Running Primary Poll Thread

Author: Imabench

Posts

Total: 193
Topic's author
#181
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Another update: Biden leads Warren by 15 points in FUCKIN CALIFORNIA:


The first state primary poll to come out of that state in a month (I somehow missed it until now, it came out about a week ago) has Biden listed at 33% of the vote with Warren at 18% and Sanders at 17%.... Harris, her home state being California, is only at 8%

Given how much of a liberal state California is (It's a favorite target of Trump and just about everyone who is conservative and views the state as a representation of liberal policies), for Biden to be leading at almost TWICE what Warren or Sanders has should be a massive warning to anyone who thinks that Warren is the front runner (which a lot of candidates in the most recent debate seemed to believe). 

Its been established in the past that Biden has the South on lockdown (he still does, check almost any poll for southern states), so for him to have such a massive lead in California could mean Biden clinches the nomination almost from the get go. Remember, California is 5th in line for the primary season, and its massive size makes it worth almost more then the 4 previous contests combined in terms of delegate count (Iowa, NH, South Carolina, and Nevada)

For those suspicious about the poll, theres a surprise in the numbers. Polls that favor Biden tend to have responses more from older people than younger people, because older people are more likely to vote, and younger people tend to not favor Biden. In this poll though, a majority of respondents were NOT old people. 


If you jump down to result Poll 8, 33% of respondents were 18 to 34, which is far and away the biggest age group of all respondents. In fact, the group that Biden does the best with (65 and up) was the SMALLEST faction of voters in the poll at just 17% of all respondents. 

This larger sample of responses from younger voters compared to older voters should have indicated that Warren or Sanders would have sizable leads over Biden, but its the exact OPPOSITE. Biden has double digit leads over Warren and Sanders DESPITE the fact that the polled group of respondents would favor Warren and Sanders more. Poll 5 shows that among the amount of people who would vote for Biden, a mere 15% of people aged 18-34 would vote for him, compared to 21% for Warren and 29% for Sanders..... With Middle Aged voters Biden breaks even with Warren and Sanders (26% to 22% to 24%) and he makes up ground with voters older than 50 (40% to 50% of all voters over 50 or 65 would support Biden, compared to 15% to 17% for Warren and 12% to 2% for Sanders




#182
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,935
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
I think you are giving California too much credit. California represents the extreme fringes of the Party, and I believe those AOC type extremists represent a little less than 30% of the Party.
Topic's author
#183
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I think you are giving California too much credit. California represents the extreme fringes of the Party, and I believe those AOC type extremists represent a little less than 30% of the Party.
Maybe I am giving them a lot of credit, but overall it still spells problems for Warren and Sanders. If they dont have a polling advantage in states that are rather notorious for being more along the fringes of the party compared to other states, then where are the states they will get an advantage? If the conservative South is in Biden's pocket, and the liberal West Coast also leans Biden, where else outside of the sparsely populated Northeast will they be able to get wins? 

Even NY is up for grabs since Biden and Warren both poll around 21%, and thats perhaps the biggest state in the NE that makes the region worthwhile in the first place. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ny/new_york_democratic_presidential_primary-6949.html
#184
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
I don't pretend to know which polls are accurate and which aren't, but I just thought I would point out that other polls done in California recently still show biden in 2nd or 3rd with Elizabeth warren in 1st. I would say we shouldn't put too much stock in 1 outlier poll.


Biden's support in south carolina is down a few points as well. He is still well ahead, but it's not like he has that guaranteed. 

8 days later

Topic's author
#185
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
BETO O'ROURKE DROPS OUT 


Following multiple months of polling at about ass%, and then a campaign reboot more focused on gun control following a mass shooting at El Paso meant to target hispanics, Beto has announced he is pulling out of the race for President. He has not announced that he will be running for any other position in government, and declined to endorse anyone else after announcing he was withdrawing. 

