126)
8 days later
Might as well bump this again now that De Blasio dropped out
1 - Warren slips back into second place
Last time I updated this i brought up how Warren managed to match Biden in the Economist/YouGov polls that I follow the most with 26% each. prior to that week, Biden was still at 26% while Warren jumped from 22% up to 26% in a week.... In this weeks poll conducted by the same source, Warren has slipped back down 21% while Biden still holds steady at 26%
Previous analysis showed Warren gaining strongly with hispanic voters by double digits, helping explain her sudden rise in numbers. This week though shows that her bump by Hispanics has vanished..... In the span of a week, Warren went from being viewed favorably to unfavorably by hispanics by the following numbers
Favorable View = 47% down to 27%
Unfavorable View = 31% to 33%
Not Sure = 21% to 30%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m1n9ik6irs/econTabReport.pdf (This week, PG 111)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf (Last week, PG 82)
It's unlikely that Warren actually made strong progress among hispanic voters only to lose the support of almost the exact same margin just a week later. A far likelier explanation is that there was some flaw in how last weeks test was conducted in terms of sample size of responders to the poll. If you compare Warren's favorability numbers from this week to the poll of two weeks ago, the numbers are nearly the same minus somewhat lower support among voters older then 45 years old.
Anyone who is rooting for Warren to overtake Biden and thinking it would happen sometime soon are, at the moment, out of luck. It appears that last weeks poll was a bit of a fluke
2 - Biden still going strong
Of the last 5 polls that have recently come out, Biden hit 29% or higher in 4 of them.... The last time Biden had a stretch of 4 polls where he was north of 30% was from the 24th to the 26th of August about 3 weeks ago. There was a stretch of time last week where it appeared that Biden was just barely treading water at 25%, but the recent batch of polls that have come out shows he is safely above 25%, even pushing 30% or higher.
If you go back into poll history, Biden has been ping-ponging above and below 30% since nearly January where he almost hit 40% in polls. The fact that Biden's support has almost unshakably stayed north of 20% to 25% for as long as it has, in spite of occasional blunders and heavy fire from debates, indicates that he will be hard to overcome from anything short of a coalition of voter bases from other candidates uniting to overcome him. Until that happens or until Biden starts losing appeal among older voters and African American voters (and even female voters) he's not going anywhere.
3 - De Blasio drops out
This almost wouldn't even be news if it weren't for how unfavorable De Blasio was as a candidate in the first place. I mentioned in a post a long time ago that De Blasio was the most unfavorably viewed candidate (58% of voters viewed him unfavorably) in the entire race, beating out Harris at 40% (for whatever reason), and Gilibrand at 34% unfavorable (who has since dropped out).
Seeing as how Harris is still polling the best of the low-tier candidates (around 5% ish), then based on unfavorability numbers, the next candidates to drop out may be Marianne Williamson, John Delaney, or Hickenlooper.
4 - Sanders back in third place.
Of the 7 polls taken in the first half of September through the 15th, Sanders polled ahead of Warren in 4 of them, by an average of 3 points... In the 3 polls where Warren did better than Sanders though, she beat him by an average of 6 points, approximately double of what Sanders averaged in polls where he beat Warren.... How much support Sanders has had has always been fairly hard to calculate due to how much of his base comes from young voters, who are notoriously volatile in terms of turnout and representation.
However much he does have, he cannot claim to be doing better than Warren as of right now. In the second half of September up to the 20th, he has only bested Warren in 2 of the 5 polls that have come out, by an average of 3 and a half. In polls where Warren beat out Sanders, her margin of victory was a hair below 7 points... Once again nearly double the margin of victory Sanders received in polls where he was in 2nd. Both were regularly 5 to 10 points behind Biden across all polls.
