Received this from “Jim” today. Thanks Jim


"Recent NBC/Marist NH poll: Gabbard choice of 15 percent of male independent voters, 10 percent male/female; UNH/CNN poll released this afternoon shows Gabbard leading among Conservatives with 25 percent Tulsi Gabbard is not only the most electable; she possess most interesting base of support. Said another way: the most diverse. Failure to evaluate this, at least for New Hampshire primary, could result in surprise on Tuesday; that few are even discussing. In other words, bias may be at play – but the voters will decide on Feb. 11. The fact that NYTimes does not even consider Gabbard a candidate, perhaps most extreme example of ubiquitous bias. Independent men likely to vote Tuesday from late January NBC/Marist poll showed this: Sanders 28 percent Gabbard 15 Buttigieg 14 Biden 12 Warren 8 Kloboucher 7 Yang 5 Steyer 3 Deval Patrick 2 Bennet 1 Looking at this 48 percent of identified independents [697 total, thus 0.48*697 = 335 of total], NH poll results showed: Sanders 25 percent [84 votes] Buttigieg 18 percent [60 votes] Biden 12 percent[40 votes] Gabbard 10 percent [34 votes] Kloboucher 8 percent[27 votes] Warren 8 percent [27 votes] Yang 5 percent [17 votes] others 4 percent and less Also, recent SuffolkUniv/BostonGlobe poll indicated the 24 percent undecided – was the “winner” as it were in that poll. Undecided 24 percent Sanders 16.4 percent Biden 14.8 Buttigieg 12.2 Warren 9.8 Yang 5.6 Gabbard 5.4 Klobouchar 4.6 Steyer 2.6 Bennet 1.4 Patrick 0.6 One thing I've paid close attention to for years [epitomized/expressed by pollsters viz. Trump 2016 election in particular] is anomalies, things that are missed that the pollsters actually collect, but for whatever reason, ignore, fail to take into account: in other word, the big no-no, the B word, BIAS. Not the poll and its methodology, per se [though that is a factor] — rather/also, BIAS of the pollsters themselves, the wonks who can’t or won’t report what is in the data they’ve collected. From their polling samples. Two aspects from 2016 demonstrating this was 1] polls actually showed Clinton winning – the popular vote – and the mistake was assuming this meant she’d win election via electoral college. 2] pollsters knew that a chunk of Trump voters recognized pollsters were not on the up and up, and so either refused to participate, or gave pollsters intentionally a different response from what their actual preference was. This can be called “Trump-Derangement-Bias,” TDB, on the part of the pollsters. I don’t know if none, or some, or a lot of TDB might or might not be at play in the polling. I do know interesting aspects are being ignored by an uncurious, or more likely, intentionally biased political and media class. Pollsters are not reporting all of what their own data says. Gabbard is most likely to surprise the “experts” at least in NH primary. [It’s also worth mentioning that 53 percent of white women voted Trump in 2016 – which “experts” saw that coming?] [NOTE: The Marist/NBC poll data says in NH says 47 percent are registered independents, 27 percent Republican, 26 percent Democrat. The poll gave the same weight to Democrats as to Independents, and ignored potential Republican “crossovers”. This fact, should Gabbard end up doing well on Tuesday, might be among the key mistakes pollsters are making in NH. Independents carry twice as much weight as Democrat voters in NH. Republicans, will they really carry “no weight” in Tuesday’s primary?] Full results at: Meanwhile, a University of NH/CNN poll published this afternoon says 50 percent were undecided last month and 30 percent remain so. Interestingly, the UNH/CNN poll narrative also says this: “Fifty-three percent of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided whom they will support in the upcoming New Hampshire presidential primary, largely unchanged compared to the period from February 4-7” That means 47 have not "definitely" decided. These results included a breakdown of three categories, what pollsters deemed “Liberal” “Moderate” “Conservative” for their “Preferred Democratic 2020 Presidential Nomination Candidate” The results for those who identify as Conservative Gabbard 25 percent Sanders 17 percent Yang 14 percent Biden 13 percent Undecided 11 percent Buttigieg 11 percent Other 5 percent Kloboucher 4 percent Warren 0 Steyer 0 Bloomberg 0 The full results at -30-"  Jim 

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Received this from “Jim” today. Thanks Jim

  1. Fred says:

    That really doesn’t look to good for comrade Sanders. From 2017 till now his overall support has actually declined (see their graph) and this poll has significant oversampling of women voters. Tyler pointed out similar oversampling errors in polling in 2016.

  2. rst says:

    From this post to God’s ear.

  3. notlurking says:

    MSM is gearing up for more Tulsi bashing…more proof that regular citizens are not the one’s who choose who they want…corporations do…sick

  4. plantman says:

    I was never sure if Trump’s anti-interventionist rhetoric during the campaign, was just empty promises, but he’s been pretty disappointing on that count.
    Gabbard is different. Her entire campaign is based on ending the regime change wars. I’d be surprised if she backed off those promises.
    I wonder if Bernie would ever consider putting her on the ballot??
    She’d make a nice replacement for Pence too!

  5. English Outsider says:

    ISL yesterday – “If Trump goes after Tulsi the way he went after Jeb Bush, I expect it will backfire. Godspeed Tulsi!”
    She must surely be the most bullet proof candidate. The Russian stooge angle has already been tried and failed and in any case Trump would scarcely use it. The (alleged) connection with the BJP would surely be of little interest to the average voter.
    On Israel? If an American Presidential candidate is not solid with AIPAC then the campaign funds and the media are difficult. If not solid with the Scofield Bible then many voters are. Is her stance sufficiently pro? Not for the Likudniks if they’re as vocal as they are in England, that’s for sure.
    Anti-establishment – has spoken out against the Washington bubble and also against the financial cronies. But an “F” rating from the NRA, and though on outsourcing she has called for ending tax breaks for corporations that do it, it doesn’t seem to be the central issue it was for Trump 2016.
    Back at that time the Outsider family held their own caucus over here. We settled on backing Bernie if he got to be candidate, otherwise Trump. Agreed, some psephologists claim that that uneasy coalition had nil influence on the result, especially since most of the family welched on the deal later. Never trust a Democrat, even in England.
    But I was told later that the American branch of the Outsider clan had arrived at much the same conclusion. Seems party labels don’t have the pull they used to, not any more.
    At least if this latest long shot were to succeed Trump might have broken the Beltway in for her, just a little. And she looks to be about the only sane American Democratic hopeful solidly against the Neocons and their regime change obsessions. So with ISL, but from too far away to be of the least consequence, we say “God speed Tulsi!”

  6. JamesT says:

    Things could not be going better for comrade Sanders. Why do you think the Iowa results have not been released? I will tell you why – because Bernie won.
    Bernie and Buttigieg are clearly leading the pack at this point, and Biden and Warren have slipped well behind. Some polls have Biden coming in fifth in NH! Buttigieg is popular with liberal costal elites, but he is polling under 1% with black voters and nobody gets the D nomination without their support.

  7. Fred says:

    Iowa? Just imagine how the Democrats will run health care. Things are great for Bernie? Why is he polling lower in NH than two years ago? Buttigieg? I know mayor bottom wants to be on top but I don’t think America will put him there.

  8. JamesT says:

    Bernie just won NH. Bernie is to 2020 what Trump was to 2016.

Comments are closed.