Following Islee, Hickenlooper, Gilibrand, and De Blasio, Beto is now one of the middle tier candidates to have pulled out from the race. The odds of Beto becoming the nominee were at one point considered decent enough to make him an important figure in the race, and if you go back to December of 2018 he placed third in polling for the Dem nominee (Biden, Sanders, Beto, then Warren: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

However, after nearly topping 10 percent in April earlier this year, his support steadily declined where he averaged in the low single digits up until the very end. While most polls had him at 2% to 4% nationally, a recent USA Today poll pinged him at ZERO, which is usually a good wake up call to a candidate that they should drop out of the race. 

Beto''s shit polling though does not mean his withdrawal is significant. While his poll numbers nationally were horrible, his home state of Texas had him polling in the double digits throughout the primaries, and even recently he was polling at 15% to 17%... Biden currently leads the state with about 27% of the vote, with Sanders and Warren closer to 13% and 15%. If one candidate can incorporate a majority of Beto's Texas supporters into their base, it could very well cement their lead as the frontrunner (Biden), or cause them to leapfrog into the front and win a massive haul of delegates when the Texas primary takes place (Sanders or Warren).... Granted, the last polls from the state of Texas were taken way the hell back in early September, and its now November, but its easy to assume that Beto had at least some respectable amount of support in the state due to 1) His Senate bid in the state last year where he almost won, and 2) It's his home state.

Interestingly, Beto dropped out at a time where he was still doing better than other candidates. Despite hitting 0% in a recent national USA Today poll, his weekly average of around 2% still placed him higher than EIGHT OTHER CANDIDATES still in the race: 

Klobuchar = 1.8%
Booker = 1.7%
Steyer = 1.0%
Castro = 0.7%
Bennet = 0.5%
Williamson = 0.3%
Delaney = 0.2%
Bullock = 0%

If Beto's withdrawal convinces some of these other candidates to quit (God willing they will sooner rather then later) their combined poll support of 6.2% could have substantial implications on the rest of the race. Biden currently leads Warren nationally by 5%, Sanders trails Warren by 5%, Buttigieg trails Sanders by 9%, and Harris, Yang, and Gabbard all are below 5%




#186
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,569
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
YAY good  bye gun grabber, I knew he would fail, 
Topic's author
#187
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Fuckin finally got some new state polls which actually hold the highest importance at this point compared to national polling 

1) BIDEN HAS NEVADA ON LOCKDOWN 

Last polls taken from just the state of Nevada were conducted in late September, well over a month later, not one but two polls just for the state have come out, and they both show Biden with a massive lead. 


The two polls have Biden at 29.5%, Warren at 20.5%, and Sanders at 19.0%...... Previously it could be believed that Biden would not get his first solid win until South Carolina (the 4th primary right after Nevada), but new info putting him up 10 points in the state indicates he will likely walk away with the state in his pocket barring some major fuckup that torpedo's his support base. 

2) BETO'S BASE WILL DECIDE WHO WINS TEXAS


A Texas poll conducted late in October was released yesterday showing that while Biden's lead in the state is down to 5 points (previously he averaged a 10 point lead in the state), who Beto's base will switch to will decide who wins the state. Texas, as Beto's home state, averaged 14 points prior to him dropping out at the end of the month, so the 14% base listed as his supporters will almost certainly decide who wins the state. 

Warren here has a slight edge. 3/4ths of all Beto supporters would be satisfied with Warren as the nominee (75%) while Biden and Sanders only averaged 2/3rds the satisfaction (67%) https://www.businessinsider.com/beto-orourke-dropped-out-who-gains-2019-11





#188
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
Those are some interesting numbers. I wouldn't say 8 points is "locked down", but it is a strong lead.  Biden still has a path to winning. But i would say it is still far from certain. I read somewhere that the last time someone was able to win the nomination after winning 2 or less of the 1st four states was Clinton in 92. 

The recent Iowa polls suggest Biden might come in 4th. New Hampshire polling suggests he may come in 3rd. If he gets beaten badly in the 1st two primaries, that is likely to have a negative impact on his performance in the subsequent primaries. The Nevada polls say that one of the highest priorities was someone who could win. If biden gets beaten badly in the 1st two states that could convince some people he isn't the guy who can win. 

