Let’s talk about polling
One thing I’ve noticed is that all of the post-debate polls I’ve located so far (except two that only deal with Iowa; see this and this) are online polls.[* see below]
Now, they’re not the sort of online polls that have no science whatsoever to them, where anyone can vote over and over and they’re easy to game (usually by Paul-supporters, although I don’t see them having the same enthusiasm for Rand as they did for Ron). These recent post-debate online post-debate polls are better than that; for example, they try to weight their subjects as regards party affiliation, etc. But as unreliable as ordinary polls can be, these tend to be even more unreliable.
So I doubt that we know all that well who has really gotten a bump from the debate, who has fallen, and who has remained the same, although we know what people on blogs are saying and what the pundits are writing. We also know whose coffers are getting an infusion of money (Fiorina) and who is going broke (Perry, who I predict will drop out fairly soon if that report is correct).
Putting that aside, here’s a question I’d like to see answered in future polls: who did you vote for in the last presidential election? I have a completely untested theory that quite a few of those who say their favorite candidate is Trump and that they will vote for him in the primary are people who previously had been so turned off by politics and the GOP that they quit voting a while ago. I would predict that perhaps a third of them hadn’t voted in 2012 (or wrote in a candidate), and hadn’t planned to vote in 2016 except for Trump’s candidacy.
Another question that interests me regarding polling is one that was broached by commenter “beth”:
There is an interesting thing about these polls and even Steven Crowder has picked up on it, can you find anyone who says they are voting for Bush? I can’t. Do any of you know anyone? How in the heck is he in 2nd and 3rd place?
Beth is voicing what I’d call the Pauline Kael fallacy (actually, the pseudo fallacy, because Kael was somewhat misquoted). Just because you or I don’t know a single person who is supporting Bush doesn’t mean such people don’t exist. Actually, I hardly know anyone who votes Republican to begin with, but the few I know are not Bush-supporters.
However, Bush has a lot of money, so somebody out there likes him. There are still quite a few moderate Republicans around, and in fact I know one of them quite well, although I haven’t talked to her recently and I certainly haven’t talked to her about the election. But she is what used to be known as a “country-club Republican.” She was raised a Republican in a very country-clubby family and still lives that sort of life, for the most part. She’s also what you might call a Republican LIV; doesn’t pay all that much attention to politics but almost always votes and votes Republican.
As I said, I don’t talk to her often and haven’t talked to her this election cycle. But if I had to guess, she’s a Bush supporter. She’s not alone in her political viewpoints and background, either. That’s where his support comes from, I believe—that and the Chamber of Commerce-ers (a certain amount of overlap there, I’d guess). I believe the polls are accurately reflecting those groups, although they’re not groups whose representatives you find on blogs all that often. They’ve got better things to do, especially in the summer: golf, sailing, drinks on the patio, you know the drill.
I’ll have to remember to ask her next time I see her, because now I’ve gotten curious.
So, do you know any Bush-supporters?
[ADDENDUM: Nate Silver has an interesting take on the Trump polling figures and what they mean.]
[* Commenter “jack” has offered a link to a post-debate Rasmussen poll.]
I don’t know any Bush supporters and I can’t even imagine him as the nominee.
I listened to the Crowder interview and thought of Pauline Kael too. Nixon, of course, won the election she was referencing.
I suspect polling companies are using these online polls because so many people have gotten rid of their landlines and the last election polls were so unreliable. That’s why real voting counts. With a big field of quality candidates in small states, a few thousand people can make a big difference.
Interestingly the guy who sat next to me in Norwalk, Iowa told me he was polled on his cellphone.
I like what Nate Silver has to say about the early polls in this post:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination-2/
Silver is pretty good on polling and elections. He’s a voice of reason (and sound mathematical probabilities) among those who are looking primarily for eyeballs. The new alternative media is all about getting clicks. Sensationalism or anything that grabs attention is their stock in trade. One must always view these things with a certain skepticism.
Jimmy J.:
Excellent Silver article. One of the points he makes is the same thing I wrote here, by the way.
I think quite highly of Silver. He’s not perfect, but he’s awfully good.
I think I’ll do an addendum with a link.
I suspect that a fair number of Bush supporters think that they’re being asked about George W. Bush.
The pollsters don’t say — “Are you voting for Jeb? ”
LAST NAMES are being used.
I also suspect that Jeb is polling strong in the South.
Elsewhere, he’s a ZERO.
Virtually no-one I run into even knows that Jeb is in the race — or even alive.
But… I’m on the West Coast.
Agreeing with you that anecdote != data, I have not heard of a single person that like Bush.
But I thought the same thing about McCain in 2008. He seemed to come from nowhere to win the nomination. The press certainly wanted him because I guess they thought he was the least harmful candidate from their point of view, or perhaps because he was the one thought they could beat. They were probably right in the first case and definitely in the second.
