#1  
Old 06-07-2019, 12:57 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385

Polling


Maybe this can be a catch-all thread to post and discuss the latest findings, methodology, etc.

Reuters-Ipsos has a pretty interesting new poll out: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...005%202019.pdf

The most eye-catching is the trial heats against Trump. Biden leads by a whopping fourteen points there, while Warren is only ahead by five; worse yet are Buttigieg (two) and Harris (three).
  #2  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:52 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,539
You need to discount all polls today because of the name recognition factor. Biden has it, Buttigieg doesn't. That will change over a year's intensive coverage, chance for gaffes, and performance in debates.

It would certainly be interesting if these results don't change over the next year, but that's not likely.

Right now they're as meaningful as predictions of the 2020 NBA finals. Try not to get your hopes - or fears - up.
  #3  
Old 06-07-2019, 11:48 AM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,052
At this point in the last Presidential election, Bush was the leading Republican candidate with 13% in the polls. Followed by Walker, Rubio, Carson, then Paul. (cite)

And 8 years before that, Hillary was leading with 34% vs. Obama at 24%.

Last edited by scr4; 06-07-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #4  
Old 06-07-2019, 01:55 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,385
Hey Slacker, I already started a thread for this. It's fallen a ways down the front page now, but it's there.

And I just love how people say "Polls 17 months before the election shouldn't be considered completely reliable predictors of the results!" as though they're saying something profound. It's like if you tell someone the Raptors are leading the Warriors 4-0 one minute into the game and instead of saying "thanks for the information", they chide you as though you'd claimed the Raptors were inevitably going to win.
  #5  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Maybe this can be a catch-all thread to post and discuss the latest findings, methodology, etc.

Reuters-Ipsos has a pretty interesting new poll out: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...005%202019.pdf

The most eye-catching is the trial heats against Trump. Biden leads by a whopping fourteen points there, while Warren is only ahead by five; worse yet are Buttigieg (two) and Harris (three).
Does not look good for Buttigieg, he might not be able to beat trump. In fact, in the heartland, once they find out he's gay, I expect that to get worse. That's sad, but it's the way it is. Warren- she could whup trump in debates and do better. Or she could put her foot in her moth again, like her silly DNA test.

It's impressive that Biden will pull 10% of Republicans.
  #6  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:06 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Reuters-Ipsos has a pretty interesting new poll out: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...005%202019.pdf
Why are the candidates in the order they are in the poll? I can't figure out how they've decided to arrange the candidates on the page. It doesn't go by order of percentage or alphabetical. Is there another sorting system I'm missing?
  #7  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:43 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And I just love how people say "Polls 17 months before the election shouldn't be considered completely reliable predictors of the results!" as though they're saying something profound. It's like if you tell someone the Raptors are leading the Warriors 4-0 one minute into the game and instead of saying "thanks for the information", they chide you as though you'd claimed the Raptors were inevitably going to win.
So what do you think is the value of the polls 17 months before the election? It's pretty clear that it's a poor indicator of with the eventual outcome of the primary. What is it an indication of?
  #8  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:44 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Does not look good for Buttigieg, he might not be able to beat trump. In fact, in the heartland, once they find out he's gay, I expect that to get worse.
You think? I think if anyone knew anything about Buttigieg, it's that he's gay.
  #9  
Old 06-07-2019, 03:57 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Hey Slacker, I already started a thread for this. It's fallen a ways down the front page now, but it's there.

And I just love how people say "Polls 17 months before the election shouldn't be considered completely reliable predictors of the results!" as though they're saying something profound. It's like if you tell someone the Raptors are leading the Warriors 4-0 one minute into the game and instead of saying "thanks for the information", they chide you as though you'd claimed the Raptors were inevitably going to win.
I say we simply can't make this point often enough or firmly enough.

The forum and the internet are replete with posts about these meaningless polls treating them as if they have some secret information that we can parse out if we only try hard enough. People are desperate for signs that the Trump interregnum will be ending. They are overreading and overreacting to any indications that might give an answer. A gentle reminder that no answers are to be had is not a bad thing at any time.

