Buttiegieg surges into the lead latest Iowa Poll

[bluewater]

primary Iowa
Jun 29-Jul 4, 2019
C+ Change Research


Buttigieg.. 25%
Warren.... 18%
Sanders... 16%
Biden...... 16%
Harris..... 16%
O'Rourke.. 2%

Buttigieg takes +7 lead

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

My Disclaimer: This is an early poll. No single poll result should be over emphasized, especially this early.

Simply a stunning performance by Pete Buttigieg.

[madaboutharry]

1. He said that he would like to see a 'slow burn"

to the top.

Maybe people are beginning to pay attention. The next debate will be his opportunity to break out of the single digits nationally.

Mayor Buttigieg has so much to offer this country.

[mobeau69]

2. C+ and Early But two things:

1. It's better than a sharp stick in the eye.

2. The trend is your friend.

[thesquanderer]

3. Impressive... and Biden/Sanders/Harris all dangerously close to missing the 15% threshold.

Of course a lot can change... but a month ago, who would have thought that Biden would ever poll that close to the danger zone?

[bluewater]

4. The primary race is wide open.

Buttigieg out fund raised Biden and everyone else this past quarter.

I expect to see Pete poll stronger nationally also. His is one of the campaigns to watch!

[Celerity]

41. To be fair, Biden had fewer days as he entered late, he was tracking to around 29 or 30 million usd

if he had the same amount of days.

[emulatorloo]

28. It's a Iowa poll not a national one. So won't affect who gets in the debates.

[thesquanderer]

37. 15% isn't about who gets into the debates, it's about who gets any Iowa delegates (nt)

[Celerity]

42. the DNC does use single state polls, this just is not one of them

Pete has already qualified for the next round anyway.

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/14/18225341/dnc-tom-perez-debates-2020-president

[emulatorloo]

43. Thanks!

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Another "online poll", with a C+ rating? Are you serious?

[mobeau69]

7. Regardless, why couldn't Joe have performed better in this poll?

Where's the data that shows this poll is biased against Biden?

[Tarheel_Dem]

10. All the evidence I need is that it's a self selected "online poll" that can be manipulated by any...

campaign if that campaign's supporters are alerted, just like DU.

[mobeau69]

12. And you have evidence that this occurred?

Another possibility you might consider is that Biden's approval is actually dropping.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. I have no doubt that Biden's numbers have dropped, but not enough to be eclipsed by Buttigieg.

Not anywhere. Not even in Indiana.

[mobeau69]

18. Again, where's the evidence?

[bluewater]

14. The "unskewing of the polls" has commenced!

The polls are what the polls are.

People trying to minimize a poll that reflects badly on their candidate is understandable, but ultimately pointless.

More polls will be coming, I am sure obvious trends in the standings will become very clear.

[mobeau69]

15. I've notice one unmistakable trend already.

[BootinUp]

19. That baboon is having a blast, lol. Nt

[Harker]

32. She's writing "Hamlet." n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. He's working overtime these days. Somebody's campaign should buy him one of these......

[thesquanderer]

38. It's no more "self selected" than any other poll.

Just as with a phone poll, you can choose to participate when asked, or not. You can't participate more than once, and you cannot volunteer to participate, you must be canvassed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. Believe what you will, but there is nothing at all "random" about an online poll. Unlike an online

poll, my fellow Biden supporters can't call me up & tell me to go to xyz to participate in a "phone poll". Like I said, it operates on the same principle as "Please DU this poll".

[mr_lebowski]

51. Yup and on top of that some are such a joke anyone can vote as many times as they like

Hence the baboon in the gif ...

[radical noodle]

52. Not all online polls are like that

There are polling organizations who send out emails to their subjects. A click on the email allows one to vote on whatever issue it is, but it is impossible to click to take it again because it's designed not to allow that.

I know the kind of poll you're referring to, but those are more like click bait than a poll. One can click until their fingers fall off.

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. If that's the case, I'd expect them to be rated much higher. n/t

[thesquanderer]

55. Believe what you will, but you don't know what "online poll" means.

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2019, 08:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Of course some are awful, but online doesn't mean they MUST be awful.

