Breaking (good) news:
It looks like the window for @TomSteyer to make the September debate has closed. He got 0% in a new Quinnipiac national poll, the last poll we know about before qualification closes today. @TulsiGabbard, who was looking for two polls, got 1% https://t.co/J8LzZ1gTLT
— Zach Montellaro (@ZachMontellaro) August 28, 2019
So Houston will be just one night with 10 candidates — still too many, IMO, but less of a goat rodeo for sure.
Earlier, this was a 12-hour wonder:
New national Monmouth poll:
Sanders: 20% (+6)
Warren: 20% (+5)
Biden: 19% (-13)!
Harris: 8% (-)
Booker: 4% (+2)
Buttigieg: 4% (-1)
Yang: 3% (+1)
Castro: 2% (+2)
O’Rourke: 2% (-1)
Williamson: 2% (+1)
— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) August 26, 2019
… and there was much rejoicing from some campaigns, and much head-scratching from others, before the next Big Serious Poll:
New @MorningConsult #2020 data, based on 17,303 interviews conducted Aug. 19-25:
Biden: 33% (+2)
Harris: 8% (-1)
— Cameron Easley (@cameron_easley) August 27, 2019
Next day, related information…
— Micah Cohen (@micahcohen) August 27, 2019
Seems like a good time to re-up our guide to following 2020 primary polls:https://t.co/LSFD3VutYe
— Micah Cohen (@micahcohen) August 26, 2019
… People who try to discredit early primary polls by pointing out that, say, Jeb Bush led early polls of the GOP field in 2016 are being disingenuous. Should these polls be treated with caution? Sure, but national primary polls conducted in the calendar year before the election are actually somewhat predictive of who the eventual nominee will be. Earlier this year, fellow FiveThirtyEight analyst Geoffrey Skelley looked at early primary polling since 1972 and found that candidates who polled better in the months before the primaries wound up doing better in the eventual primaries. In fact, those who averaged 35 percent or higher in the polls rarely lost the nomination…
But don’t put too much faith in early primary polls (or even late ones — they have a much higher error, on average, than general-election polls). Voters’ preferences are much more fluid in primaries than they are in general elections, in large part because partisanship, a reliable cue in general elections, is removed from the equation. And voters may vacillate between the multiple candidates they like and even change their mind at the last minute, perhaps in an effort to vote tactically (i.e., vote for their second choice because that candidate has a better chance of beating a third candidate whom the voter likes less than their first or second choice).
On the flip side, early general-election polls are pretty much worthless. They are hypothetical match-ups between candidates who haven’t had a chance to make their case to the public, who haven’t had to withstand tough attacks and who still aren’t on many Americans’ radar. And these polls aren’t terribly predictive of the eventual result either…
Read the whole thing, and save yourself much agita over the next many months.
Sidebar: I like Nate’s take for my preferred candidate, of course…
It's obviously not a perfect heuristic, in part because this can confuse cause and effect (i.e. losing campaigns have more to complain about), but in general the quality of a campaign is inversely proportional is how often it publicly argues/kvetches about the polls.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 27, 2019