The only thread I see that you started is Is Joe Biden the new Ed Muskie? and it resembles this thread in no way. What are you referring to?
  #10  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:06 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,385
My thread is called 2020 Polls, and it hasn’t had any posts in a while.
  #11  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:09 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
So what do you think is the value of the polls 17 months before the election? It's pretty clear that it's a poor indicator of with the eventual outcome of the primary. What is it an indication of?
It allows us to follow the general shape of the race and see how candidates are doing. Like Buttigieg has gone from nothing to about 10% in a relatively short time. That means he should be taken more seriously than someone like Hickenlooper who started at nothing and has stayed there.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 06-07-2019 at 04:09 PM.
  #12  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:12 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I say we simply can't make this point often enough or firmly enough.

The forum and the internet are replete with posts about these meaningless polls treating them as if they have some secret information that we can parse out if we only try hard enough. People are desperate for signs that the Trump interregnum will be ending. They are overreading and overreacting to any indications that might give an answer. A gentle reminder that no answers are to be had is not a bad thing at any time.

The only thread I see that you started is Is Joe Biden the new Ed Muskie? and it resembles this thread in no way. What are you referring to?
So your contention is that polls are completely meaningless and that there is no way whatsoever to predict the outcome of the election at this point?

Tell you what, I’ll make you a bet. I’ll take Biden to win the nomination and you take John Hickenlooper. I’ll even give you 2-1 odds! Do we have a deal? If not, why not?
  #13  
Old 06-07-2019, 04:15 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,385
I think my sports analogy above was a good one. If you know the score after the first quarter, you won’t be able to predict the winner with perfect accuracy, but you’ll do much better than you would without that information.
  #14  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:28 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
You think? I think if anyone knew anything about Buttigieg, it's that he's gay.

Maybe things have changed since then (due perhaps to his cannily picking a fight with Pence). But in the first week or so of the Buttigieg boom, I didn't know he was gay (and I follow politics very closely), and I couldn't figure out why this young small-city mayor was getting any attention. Was it really his ability to speak Norwegian, I wondered? Then I finally found out about his being gay, and things clicked into place. But most articles about him were pretty coy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Hey Slacker, I already started a thread for this. It's fallen a ways down the front page now, but it's there.

And I just love how people say "Polls 17 months before the election shouldn't be considered completely reliable predictors of the results!" as though they're saying something profound. It's like if you tell someone the Raptors are leading the Warriors 4-0 one minute into the game and instead of saying "thanks for the information", they chide you as though you'd claimed the Raptors were inevitably going to win.

Sorry: I looked for something similar and didn't see it.

But yeah, I agree. I'm a huge consumer of polling, listening to the weekly (or more frequent at times) podcasts from 538 and "The Pollsters" (Kristin Soltis-Anderson, a "Never Trump" Republican pollster, and Margie Omero, a Democratic pollster). Nate Silver has said that although it is obviously still early, polls this early do have more predictive power than the nabobs would have us believe.

Here's what I found just now, on the 538 website: We Analyzed 40 Years Of Primary Polls. Even Early On, They’re Fairly Predictive.
  #15  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:51 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
My thread is called 2020 Polls, and it hasn’t had any posts in a while.
Yes, not since May 16. You must use a different default for the front page than I do.

Nor does your sport analogy work for me. The primaries are not between two supposedly equal opponents playing the same game. If you must use a sport analogy, then why not golf? Yes, the better players do win more than the weaker ones. But we recently went through a four or five year period in which just about every major was won by a different player, many of them winning for the first time.

