Morning Consult publishes a poll every Monday. Their last two were taken just before and just after the debates.
It’s interesting to see how the polls change, as compared to how the results were interpreted by “experts.” The experts were correct about Kamala Harris having made a good showing. She jumped from 6% to 12%. She took pretty much all of her new support away from Biden, who was the debates’ big loser. That seemed to be her exact strategy, so chalk up a win for her.
Except for Biden, the only other candidate to gain or lose more than 1 point was Beto, who dropped from 4 to an even less significant 2.
I consider Hickenlooper to have finished second in the debates, because Harris was the only candidate to gain ground, so Hickenlooper, by remaining unchanged, therefore finished in a five-way tie for the second-best result. You might argue that he simply went from zero to zero, but that’s just nitpicking.
There was one thing that surprised me. Elizabeth Warren was essentially unchanged. In fact she actually dropped a point, from 13 to 12, but that change could not be statistically significant. That has to be disappointing for her. She and the experts all felt she did well.
Here the are candidates ranked by their change from the previous poll:
Candidate Post-Debate Score (Change)
Kamala Harris 12 (+6)
========================
John Hickenlooper 0 (NC)
Bernie Sanders 19 (NC)
Cory Booker 3 (NC)
Andrew Yang 2 (NC)
Steve Bullock 1 (NC)
=========================
Elizabeth Warren 12 (-1)
Pete Buttigieg 6 (-1)
Beto O’Rourke 2 (-2)
Joe Biden 33 (-5)
Despite being in 9th place in this poll out of the 24 current candidates, Gov. Bullock was not even invited to the two debates. He did get a special opportunity from Stephen Colbert, who gave Bullock a ton of exposure – his own personal debate! Colbert gave him a chance to discuss policy as well as an opportunity to show that he is a good sport.
The just released CNN poll is a more credible poll.
Yes, in general, but not for evaluating the impact of the debates. The previous CNN poll was in May, so the new one shows the change for the entire month, not just the result of the actual debate. Most of Warren’s gain, for example, seems to have occurred between the last poll and the start of the debates. She may or may not have added to it in the debates.
The reliability of modern polls is discussed here.
The Colbert Bump
Name checks out.
“Come for the butts,
Stay for the nuts!”
Two white males above the age of 75 getting 52% of the Democratic primary vote. Progress!
Throw in Elizabeth Warren, and the seniors take almost 2/3 of the vote. I guess we’re not QUITE ready for that torch-passing.
they had it for a second and passed it right back to the other old fart Donald Trump
It’s not when, man.
It’s why.
The problem is, quite frankly, politics are so hostile, corrupt, and toxic – no one who legitimately wants to do good wants to deal with these things. That’s why you don’t draw in many to pass the torch to. The attributes associated with politics are the antithesis of what people who legitimately want change do not associate with.
Power, influence, greed, ‘win at all cost’ attitude. Those attributes attract certain individuals, many of whom would qualify as psychopaths
We’ve produced this system ourselves, because we’re a shit species still tied to tribalism, anecdotal evidence, and emotion. Until we actually open up the system to reluctant leaders to draw in legitimate researchers who can present a theory with backed researched on how to make things better, nothing will ever change.
We’ll just keep cycling control of the executive, legislative, an judicial branch to whichever side provokes the most emotion vs. apathy in the voting public over and over again.
That’s the million dollar question. As a fan of George Carlin’s bits, his advise was to ‘become an observer.’ I think he was an idealist who eventually became of a nihilist because of all the bullshit involved. I would imagine more and more people are becoming this way.
You have the combination of sociopaths and people heavily afflicted by the Dunning–Kruger effect, who seem to be naturally selected by their attributes to get into positions that have life changing effects on others.
Meanwhile the people that may legitimately want to do good for society do not crave the power, and the more heavily they research a field with humility, the more questions they can have about it even though their abilities may be well above most of the population.
The problem is, those in power mistake those attributes with lack of confidence or knowledge, or maybe determination. Ted Bundy was intelligent and determined, but I’m not sure anyone would consider his brand of those attributes a good thing.
It’s going to take decades and a legitimate push for knowledge and reform of the education system to ever get things truly better. With all due respect to subjects like geography, physics, biology, chemistry, and pre-1900 Western Civ history – I think we could focus on them quite a bit less and push for a more pragmatic curriculum with ethics, logic, and psychology and teach future generations the basic tools of discourse and to avoid the ways we look for out next dopamine fix through Twitter, 24 hour news channels, and everything else.
Take the money out of politics. The Supremes said that donating to politicians is protected free speech. There can’t be a law against donating money. So pass laws against politicians (and candidates) ACCEPTING donations.
Bang, everyone’s political free speech is equal again. I know, I know, I’ve just backed the problem up one move – how do we get these laws passed? And narcissists will still seek power.
My point is, punting is the worst answer. It’s a long trip. The sooner we get going, the sooner we’ll get there.
There were other criteria to make the debates than the polls: I think having to raise a certain amount of money and have a certain amount of donors.
For the two most credible candidates who did not make the cut: Governor Bullock and Congressman Seth Moulton, they both entered the race only a handful of weeks before the cut-off for making this debate. I think they both could have crossed the barrier fairly easily had they got in sooner, so, they both have nobody to blame but themselves.
Of course, they aren’t as strange as former Congressman Joe Sestak who entered the Democratic Primary AFTER the cut-off to make this debate.
However, there is one more debate coming up where there will be 20 candidates and at least one (most like Governor Bullock) and possibly both Bullock and Moulton should make the cut. I would expect Congressman Eric Swalwell, former Congressman John Delaney and representative from somewhere out there, Marianne Williamson, would be the most likely to be dropped.
I actually found Delaney to be impressive. He was empathetic yet practical. His ideas and policies have a shot at actually passing. He is far more in touch with mainstream America than some of the other loons.
Yes and no. Most of the candidates don’t endorse the more extreme things: banning private health insurance, seemingly embracing open borders, however Delaney (like Hickenlooper) did the most to set himself apart from the others. (Tim Ryan referred to his fellow Democrats as ‘elitists in ivory towers’ but then he embraced a number of positions that are out of the mainstream with both the Democrats and general voters like his isolationism – although certainly there is a core support of that.)
The problem with Delaney with both Democrats and with logic is that he says that he wants to be a ‘bipartisan President’ and would focus on passing legislation that is written by members of both parties.
On this, he is living in an alternate reality.
My mistake. Tim Ryan was the one who thought American troops should remain in Afghanistan, Tulsi Gabbard was the isolationist.
Tim Ryan was all over the map on it. Sometimes he came across as a nativist isolationist and other times he was a pro military interventionalist. Obviously that need not be inconsistent, but Ryan didn’t really articulate a road map for his decision making on this.