US Political Polling

[dyqik]

Since this isn't directly related to either the Democratic Candidate or Trump's Impeachment, it might as well have it's own thread.

There's an interesting article on 538 that's trying to evaluate Trump's popularity without hitting the partisan team cheering of a Disapprove/Approve question that seems to be completely static. They ask pollees to rank Trump vs other Republicans, the idea being that since you're comparing R with R, partisan team cheering is less of an issue.

[bolo]

It's interesting, and will be even more interesting when they have a time series longer than two polls.

[Bird on a Fire]

Yes, that is interesting.

Have there been similar exercises with the Democratic candidates? It would be interesting to know their potential reliabilities with registered Democrats vs swing voters too.

[dyqik]

Yes, that is interesting.

Have there been similar exercises with the Democratic candidates? It would be interesting to know their potential reliabilities with registered Democrats vs swing voters too.

There's a lot of favorability polling asking about most of the current candidates. Since none of them are in power yet or the appointed nominee, it shouldn't be necessary to do anything special to correct those results for partisanship. None of them are especially identified with the Democratic party more than the others. Much of the polling headlines are of Democratic leaning voters though, as it's aimed at predicting the primary.

Trump is the actual current "leader" of the GOP, which is where the effect of partisanship kicks in. His approval is usually asked about without reference to other Republicans, so it's not the same thing.

[El Pollo Diablo]

It's often not easy to tell with these things whether this will cause a switch of voters from Republicans to Democrats, or whether it will lead to a suppression of the Repub vote. Four years ago, Clinton lost in large part because her supporters weren't enthused enough to go out to vote, unlike for Obama, who was very good at mobilising people. Corbyn's recent loss again was caused in large part not simply because former Labour voters turned to the Tories, but again because many former Labour voters turned to the sofa.

I obviously f.cking hope Trump ends up losing (and, preferably, in prison. Or dead.), but if, say, Sanders wins the primary (I know he won't) then Trump has a good chance of winning compared to fighting against some of the others.

[lpm]

Sanders is compromised in some way - which is why Trump keeps trying to boost him and why the Russian organisations throw their bots behind him. There's something fatal in his kompromat.

What's most encouraging in the polling is the size of the "will never vote for Trump" among independents. There's not much "probably" or "likely" in any of the polls about Trump - it's strong definites. What polls struggle with are the casual voters who rarely go to the polls, but who were enthused by Trump enough to make a rare trip in 2016. Will they bother again in 2020? I doubt it. They might not have turned against him, but some will be bored or more cynical. I doubt any polling can capture this though.

[El Pollo Diablo]

I don't know, in our recent election, the polls which weighted for voting enthusiasm were the ones which did best, I think? So there may well be some way of measuring it. I think the thing for the Democrat candidate is whether they can encourage enough voters to get out of bed on the day. Sanders definitely won't, but would Biden or Warren?

[lpm]

There's going to be no problem with Democrat enthusiasm. Hatred against is more powerful than desire for, in this current era of division and loathing. It will probably be a good sign of recovery from our current disease when in a few decades people start voting for things again.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Well, I thought that optimistically last time, and was wrong, but I really hope you're right.

[lpm]

Hilary Clinton was uniquely hated. I sort of dismissed it at the time, partly because it was concentrated in the Republican/Fox News hatred, partly because I liked her, partly because it was so irrational and fake. But there was this weird belief in her being evil that had been established over 20 years earlier and constantly repeated. That year after year depiction couldn't be overcome and leaked out into Obama voters.

There's no long established hatred this time. Polls about the candidates don't reveal anything extreme (except for Sanders). Mild likes and dislikes are the place to be. No doubt Fox & Co will attempt to create something to hate, but a few months won't be the same as 20 years.

I've come to the conclusion that there will always be something, so for Warren it might as well be the Pocahontas thing. When I speak to the one Trump supporter I know, that's all he ever talks about with her. Let them divert themselves with it, at least it stops a proper attack on her. It's nothing like the scale of "but her emails" or Benghazi or the "her husband's a rapist and that's her fault".

[secret squirrel]

If it's obviously true that Sanders can't beat Trump, why does this polling suggest that he can? What am I missing?

[El Pollo Diablo]

Trump is a horrific president, has an overall approval rate of -11%, lower than any other post-war president at this stage of his term, isn't campaigning yet, and Sanders is only ahead by 3 points. It's also thought that the Republicans have something pretty juicy on him, and want him to get the nomination.

[secret squirrel]

Trump is a horrific president, has an overall approval rate of -11%, lower than any other post-war president at this stage of his term, isn't campaigning yet, and Sanders is only ahead by 3 points. It's also thought that the Republicans have something pretty juicy on him, and want him to get the nomination.

But Biden is only ahead by 4 points. Warren ahead by +0.4. Buttigieg is behind. Sanders is far from the worst according to the polls, but some people talk like he's all but guaranteed to lose.

Who thinks the Republicans have something on him? What is their evidence? I've seen people say a lot of things about Sanders, but most of them don't produce anything of substance to back it up.

[lpm]

We can't produce anything of substance because we don't have access to Vladimir Putin's file. This is a world where the Saudi Crown Prince personally hacks your phone and gets kompromat on you. You seriously think there's no file on Sanders? That the KGB/FSB/GRU haven't done their usual? And given Sanders has a Corbyn-esque background of interest in "freedom fighters" in oppressed nations, that he has no links to some very nasty people?

We know:

- Trump continually boosts Sanders and attacks his opponents
- In 2016 Russia devoted significant resources to supporting Sanders

You'd vote for the person Putin wants as Trump's opponents?

[secret squirrel]

And Hillary's team boosted Trump so she could go head to head with him. How did that turn out again?

I would vote for someone I think could be a good president, and could beat Trump. As far as I can see Bernie meets those criteria. Dark mumblings about Russia and Putin notwithstanding.

[dyqik]

We have a thread for this argument, and it's not this one.