5 - Buttigieg almost hits 10%
Of the 5 polls that have recently come in, Buttigieg's numbers in each poll were as follows: 5%, 5%, 7%, 9%, and 5%.... Assuming that his actual numbers are closer to 5-6%, Buttigiegs performance is still noteworthy since only 1 other candidate outside of Biden Sanders and Warren managed to hit 10% in a poll, Kamala Harris on 8/25 and 8/1 in August.... I commented previously that Buttigieg may break into the upper tier of candidates if he can start overcoming 10% and start climbing, but he promptly fell back to around 5% in the days and weeks following that analysis, so he is still on the outside looking in despite coming close to double digits.
6 - Beto still at square 1 despite revamped campaign following El Paso.
To anyone who only knows of the political situation from the 3rd debate that happened recently, you might have suspected that Beto O'Rourke was everyone's favorite little brother who was prime VP material for the better-functioning campaigns. Despite almost unilateral praise from other candidates though, in addition to his highly publicized stances on gun control following the shootings in El Paso Texas, Beto is still going nowhere in the polls. His recent numbers were at 4%, 4%, 3%, 1%, and 4% respectively. While averaging nearly 5% is no small feat to a majority of candidates in the Dem field at the moment, he still lags behind the Big 3, Buttigieg, and Harris, and could possibly be overtaken by Yang or Booker, who recently have steadily polled at just under 5% as well.
7 - Free for all in California.
Rarely up to this point have we received polls taken from individual states that have early primary contests, compared to nation-wide polls that are the norm. The most recent state-limited polls last came out on the 5th of September, but two polls from California have come out this week, allowing for some analysis with confidence that the numbers are accurate.
Here is the list of candidates and their numbers in California from the last two state polls:
Biden = 27%, 26%
Sanders = 18%, 26%
Warren = 16%, 20%
Harris = 13%, 6% (At one point she hit 23% back in July, but has gone downhill ever since)
Yang = 7%, 7%
Buttigieg = 3%, 4%
Beto = 2%, 5%
Anywhere from 6 points to 10 points separate Biden Sanders and Warren. Biden has either a 9 point lead or is at an even tie with Sanders, with Warren within shooting distance. If Harris continues to collapse in support as she has done since the start of July, the candidate her base flocks to could end up swinging the massive state contest into their favor, with Yang, Buttigieg, and Beto playing as possible spoilers.
With California 5th in line as a primary state, the winners of contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina could also heavily sway who voters in California ultimately support, as support in early primary states swings wildly based on who voters think actually has a chance of winning it all
-->
@Imabench
Biden woo.
WARREN PULLS AHEAD IN IOWA, BUTTIGIEG ENTERS THE ARENA
Fuckin figures that after I bitch about there not being a lot of state polls for the primary contest, Iowa suddenly gets two polls for the state released the very next day.
There are some massive discrepancies between both polls, to a concerning degree, but the two polls do agree on two things: Warren is polling at 23% in the state, and Buttigieg is polling at a solid 12%
Warren = 23%, 24%
Biden = 25%, 16%
Sanders = 9%. 16%
Buttigieg = 12%, 13%
While polls due have their inherent flaws, a general rule of thumb is that when two of them paint the same picture in some aspects within the same time span, it is usually good to accept on face value. Whether Biden is in the teens or twenties, or whether Sanders is in the teens or single digits, is entirely up to speculation..... But it is a fact that Warren does have a lead in the state, whether it be by double digits or a single point, but a lead nonetheless.
If the Iowa State University poll is the one closest to reality, then it represents a massive number of implications for the rest of the primary. Buttigieg is merely 3 points behind Biden, who is tied with Sanders at 16% with Warren way out in front. This is the best news that Buttigieg's campaign could have received since their top struggle (campaign wise) is convincing voters they have a shot and can compete with the Big 3.
It should be noted that the Iowa polls results is based on 'Likely Caucus Attendees', which is a theoretical science all in itself... The poll does not reveal information about voters outside the 'Likely Caucus' range, and depending on how they made that cutoff, the poll could be accurate or very flawed.