A proper online poll is just like a phone poll. Your fellow Biden supporters can't necessarily call you up and tell you to go to xyz.com to participate in an "online poll" either. The ones where they can are NOT polls that get C+ rated by 538.

Look at the ratings at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

You'll find SOME online polls that even get A and B ratings (and some non-online polls that get D or F). As in the Princess Bride, that word does not mean what you think it means.

[bluewater]

8. Take it up with 538, its on their site.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. Well that settles it.

[Loki Liesmith]

23. That's a dodge

Throw it on the average.

[thesquanderer]

16. "C+" and "online" don't mean people can vote as often as they like.

There are "polls" like that (to use the word loosely), but 538 would not give those a C+! But the C+ rating does indicate that it is not among the most reliable, either. Ratings, what they're based on, and definitions of those things are at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Ever hear the expression "Please DU this poll"?

Case closed.

[thesquanderer]

39. No, I've never heard that phrase. But why not look at the methodology before critiquing? nt

[Celerity]

40. it is not a free-for-all 'anyone can vote' poll

It is a controlled group, NOT a random poll where anyone could just click on something as many times as they want. I see so many people react in such a way that as soon as 'online' is mentioned they have visions of all the dodgy 'have-a-go', 'vote as often as you can clear your cache' (if even that is needed, lol) push-pull 'polls' like Drudge and other sites (of all sorts of ideological bents) do.

Methodology

https://www.changeresearch.com/methodology-and-accuracy

We've conducted over 800 polls
and surveyed over 1.4 million Americans.

Our 2018 polls were more accurate than The New York Times/Siena College in races where we both polled, more accurate than the FiveThirtyEight polling average, and we were the only pollster to correctly predict several key races in the last cycle.

Change Research was the only pollster to predict that Andrew Gillum would win the 2019 Florida gubernatorial primary; most other polling found him no higher than 3rd place.

Change Research was the only pollster to predict that Lori Lightfoot would win the 2019 Chicago mayoral primary; the average of our two polls had her leading by 2 points, and she finished 1.5% ahead on Election Day.

Change Research is a leader in polling innovation, allowing us to field polls quickly and accurately at a low price point. We recruit fresh participants online for each and every poll, meaning we aren't affected by the dwindling response rates of landline polling. We use proprietary, patent-pending approaches to recruit participants, and we don't use online panels of habitual survey takers.


We collect survey responses by publishing targeted online solicitations via advertisements on websites and social media platforms. By finding a representative set of web and social media users to take a poll, we are able to cast a net that is wider than landlines. We reach twenty-somethings and seniors, rural and urban dwellers, and members of every gender, race, creed, and political persuasion.


Target the right respondents - fast

We use our proprietary geo-targeting technology to find respondents in a specific district, be it a city council district, Congressional district, or the entire nation. We locate respondents rapidly, and can deliver results as little as hours after a poll launched. For instance, we fielded an 800-person survey in only 24 hours in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District before the 2018 elections; we found that Democratic challenger JD Scholten was within a point of unseating Republican incumbent Steve King. The poll results sparked a flood of donations to the Scholten campaign, with over $900,000 raised within 48 hours.


Dynamically adjust response collection

As we're collecting survey responses, our patent-pending Bias Correct technology adjusts our targeting to ensure a sample that reflects the electorate or population. We establish -- and can rapidly adjust -- advertising targets across age, gender, race, and partisanship to reflect a district's demographics. Any imbalances in the survey sample can be quickly detected and corrected while the survey is still fielding, rather than relying solely on post-survey techniques for big corrections.


Extrapolate to the population

Once all the responses are collected, our technology takes over, quickly and accurately performing an automated post-stratification to ensure that all segments of the electorate are properly weighted in the poll. We also utilize models based on tens of thousands of historical data points to estimate turnout, instead of relying solely on the patterns of a prior election.


Engage our natural language processing engine

We can perform text analysis, powered by natural language processing, on each poll we field. Our technology can parse hundreds or thousands of text-based responses from survey-takers and classify them into themes, providing the qualitative insight of a focus group at the scale of a large-sample poll.