I'll restate my point. Don't depend on the polls doing your work for you. If you want a particular candidate to win, go be active. Staff a call bank, do door-to-door volunteering, donate money. If you don't want particular candidates to win, then do the same but shift the emphasis. No matter who your personal favorite is, support the candidate with exactly as much time, energy, money, and fervor. This is true for every election at every level. #NotOneRepublican

Just don't let the polls guide your actions. Especially this early, with an unprecedented number of candidates, in a new era when the party is split into more factions than ever.
  #16  
Old 06-07-2019, 07:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Exapno, you can feel free not to let the polls guide your actions. It's a free country! But don't tell us not to let them guide our actions if we so choose.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #17  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:22 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
It allows us to follow the general shape of the race and see how candidates are doing. Like Buttigieg has gone from nothing to about 10% in a relatively short time. That means he should be taken more seriously than someone like Hickenlooper who started at nothing and has stayed there.
I disagree. I think it just measures name recognition at this point. Buttigieg is polling better because he has been in the news more than Hickenlooper. It's not the other way around.
  #18  
Old 06-07-2019, 09:29 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Exapno, you can feel free not to let the polls guide your actions. It's a free country! But don't tell us not to let them guide our actions if we so choose.
I'm not telling you. I'm pleading with you.
  #19  
Old 06-07-2019, 10:05 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Deaf ears. La-la-la!

Very interesting analysis of polls crossmatched with 2016 and 2018 voter files:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/04/polit...020/index.html
Quote:
Democrats are debating the best approach to beating Trump in 2020. On one side are progressive activists who say the party should prioritize mobilizing nonvoters, particularly young people and minorities, with an unabashedly liberal agenda. On the other are centrists who say Democrats can't tilt so far left on issues such as single-payer health care and the Green New Deal that they alienate swing voters who backed Trump in 2016 but may be open to reconsidering now.[...]
Rather than picking one path, the new Catalist data on 2018 signals that Democrats need to do some of both in 2020. But, on balance, its analysis found that a clear majority of Democrats' gains from 2016 to 2018 came from voters switching their preference, rather than from changes in the electorate's composition.[...]
The overall result was voters who sat out the 2018 midterms after voting in 2016 cost the Democrats a manageable 2 percentage points in the total vote last year, only about one-third of their crushing decline in 2014.[...]
Vote switching, as opposed to shifts in the electorate's composition, accounted for about three-fourths or more of the Democrats' improvement compared with the 2016 presidential results in a wide variety of states, Catalist found. Those included their Senate victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Nevada and Arizona, as well as governor's victories in Nevada, Michigan and Maine.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-07-2019 at 10:07 PM.
  #20  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:36 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,428
An excellent Twitter feed about polling and related issues:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/lists/numbers-peeps?lang=en
  #21  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:11 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
An excellent Twitter feed about polling and related issues:

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/lists/numbers-peeps?lang=en

Nice. Good to see two of my favorites, Harry Enten and Amy Walter, on there (along with luminaries like "the Nates" Cohn and Silver).
  #22  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:25 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mee...-poll-n1017751
Quote:
Looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election, a combined 37 percent of registered voters say they’re enthusiastic or comfortable about voting for Trump, while 52 percent say they’re “very uncomfortable.”

That’s compared with 40 percent who are enthusiastic or comfortable about voting for Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden, the former vice president, plus 31 percent who are “very uncomfortable.”