It will be interesting to see if he can hold onto his lead in Nevada. If he does end up losing the 1st three states, that would be bad and could have serious consequences on super Tuesday.


It's also worth noting that Biden's financials aren't looking great. He has less cash on hand than most of his rivals. Sanders has 33.7 million banked, Warren has 25.7 million, Buttigieg has 23.4 million, Kamela has 10.6, Biden has 9 million. Going into the last 100 days with a smaller war chest is not good news. He will be struggling to keep up with their ground teams and advertising when he is outmatched so badly in funding. That certainly doesn't mean that he can't still win, he can. It is just an important detail to keep in mind. 




Topic's author
#189
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
The recent Iowa polls suggest Biden might come in 4th. New Hampshire polling suggests he may come in 3rd. If he gets beaten badly in the 1st two primaries

That's mainly because every candidate in the race who is in the bottom tier is spending fuckloads of money in Iowa to try to get a strong showing for the rest of the race. Kamala Harris and Julian Castro have basically pulled out of other states to focus operations entirely on Iowa to try to justify staying in the race, making the state just a money pit. https://news.yahoo.com/look-out-below-which-democratic-candidate-will-drop-out-next-161843916.html Buttigieg in particular has been spending big on Iowa while doing pretty shit everywhere else, but has been having the most success of the lesser candidates who have been trying to accomplish the same thing https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-2020-campaign-iowa.html

So while Biden has certainly been doing iffy in Iowa, it's because 80% of other candidates are spending every nickel and dime they have on the state to try to muscle their way in to the top tier. It almost makes more sense to not spend money on the state and instead focus on other early primary states where there is substantially less pressure and competition in terms of advertising and being heard by voters. 

New Hampshire also has the exception of bordering the states both Bernie and Warren hail from (Vermont and Massachusetts).... Candidates get a huge bump in states that are their home state, and that sort of also applies to nearby states that share a border. Losing in Iowa is excusable from how much candidates are betting all-in on the state, losing in NH is also excusable to a degree since 2 of the 3 best polling candidates have home states near NH in the first place. 

The Nevada polls say that one of the highest priorities was someone who could win. If Biden gets beaten badly in the 1st two states that could convince some people he isn't the guy who can win. 
True, absolutely, but how bad does one have to shit the bed to make your campaign not viable? If we go with a double digit loss being the benchmark for losing badly, then that means someone would have to fall into the single digits in Iowa due to the number of candidates who are running right now. I dont see Biden nor Warren nor Sanders nor even Buttigieg doing that since theyre all pushing 20% individually. The four of them are all neck and neck while the rest of the pack can't even hit 7% more than once, so even putting up 12% to 15% could be considered close since we have a 4 way tie for first at the moment.



#190
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
So while Biden has certainly been doing iffy in Iowa, it's because 80% of other candidates are spending every nickel and dime they have on the state to try to muscle their way in to the top tier.
Agreed. Butigeg is pushing hard for Iowa because he has little chance of winning anywhere else if he can't get momentum going early. Most of the others are irrelevant. None of them are polling over 4% in Iowa (other than the front runners of course). 

Losing in Iowa is excusable from how much candidates are betting all-in on the state, losing in NH is also excusable to a degree since 2 of the 3 best polling candidates have home states near NH in the first place. 
It is understandable why he is losing in those states. But it is still bad. The 1st few states set the pace for the rest of the race. Candidates gain or lose their momentum in the 1st few states. 

True, absolutely, but how bad does one have to shit the bed to make your campaign not viable? If we go with a double digit loss being the benchmark for losing badly, then that means someone would have to fall into the single digits in Iowa due to the number of candidates who are running right now.
I'm not sure the most important point is when they are not viable. Many campaigns will become not viable in the 1st few states and will drop out. But Biden is obviously not one of them. His campaign is going to be viable at least until super tuesday, probably till much later. The threat he is under is that the shine will come off the apple. His main talking point is that he is the front runner and that he can beat trump. If he loses the 1st two states, he will lose momentum. If he loses momentum going into Nevada, he could potentially lose there too. If he loses the 1st three then he will lose alot of momentum going into South Carolina and super tuesday. 