If the Rural America poll is the one closer to the truth, then things appear somewhat normal. Biden with a slim lead in front of Warren, yet Sanders falls to fourth place behind Buttigieg, which seems nearly unfathomable to anyone who's been following the race so far. Beto O'Rourke's campaign, one thriving, has collapsed inwards on itself, going from 11% In December of last year all the way down to 1% in the recent poll. Booker, based on the RA poll, also has gone from 7% down to 1%, with similar declines by Harris who went from 18% down to 5%.
Perhaps the most interesting information by either poll comes from the RA poll on page 3, which asks which candidates voters have RULED OUT as someone they could vote for. The list is not exhaustive and mentions all candidates, but it includes the important ones
Candidate = % of Voters who have ruled them out of consideration
Andrew Yang = 64
Julian Castro = 60
Bernie Sanders = 46
Beto O’Rourke = 46
Amy Klobuchar = 42
Cory Booker = 38
Kamala Harris = 37
Joe Biden = 32
Pete Buttigieg = 27
Elizabeth Warren = 21
Elizabeth Warren leads the pack for percentage of voters still considering supporting her, but its Buttigieg who slips into second place behind her, making him one of the most likable candidates in Iowa in a field as big as it still is despite a handful of dropouts. Most shocking of all though is how poorly Sanders does. While 43% of voters in Iowa are still actively considering supporting Sanders, a beefy 46% have effectively ruled him out. That puts Sanders 3rd worst overall behind Yang and Castro.
Okay now someone is fucking with me. a THIRD poll just got uploaded during the 6 minutes between my last post and me checking back to the main site
Warren = 22% (Sounds about right based on the other two polls)
Biden = 20% (Right smack between the 25% and 16% from the other two polls)
Sanders = 11% (A little closer to the 9% calculation than the 16% calculation)
Buttigieg = 9% (Pretty close to double digits where hes been in other polls)
The poll is CNN based, so take that with a massive grain of salt, but it seems pretty on par with the two other polls and suggests the same things as well, that Warren is leading by a bit, and Sanders is in danger of falling into 4th place behind Buttigieg.
-->
@Imabench
Why do you think Warren is beating Sanders? They have very similar policies.
WARREN! LET'S FUCKING GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MAYBE FOR THE FIRST TIME THE CORRECT DEM CANDIDATE WILL GET IT?
MAYBE NOT SOME SIMPLE MINDED SMILEY FACE... not that it's worse than the Republican Stern Face.
But seriously?
I have had enough of these Obamas, Bill Clintons and all that shit. It's not that they're establishment, that never was the issue. It's always gonna be an establishment goon who ends up running shit; it's about the one who gives a damn about the poor and vulnerable. You need that type up top or else the corruption will work so brutal to those on the bottom end of it. When corrupt works against other corrupt people, that is called balanced fair game.
Warren knows what she's doing, she'll do it well. Sanders is preaching to some Socialist choir about how we need to stop big banks and all that nonsense. You won't ever stop big banks, you only can hope to challenge them in a friendly but firm manner. That's what Warren will do, she knows how the game works but has the heart.
I am fucking telling you if Warren wins, the best part of Illuminati will show through in America and the world, it will be a huge huge huge huge snowball effect you cannot imagine the good that will come.
If anyone else, even Yang, wins you will see 'too far left' happen and all hell will break loose next election cycle. We need a proper leader, but one who isn't only in it for the power. Warren absolutely is that.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Its hard to say..... Policy wise there are damn near identical and have been that way going back to well before 2016 when Sanders first became known, so it has to be something other then that.... It could be that people perceive Sanders as weak since he lost to Hillary in 2016 and that Warren might do better, it could also be that in their minds Warren represents the very liberal left. In 2016 it was Warren that people were hoping would campaign against Hillary, not Sanders, who simply inherited that potential base after jumping into the race.....
It may also be a sex thing. The fact that Warren is a woman is a natural appeal to those who put a disturbing amount of preference into the gender of candidates they support, but there is a base out there for that. It may be something Buttigieg is benefitting from himself as the first openly gay candidate to run for president.