This is why campaign finance will never stop being an issue. The media clearly still dictates who is popular by virtue of the fact that the average American is a LIV.
It’s why Trump is so popular. Sure, what’s he’s saying and doing are counting for a lot, and he deserves a lot of his popularity by virtue of not being a politician and showing the politicians why people don’t like them (not that the politicians will notice or care), but he’s also been a celebrity since the 80s.
The average LIV knows who he is, regardless of their position on politics. The average LIV does not know who Carly Fiorina is, and probably doesn’t know who Ted Cruz is either.
How do you cut through the fog of ignorance and indifference? To the ignorant, socialism will always sound like a great idea. To the ignorant, TANSTAAFL doesn’t exist.
I think this is a challenge that is much worse than when Reagan was running.
I know a Republican who is a Jeb Bush supporter kind of by default. Jeb Bush is the “safe” choice from his perspective, because he has attracted a lot of money and has the support of some business movers and shakers.
This chap recently supported a boisterous Tea Party maverick for the state legislature because the candidate was “a good guy”, he knew him from the local business community, and “he will try to do the right thing”. He also supported the very liberal Democrat running for Governor, again because he knew and respected that candidate as a person and as a local successful man of business.
He says of the Republican presidential candidates that they are all a bunch of politicians who always disappoint. But he has warm feelings toward George H W Bush, much more so than George W Bush, and that apparently transfers to Jeb.
My own assessment of this guy, a successful business career mostly behind him, is that he is eager to enhance his own social position, he often involves himself in fundraising for various local social welfare and the arts, as well as for his university. Knowing how to ask for money and find generous donors, he associates Jeb’s success in fundraising as a very positive marker. I think his own political views are sufficiently hazy that Jeb’s strengths and shortcomings are not really the issue in his support for the next Bush.
Four years ago he was unenthusiastic about Mitt Romney, but he dutifully donated a small amount to his campaign.
Latest Rasmussen has Trump down after debate. Walker also down abit
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/has_the_donald_peaked
Gainers include Carly, Rubio, Carson
“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Trump with 17% support among Likely Republican Primary Voters, down from 26% in late July before the first GOP debate. Senator Marco Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush are in second place with 10% support each, in a near tie with Fiorina and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who both earn nine percent (9%) of the likely primary vote.
Next with eight percent (8%) come retired neurologist Dr. Ben Carson and Senator Ted Cruz at seven percent (7%).”
At this stage my gut tells me neither hrc or jeb will be on the ballot come November, 2016.
I find a bit of comfort in a new Suffolk University poll of 500 likely Iowa presidential caucus voters which found that even though Trump came in first with 17% of the vote, his lead was narrower among voters who had watched the debate last week — among those, “Trump and Walker were tied at 14%, while 55% said they were less comfortable with Trump as a candidate after watching the debate.”
I also know merely one Bush supporting Republican and she fits your description perfectly: wife of a corporate type, old money, Republican family, has not the slightest idea what issues are currently debated.
But she is voting in every election and always Republican. And in every primary she votes for a Bush, if possible. She probably doesnt even know what Bush family member she is voting for (though honestly: who can tell them apart?). LIV Republican indeed!
Trump had a LOT of votes on the Drudge website long before the debates were over. I thought that it was a little suspicious that so many people had voted him the winner so early. If remember correctly, he had almost 240k votes about halfway through the debate.
Good comment, Dan D. Not to disparage your friend, but he certainly does sound like a Republican LIV. Your remark about fundraising sounds spot on.
I’ve remarked before that there are many different species of LIVs. They exist on a spectrum, ranging from highly educated and accomplished people who religiously read the New York Times and listen to NPR, to average people who get their news from TV, to people who pay little attention to the issues and get their political opinions from their favorite celebrities, all the way down to drooling imbeciles.
Regarding Jeb, one can’t help but notice how utterly tone deaf and out of touch he seems to be over and over again. After what conservatives have endured in recent history, a Republican Party that would nominate such a candidate would be begging for euthanasia. I might very well assist in the procedure.
I actually know quite a number of Jeb Bush supporters. These are people who are quite involved and politically active. They do tend not to be the “TEA Party insurgent” supporters and are probably more establishment oriented (though can be quite socially conservative). I am more conservative, though I don’t view Jeb Bush with quite as much hostility as others do. He’s not my favorite, but time will tell.
I’ve voted straight-ticket Republican in every national-level election for almost 20 years now, but I simply can’t find it in me to vote for Jeb Bush if he proves to be the nominee. I just can’t.
I’ve dutifully voted for the Establishment candidates the GOP has put in front of us in the last two losing elections, the erratic and cranky McCain and Mister Nice Guy, Mitt Romney, who lacked the killer instinct to go after Obama at the crucial moment in the second debate, on the ropes and reeling.
So now the Republican Establishment gives us Jeb Bush, who’s about as inspiring as a bowl of green jello. No wonder Trump, that meglomaniacal rich kid blowhard and two-bit demagogue, is doing so well.