I think if Biden doesn't place in the top 2 in Iowa or New Hampshire, then that is going to hit him. If he only gets 1 of the 1st four states, it will make it much harder to win on super Tuesday. 

Biden is betting everything on being able to lose the 1st two, maybe the 1st three, states and then make a comeback on super tuesday. That is certainly possible. But it is an extremely dangerous strategy. 
Topic's author
#191
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Cant think of a better reason to update this thing than to show that Buttigieg has somehow found the lead in Iowa, so here we go:

1) BUTTIGIEG LEADING IN IOWA

Monmouth polls, one of the better and more accurate polls out there, recently had Buttigieg not just in the thick of the race among the top tier candidates in Iowa as he has been since early October, he has managed to clinch an outright LEAD in the state, polling at 22% overall right in front of Biden (19%) and Warren (18). Sanders is down to 13%, no other candidate apart from Klobuchar is north of 4%

This does not reflect any national trends unfortunately (for Buttigieg). Despite polling well in Iowa, nationwide he still polls at a paltry 7.5%, just a hair in front of Kamala Harris at 5.5% and well behind Sanders (in 3rd place) at 17%. Buttigieg has been dumping a lot of his money into the state of Iowa which has reflected his immense rise in that state while other states leave him behind.... If you go through the primary states, Buttigiegs polling drops almost like clockwork

Iowa = Buttigieg is at 22%
New Hampshire = Buttigieg is at 15%
Nevada = Buttigieg is at 7%
South Carolina = Buttigieg is at 9%
California = Buttigieg is at 10%
Texas = Buttiegieg is at 6%


It's not that any one candidate is losing their base to Buttigieg, he simply seems to be the one candidate who is succeeding at the thing that every other non-major candidate is trying to do: Dump all the money they have into early primary states to try to win support and justify their campaigns. A large share of other lower-tier candidates going all in on Iowa are losing the fight to Buttigieg in their quest to claim justification in the state, while the more major candidates are waiting out the storm and focusing on other states later in the primary where there is less competition and dollars buy a lot more for less. 

2) WISCONSIN IS A DOGFIGHT

The other bit of news to come out is that the NYT released a half dozen state polls of the Dem primary in states that are not early primaries: North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania


Biden leads in a majority of them, not really a surprise. Florida, NC, and Arizona are all in the south where Biden polls very strong, and in Michigan a lot of them may still have good will towards Biden thanks to the auto bailouts Obama authorized during the 2009 recession which would explain his lead there.... In Pennsylvania he also does well but I want to focus on Wisconsin, because it's the one state Biden does NOT clearly have in his pocket. 

While a Marquette poll strongly implies the state is Biden's to lose, the poll is somewhat misleading since it appears to have asked voters to make a choice of the candidates presented. The NYT polls on the other hand show what percentage of respondents are still not sure, with every poll having about 20% to 35% of voters still not sure. 

With this information, we can kind of extrapolate data from Wisconsin about which candidates have rock-steady support, and which candidates are a little shaky. Comparing the Marquette poll and the NYT poll, Warren and Sanders supporters are with the candidates no matter what, as their numbers have not changed even when the 'Dont Know' option is included as an answer.... For Biden though, only about 2/3rds of people who supported him in the Marquette poll are steady in his corner, the other 1/3rd only picked him when required to pick someone to support. 

Whether this means undecided voters in the state are leaning towards Biden or if Biden supporters are leaning towards being undecided is up for others to decide. An opposite conclusion could almost be reached with Warren and Sanders, where either undecided voters in the state are either not inclined to back either of them, or Warren and Sanders have totally won their bases in the state and can continue to bank on their support. Of all the states in the batch of polls though, Wisconsin is the one where the lead is the smallest for candidates near the top, and that state will likely be the bigger battleground in the Dem primary compared to other states mentioned in the polls





292 days later

#192
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 2,912
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Imabench
Thank you for your hard work in this thread. I think this was the one I was trying to remember to nominate for the HoF.
Topic's author
#193
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
Oh THIS thing, gotcha. 

I was completely thinking of other something else, i never would have remembered this one XD