If I had to bet on it though, I would think that its because Sanders showed weakness in previous contests. In 2016 he got blasted in the primaries in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Ohio, while also losing out by a hair in a handful of others..... He lost frickin Massachusetts and California of all stats to Hillary in 2016, the most liberal bastions of all states in the US..... If he cant win swing states and cant even win the most ultra-liberal states, then why would voters have any hope that he could beat out Warren and Biden enough to win the nomination?.... I think Sanders tipped his hand in 2016 that he's not viable enough to win an election, which is why the left-wing part of the party is now flocking towards Warren.
-->
@Imabench
You know Nixon was considered a losing candidate at one time :)
He lost to Kennedy and lost the governor race in California. I don't count people out like that.
You are probably right, though. The gender thing plays into the identity politics game (I'm with her type of crap) and the fact that he is a loser are likely big causes.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite candidate yet?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because Im a crentrist Dem I naturally wound up in the Biden camp simply because there wasnt really any other option.
I am a fan of Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard, but theyre not going to break into the top tier of candidates so Im pretty much limited to Biden.
I am aware that Buttigieg is kind of near the middle and is an option, but he hasnt impressed me the way Klobuchar and Gabbard have, and I also think he doesnt really have a shot at winning even though he's doing solid in Iowa now
-->
@Imabench
You'll still vote for Warren when she wins the nomination, right?
-->
@Greyparrot
As long as Sanders is stubborn enough to stay in the race and siphon off votes from the far left part of the base, Warren has no guarantee of winning the nomination.
That being said, I would support a half eaten bag of pretzel sticks over Trump at this point
-->
@Imabench
Doesn't Amy have a great record?
Too bad she is not electable.
So I am guessing it is between Warren and Biden right?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The DNC is going to send attack media on Biden until he drops out of the race, likely to protect his family and his son.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Klobuchar does have a pretty good record but her base of potential moderates were already locked down by Biden so she never could really get off the ground.
It normally would come down to Biden and Warren like you said but Sander's continued existence in the race complicates things. He siphons off the far-left base enough to both cause problems for Warren and keep her in second, while also at times eclipsing her in support and being able to position himself as the flag-bearer for the very liberal.
In New Hampshire for example, he holds a solid lead since his home state is right next door in Vermont, and NH is the second primary of the year. If Warren cant pull out a win in Iowa, Sanders likely jumps in with a win in the next contest which can be catastrophic by Warren if the narrative shifts towards Sanders.
-->
@Imabench
Biden is probably going to drop out before NH. If not, he will likely drop out after he loses the NH primary to Warren.
-->
@Greyparrot
That might be the most retarded thing I've ever heard someone say
-->
@Imabench
Remind me to remind you of this prediction after the fact.
All of these predictions are solely watching the DNC elites and how they are manipulating the primary.
Polls mean absolutely nothing in these predictions.
@Greyparrot
Who are the DNC elites and any proof that they want to remove him?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you do any basic research on the DNC chairs and the people that work under them (Perez and Ellison)
You'll see why Biden has really no chance.
Add on others that have influence in setting the vision for the DNC
It's pretty clear they won't support Biden.
@Greyparrot
Okay so Perez and Ellison. Did they specifically say anything about not supporting Biden?
What in specifically in the .org does it state it won't support Biden?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What in specifically in the .org does it state it won't support Biden?
Well, we can certainly search for moderate causes and the value of being an old white male on that website, but that might take a long, long while.
-->
@Imabench
You wouldn't support Trump over any of those candidates? Did he do any specifically to cause such disdain, or would you never support any Republican?