Build an unprecedented data set

We’ve asked thousands of questions of over 1.4 million Americans since our founding in 2017; we’re creating a massive and ever-growing database of public opinion research. Performing sophisticated analysis on this database allows us to recognize trends that help Democrats win. For instance, in 2018 our data indicated that Trump voters were expressing negative opinions about him in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District, meaning that the seat was a good target to be flipped R to D. We partnered with a local organization to quickly field a survey in OK-05, which determined that Kendra Horn, the Democratic challenger, had a small lead; other polls had shown her down by double digits to the Republican incumbent. Ultimately, our polling led independent organizations to invest in Kendra Horn’s race and help her win.




Multiple well rated, reputable polls are either all, or partially online. 538 needs to look at more Change Research Polls, they only looked at 7, and they (538) are way off on their (CR's) race prediction level and other things.











Change Research Accuracy

https://medium.com/change-research/change-research-accuracy-c4ce51a190cb

A Retrospective on the 2018 General Election

In 2018, hundreds of candidates and organizations chose to work with Change Research because Change is fast, affordable, and accurate. We had a very successful 2018, conducting over 500 polls, working with winning candidates across the country at almost every level of government.
After the election, we spent many hours combing through our results to understand our accuracy. We found that Change Research’s Bias Correct methodology was more accurate than the (rightfully) widely praised NY Times/Siena polls in races where both organizations conducted polling, records high accuracy even in small state legislative districts, and overall is as accurate as or better than any other methodology: on average, Change Research estimated the Democratic candidate’s vote share within 2.6 points of what they actually received.
We have some great stories to tell:
Change was the only pollster to show Andrew Gillum with a lead in the Florida Democratic primary
Change showed Kendra Horn ahead in OK-05 when virtually no one thought she had a chance
Change’s polling showed Steve King and J.D. Scholten in a surprisingly tight race in Iowa.
But as data scientists, we know how important it is to look at every poll result — not just a few standout numbers. The polling industry doesn’t have a history of transparency around accuracy, and we hope to change that. We’re serious about data, and we’re committed to continuous improvement as we build a technology that is as accurate as possible.
Polling Up and Down the Ballot
Change Research conducted over 500 polls in 2018, and 300 of them were tied to individual general-election races (the others spanned primaries in 2018 or were conducted for research unrelated to a specific election). We’re proud to have polled in hundreds of state legislative and local-office districts, spanning 16 different types of elected officials.



Measuring Change’s Accuracy
Change Research’s polling accuracy is best assessed on surveys we ran in the 3 weeks prior to Election Day, and where the surveyed electorate was less than 25% undecided (the latter removes from our analysis a handful of down-ballot, low-information elections with very large undecided groups even in the days before the election).
Using a traditional accuracy metric — the mean absolute difference between estimated and actual vote margin — we erred by 5.3 percentage points on average for polls conducted in the 3 weeks before Election Day. For example, a race pegged by Change Research as 55–45 in favor of the Democrat, where the actual outcome was 52–48, would be considered a 6-point error (D+10 vs D+4).

Put another way, our surveys estimated a vote share for the Democratic candidate that was 2.6 percentage points different from the actual outcome. More than 80% of our surveys were within 10 percentage points. Accuracy in down-ballot races was only about one point worse.


Comparison to Other Polls
Change Public Polls Only
Change Research publicly released 50 polls prior to the general election. Most of our polling is private and only made public when our clients choose to do so.



Both Our Public and Private Polls
When comparing our absolute error on the top-two margin among all our polls with available public comparisons, we are similar in terms of accuracy: slightly less accurate on Senate and Governor polls, and slightly more accurate on U.S. House polls. Of course, our average price per poll is only $4,000–5,000 — usually 80–90% less than what a candidate would pay for a traditional poll.



snip (much more at the link)

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. !!!

[Celerity]

47. lol

[bluewater]

21. 538's ratings are based on polls making correct predictions.

C+ is an "average" ish rating at predicting actual results. Other polls do better, others worse.

Please note that the OP gave 538's rating, C+, for the poll it presented.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Kurt V.]