It wouldn’t be so bad to have an elitist clique running the Republican Party if they knew what they were doing. They’ve proven they don’t.
Pingback:Hypothesis Test III | Rotten Chestnuts
I believe we’re still in political “silly season” and most of what’s going on now is fairly inconsequential. I think there’s a big conservative contingent that likes Trump because he says what he thinks and doesn’t apologize. I think he’s got about zero chance of getting the nod.
Jeb has a lot of support among what Ace of Spades calls the “donor class”. Big business types who regard the Bush family as a known quantity, and who like Jeb’s position on immigration, because it’ll give them access to a lot of cheap labor. I think other LIV Republicans are checking the Jeb box because they know the name, and because Bushes have won 3 out of the 4 presidential elections they’ve stood for.
I don’t really think Jeb can get the base fired up, and right now I don’t think he’ll be the nominee, but the Republican party has an amazing talent for putting up the worst and/or blandest candidate possible. I knew there was no hope for Dole or McCain. I thought Romney could have done well if he’d made more of an effort to educate the public on economic issues (and to go harder after Obama).
My early pic was Rand because I tend libertarian, but he’s proven to be something of a jackass, and I don’t think people will like him. Right now, I’m rooting for Carly, if for no other reason than I want to see self-described feminists rationalize pulling the lever for an old white man over a successful businesswoman. (I don’t think Hillary will get the D nod. Hell, I’ve got my doubts that she’ll avoid indictment before the election.)
BTW, if Jeb is the nominee, I’ll vote Libertarian. Yes, I know that’s effectively a vote for the Dem, but why vote for a Dem-Lite?
Farmer Joe:
Why vote for a Dem-Lite? Simple: to prevent even worse things from happening.
A President Clinton or Sanders would do far, far more damage than a President Jeb Bush. Do you think Obamacare would have been passed with a President Jeb Bush? Do you think the Iran deal would have been concluded? Do you think Ferguson would have gotten as bad without Obama’s encouragement? Do you even think that Jeb Bush would do anywhere near the damage Obama (or another Democrat) has done or would do on immigration? Bush is relatively bad on immigration, but still nowhere near as bad as the Democrats.
And if that’s not enough, there’s the appointment of many federal judges and probably several Supreme Court justices. You’d be giving up the chance to set a majority conservative Supreme Court in place for many years, and you’d be assuring that it would be majority liberal for many years instead.
Neo-neocon wrote, “And if that’s not enough, there’s the appointment of many federal judges and probably several Supreme Court justices. You’d be giving up the chance to set a majority conservative Supreme Court in place for many years, and you’d be assuring that it would be majority liberal for many years instead.”
After John Roberts, that argument is no longer valid. No decision Roberts has made so far has been any different from the likely decisions of a liberal justice. Roberts saved Obamacare. Twice.
And while we’re on the subject of party distinctions, is there any substantive difference between a McConnell-led Senate and one led by Reid?
Finally, the last sentence in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ seems appropriate right now. It reads, “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
@Troy: Regarding the Supreme Court, it’s true that Bush 43 appointed Roberts, but he also appointed Alito. Bush 41 appointed Souter, but he also appointed Thomas. And Reagan appointed O’Connor and Kennedy, but he also appointed Scalia (and promoted Rehnquist to Chief Justice).
So it looks to me that when we have a Republican president, we get a mixture of conservatives, swing-vote justices who let us down on some key issues, and the occasional outright liberal.
But when we have a Democratic president, what do we get? Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg — every one a down-the-line liberal. Jimmy Carter had no Supreme Court appointments to make (although he did appoint Breyer and Ginsburg to the Court of Appeals, thus enabling them to become future Supreme Court appointments). LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall and Abe Fortas. Not since JFK appointed Byron White has a Democratic president wound up appointing a conservative Supreme Court justice.
I would much rather take my chances with a Republican president’s Supreme Court appointments than rely on a Democratic president’s Supreme Court appointments, because all of the Democratic appointees are going to be liberals, and only some of the Republican appointees are going to be liberals.
Troy, Joshua:
Yes, people who say (correctly) that some small number of Republican judicial appointees end up being either less conservative than hoped and hyped or not conservative at all neglect to pay attention to the fact that that the majority of such appointments by Republicans, both to the Supreme Court and other federal courts, are quite conservative and most definitely FAR more conservative than judges appointed by Democrats. The latter are pretty much 100% liberal to leftist.
It matters.
I’ve written posts about this before, and I will again.
There are 3 Bushes so far. Bush 1= Gulf War 1
Bush II, OIF
Bush III nomination for President.
Trump is actually the solution to LIVs: he attracts viewers for the trainwreck spectacle, but they are exposed to other candidates in the process whom they may not have followed otherwise.
I keep thinking the more people are exposed to Cruz, Walker, and especially Fiorina that the more they’ll like them.