-->
@bmdrocks21
I believe that I would have supported Marco Rubio over Sanders had that been the matchup in the 2016 election, so its not that I would never support any republican since I value moderates and practicality of one's platforms candidates campaign on (70% of Sanders and Warren's platforms are impossible to implement barring sweeping wins in the Senate, which wont happen and I can explain why)
That being said, Trump has dropped the ball in my opinion on so much stuff, major and mundane, that I would pretty much support anyone over him at this point.... Alienating our allies, a pointless tax cut that reeks of corruption, rollbacks on healthcare and other policies simply because they happened under the Obama years, repeated misunderstanding of damn near everything he talks about.... He makes fuckin Ted Cruz look electable to me despite the fact that he's a religious zealot, because he is at least mentally stable and once in a while does or speaks up about something that is acceptable.
-->
@Imabench
Yeah, but he has cut regulations, reduced unemployment, passed criminal justice reform, took down ISIS, and has been much more tough on Russia than Obama.
Some of these are at least commendable things, aren't they?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Its worth mentioning that the amount of outcry from the setup of the 2016 Dem primary made the Dem organization massively scale back on both the number of 'superdelegates' that could be won by candidates and the ability of superdelegates to freely support a candidate
In 2016 Dem superdelegates made up about 15% of all delegates that could select a candidate, a large majority of whom flocked towards Clinton.... These were mainly the upper-party officials and elite members of the party, and they did not have to abide by the way their state voted and could endorse whoever they wanted.
Bernie fans made a massive stink about this, justifiably so, so after the election the process was reformed (link 2)
The biggest reform made to superdelegates is that 2/3rds of these superdelegates would now be tied to the candidate their state voted for.... That automatically kneecaps any ability of a 'shadow Democratic Elite faction' to swing the primary in favor of any one candidate since voters in a state handcuffs the ability of 2/3rds of superdelegates from doing anything.... Should a candidate that wins a primary suddenly drop out, its not entirely known if those superdelegates are even freed up to endorse anyone. Instead they may be tied to the candidate who has dropped out until they have made a formal endorsement of another candidate.
A lesser reform ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Reforms_since_2016 ) is that these superdelegates cannot decide a winner if a candidate does not receive a majority of regular delegates from state contests. If Biden, Warren, and Sanders all get 33% of primary delegates from state primaries, superdelegates cant pick the winner. They have to wait until pledged delegates pick from a shorter list of candidates and THEN superdelegates can get into the contest.
So Greyparrot's claim that the DNC will try to rig the primary for Warren is complete and utter horse shit..... In fact the whole idea that the DNC could rig a primary for a candidate was kneecapped following the 2016 primary because Bernie supporters were so pissed off about it last time around and demanded it be reformed.
-->
@Imabench
Thank you. I think they would be happy with either. Both don't disrespect part members like Bernie so it should be okay.So Greyparrot's claim that the DNC will try to rig the primary for Warren is complete and utter horse shit
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, but he has cut regulations, reduced unemployment, passed criminal justice reform, took down ISIS, and has been much more tough on Russia than Obama.
- Cutting regulations are only good if they dont serve much purpose and really hurt the economy... Cutting regulations like methane reduction though, which even oil companies were okay with, is just reckless and ass backwards, and this is just one of many perfectly sensible regulations that Trump decided to roll back https://time.com/5664392/trump-methane-climate-change/
- Unemployment numbers have been fairly steady now for some time, theyre similar to what Obama saw in the latter half of his presidency, where anything below 5% indicates a healthy economy. The fact that Trump has not pushed this back up towards 7% or so with his trade war with China is certainly commendable, but he didn't really achieve that himself since the creeping reduction in unemployment has been an ongoing trend since 2014 https://www.google.com/search?q=us+unemployment+rate&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS864US864&oq=us+unemployment+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3556j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
- Taking down ISIS would have been a really good accomplishment Trump could tout and earn points for, had he not continued to ponder bombing/start a war with Iran and inviting the Taliban to the US to negotiate a peace deal just days before 9/11. In this case Trump took 1 step forward and two steps back.
Out of curiosity, what leads to believe Trump has been harder on Russia than Obama? After they invaded Ukraine, Obama basically greenlit every sanction against Russia that came to his table, while Trump tried to argue that they should be allowed back into meetings of the G-7 for no real reason and has really buddied up with Putin.