26. ALL polls are pretty meaningless right now. c+ or otherwise

[Aaron Pereira]

6. Nice result for Warren too!

[SouthernProgressive]

20. Iowa can't break someone....

Unless they make a mistake campaigning there.

They can help to make someone.

[MissKat]

22. I think the world of Mayor Pete

And I think he could seriously take on Trump...

As could Warren, Harris, Castro, etc. We have some very heavy hitters and we need to be proud of each and every one of them.

this next debate is going to shake the tree. We'll see who is left. I think Pete B. will be among the top 6.

[Indygram]

24. This poll doesn't count towards making the debates

Because it's not viewed as truly reliable, just fyi.

[MBS]

25. this squares with some recent "on-the-ground" radio reporting in Iowa

specifically, Morning Edition (?), on NPR, a few days ago, when a reporter mentioned that of all the candidates in Iowa, only THREE candidates left Iowans more excited about the candidates after they met them or heard them at an event than they were before they went: Booker, Buttigieg, and Warren ("especially Elizabeth Warren," the reporter said).

I did a lot of long-distance telephone campaigning with Iowa and New Hampshire voters in late fall 2003 and early winter 2004, and found myself in awe of Iowa voters (at least the Democrats!). They took their responsibility very seriously. I found them way more engaged than New Hampshire voters. "If all voters were as knowledgeable, responsible, and engaged as these Iowa voters," I thought to myself, "we wouldn't be having the problems we're having right now." (Little did I know at that point how much worse things would get later. ).

In an earlier report ( maybe at least a week earlier?)another Iowa-based reporter mentioned his anecdotal impression that Iowa voters were not that excited about Biden, and he expressed surprise that his numbers were still as high as they were in national polls.

Thus, I think that some of the discrepancy between these anecdotal reports + this single poll and other polls (aside from the inherent limitations of all polls and anecdotal reports) is that Iowa voters are paying more attention right now than most of the rest of the country.

Most importantly, it's still early days, and who knows what will happen next?

[redstateblues]

27. Two words that Mayor Pete needs to be concerned about.

South Carolina

[Cosmocat]

34. Definitely a problem state for him, but

You can take a mulligan there if you perform well in Iowa/NH.

Also for his part, expectations are low enough that if he performs fairly well in Iowa/NH, he could finish well out of the top tier and get a moral W if he manages to outperform just a bit - 9% vs 5%, something along those lines.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. But you can't "mulligan" the entire South. n/t

[democrank]

29. Pete Buttigieg is doing an amazing job.

I’m so glad he has come this far....this fast. People are beginning to notice what an exceptional candidate he is.

[George II]

30. Another questionable Change Research 1st time Iowa poll. 538 says they're a "right leaning" pollster

[BigOleDummy]

31. Man, impressive no matter how you look at it

I've said all along that a Warren/Buttigieg ticket would be unstoppable and every day brings me more hope that this could actually be the case.

I like Mr. Biden well enough as anyone who has seen any of my posts knows but some of his supporters sure seem to have thin skins. I think they are starting to really worry.

[slumcamper]

33. Ohhhh, FOR PETE'S SAKE!

Pun intended!

All the haggling, the pissing and moaning, the trading of insults and accusations, belittling, demeaning... I, for one, have had my fill of it with 45!

It pains me to witness the spectacle of this "circular firing squad" every time I check DU. A fair and robust discourse, or a lively banter is one thing, but much of what I'm reading is far below that level.

Please, we must not let our passions eclipse our reason, sense of decency, and common cause. It is up to Democrats to save this country--for ourselves and our young ones.

The Balkanization of our party is precisely what Russia, the NRC, and the NRA smiles upon; and how appropriate that the GOP color is "red!"

[Honeycombe8]

35. Very impressive. Look at Mayor Pete go. He appeals to a lot of people. nt

[Blue Owl]

36. Edging forward!

[Vegas Roller]

44. Anti-Biden forces are grasping at straws hahaha n/t

[radical noodle]

53. Mayor Pete is my choice

but I'm not anti-Biden at all. I'm happy to see these poll numbers, but not because Biden is down.

[Vegas Roller]

56. I was responding to the OP. n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

50. Go Pete!! Go Dems!!

Kicked and recommended.