Frustratingly, they do not include all the data, and I couldn't find it elsewhere (unless it's behind the WSJ paywall). But if you read the whole article, there is clearly another category not mentioned in this section: "have reservations". So Trump partisans can on the one hand spin this as half full: "Look, our guy is only three points behind Biden on the combined 'comfortable/enthusiastic' categories!" But they are 21 points worse in the "very uncomfortable" box. By inference, we can say there is probably something close to a tenth of the electorate who "has reservations" about voting for Trump, in addition to over half being "very uncomfortable"; whereas Biden has a much larger "reservations" group of about one-fourth of the electorate. (That almost certainly includes a lot of hardcore Democrats who, like me, are not enthused about Biden, but will drag ourselves over broken glass to vote for him in November 2020 if he is the nominee, because we are so intent on getting rid of Trump.)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-18-2019 at 10:26 AM.
  #23  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:30 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,775
It seems to me that would be most meaningful are head-to-head comparisons. "If the election were held today, and were Biden vs. Trump, whom would you vote for?" (and repeat for several other Democratic candidates). If you really want to get fancy, you could start by asking which Democratic candidate the answerer likes best, and then (if it's not one of the ones you've already asked for) "If the election were Trump vs. your preferred Democratic candidate, whom would you vote for?".
  #24  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:14 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,690
I wouldn't put much stock in enthusiasm data this early in the campaign. That becomes more of a thing in the general, once the parties ask voters to unite behind a single candidate.
  #25  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:19 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Head to heads or “trial heats” are notoriously inaccurate this far out. But I believe the polls that show 52-55 percent unwilling to even consider Trump really do mean something this time, because we have never seen something like this before. They reflect that a majority, albeit a modest one, sees the trainwreck for exactly what it is. Five years ago, if a time traveler from 2019 described everything that has happened, the only real surprise would be that these numbers weren’t at least 70%.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-18-2019 at 12:20 PM.
  #26  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:10 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,551
There have been other polls that have showed similar numbers and the issue is the same: being uncomfortable voting for Trump is not the same as voting for the person running against him. The biggest winner last time was as usual not bothering to vote.

It is consistent with Trump having a ceiling of support. But he’s had that ceiling. He’s never been popular and the honeymoon after an election was for him very brief. But his ceiling is, if he wins the right states, just enough for him to win.

A D candidate needs more than voters not voting for Trump. They need voters to also vote for them.
  #27  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Wouldn’t hurt, but this time I think it’s actually the best bet for the nominee to be the closest thing to a bowl of plain oatmeal in a bowl labeled “Generic, Inoffensive Democrat Who Speaks In Vague Platitudes”.
  #28  
Old 06-19-2019, 06:34 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,265
Are we trusting these polls? I know people say the polls in 2016 were within the margin of error, but I also know everyone thought Clinton was essentially a lock. If it was the media's faulty analysis of the polls, do we know they've learned their lessons? I honestly don't know what or who to trust. Have the pollsters learned from the shy Trumper effect?
  #29  
Old 06-19-2019, 09:51 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,775
The polls were all reasonably accurate, and the media almost all misinterpreted them. The solution is to continue to trust the polls, but to not trust most of the media.
  #30  
Old 06-19-2019, 10:34 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
And let’s please note that Nate Silver and 538 did NOT call Hillary a lock. They gave Trump a one in three chance of winning (and took a lot of flak for it from the “lock” crowd). 1 in 3 is Russian roulette with two bullets in a six-shooter, and one of them rolled into the chamber.

Let’s also remember that the polls were pretty accurate last fall.
  #31  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:50 PM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The polls were all reasonably accurate, and the media almost all misinterpreted them. The solution is to continue to trust the polls, but to not trust most of the media.
What about the SDMB? This tends to be a community of people who look into the granular details and don't accept what they're fed by the media, but a poll taken in 7/16 had a 82% chance of a win for Hillary (not sure if things changed later). And like others have said, fivethirtyeight was relatively conservative and they had Hillary at 70%. I recall seeing a bunch of battleground state electoral analysis that was calling for a Clinton landslide, so I can't imagine it was all down to over-reliance on national polls.
  #32  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:06 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Do you really think 70% (which was as low as 60% earlier in the fall) is the chances one would give to a likely landslide? If I saw that for a Senate election (which does come down to popular vote), I would expect that the candidate with the 70 percent chance would probably win by one or two points. Hillary won by 2.1 points.

Even 86% is probably more like four or five points. A ten point win is going to look more like >95%.
  #33  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:47 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,775
I'm not sure how a poll of the SDMB translates into an 82% chance of a Clinton victory. Was the question just "Who do you think is more likely to win?" Because if everyone thought that she had a 2/3 chance of winning, that would have resulted in a 100% for Clinton in the poll.

As for the folks saying 99% or more based on individual state polls, the problem there was that they were incorrectly assuming that states are uncorrelated. In reality, in a case where Trump outperforms his polls in Ohio, he probably also does so in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and likely does so in Florida and Iowa and other states. Which is what in fact happened.
  #34  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:03 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Do you really think 70% (which was as low as 60% earlier in the fall) is the chances one would give to a likely landslide? If I saw that for a Senate election (which does come down to popular vote), I would expect that the candidate with the 70 percent chance would probably win by one or two points. Hillary won by 2.1 points.

Even 86% is probably more like four or five points. A ten point win is going to look more like >95%.
Poor choice of words on my part.
  #35  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:18 AM
KidCharlemagne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'm not sure how a poll of the SDMB translates into an 82% chance of a Clinton victory. Was the question just "Who do you think is more likely to win?" Because if everyone thought that she had a 2/3 chance of winning, that would have resulted in a 100% for Clinton in the poll.

As for the folks saying 99% or more based on individual state polls, the problem there was that they were incorrectly assuming that states are uncorrelated. In reality, in a case where Trump outperforms his polls in Ohio, he probably also does so in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and likely does so in Florida and Iowa and other states. Which is what in fact happened.
I've been imprecise in my wording. The question was "Who do you think our next president will be." While it may not ask "What is probability of a Clinton win?" it still illustrates that 82% of people in a relatively analytical and detail-oriented population thought she would win and, iirc, most people thought it would be by a pretty safe margin. I think even pollsters said they didn't take into account the Shy Trumper effect. Im just wondering if they've made changes to their methods after 2016, who I can trust, and how to get an accurate assessment for 2020.
  #36  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I've been imprecise in my wording. The question was "Who do you think our next president will be." While it may not ask "What is probability of a Clinton win?" it still illustrates that 82% of people in a relatively analytical and detail-oriented population thought she would win and, iirc, most people thought it would be by a pretty safe margin. I think even pollsters said they didn't take into account the Shy Trumper effect. Im just wondering if they've made changes to their methods after 2016, who I can trust, and how to get an accurate assessment for 2020.
The polling in 2016 was actually quite good, on a national level, and even on a state-by-state level was quite good aside from a few states. Only Michigan (or maybe Wisconsin) had a greater than "normal" level of error in the polling aggregates, IIRC.
  #37  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:21 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 300
I don’t think polls are going to be of much value at any point during this race. As the last election proved, enough people have zero problem lying to pollsters if they believe their sincerely held beliefs are problematic to make any poll results questionable. Best I can tell, it seems to work a bit like this.

A) Mainstream commentators decide amongst themselves that right-of-center positions are only held by a bad fringe.

B) Voters then lie to pollsters in response.

C) A vote is held.

D) Same commentators switch to complaining about dangers of “populism”.
  #38  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:27 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
Did you miss the 2018 election results?
  #39  
Old 06-26-2019, 04:17 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,385
A new poll has found some vulnerabilities for Trump among his base, particularly regarding taxes and health care:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...h-care-1377517
Quote:
American Bridge polled voters in small towns and rural areas, screening out self-identified liberal Democrats, to find out what they thought of the president. The group gave Trump a positive job approval rating overall, and it backed a generic Republican for Congress by 29 points over a generic Democrat. But the Republican-leaning pool of voters also gave Trump unfavorable ratings on several key issues, highlighting potential avenues of attack for American Bridge: 50 percent rated Trump negatively on “cutting taxes for people like me.”

Several health care questions were worse for the president. Just 25 percent of respondents gave Trump a positive rating for “reducing health care costs,” compared to 67 percent who rated him negatively, while they split against Trump 39-51 on “taking on the drug and pharmaceutical companies.”
I like the savvy exhibited in their stated goal: “We’re trying to go from losing these segments 85-15 to maybe 75-25”. That sounds like it's still a calamitous loss, but it would actually checkmate Trump in swing states.
  #40  
Old 06-27-2019, 07:48 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,931
If Donald actually loses a couple of points in his base, he's toast next year because I don't think he can make up the deficit elsewhere.. I wish I had confidence in that happening.

Repeating myself here, I will never understand people lying to pollsters. I can not wrap my brain around the desire to do this.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017