People's Pundit
News • Politics • Culture
The People's Pundit Community is dedicated to data journalism covering politics, elections, opinion polls, policy, business, the economy and markets, as well as unprecedented and unbiased discussions on polling and election projection models.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
The Buckeye Battleground Poll Test

Okay, folks. I've been doing something behind your back. Given that Big Data Poll was the one and only poll NOT to understate Trump's support in the Buckeye State in 2020, and frankly has done a better job in most battleground states juxtaposed to media and university polling, I decided to quietly jump into Ohio to test two theories:

1) "GOP pollsters are flooding the zone to push a Red Wave Narrative!"

This is being used by the likes of DEM strategists and political hacks like Tiny Boner from TargetFart.

The second is more a high likelihood than a theory, but nevertheless...

2) The general assumption that media and university polls are once again overstating Democratic support.

I decided on Ohio when I saw Marist/NPR publish a tie along with a slew of other Senate Battleground Polls ALL SHOWING DEM LEADS. You might've noticed I just made a remark about it on Twitter.

CONCLUSION: The Media/University Pollsters are FULL OF SHIT. After speaking to 731 likely voters in Ohio, I decided to weight the results two different ways to see what we found. First, I weighted pretty damn favorably to Tim Ryan for age, race, education and region. Second, we simply deployed our traditional likely voter model. J.D. Vance leads in both scenarios.

Attached you will find a graphic of my forecast for how I believe these polls will perform this cycle. 😉

Below you will find the (first) link to the early simplified results using a weight variable even more favorable to Tim Ryan than initially used for the Vance +6 previously released, and again, more favorable than the electorate in 2018.

Regardless, the lead for Vance still only declines to 5 points, or Vance +4.7%. However, the 5.4% undecided voters remain highly unfavorable to Ryan and present rich targets for Vance.

Here is the latest update with the most likely electorate not weighted to be more favorable to Tim Ryan. As you can see, J.D. Vance's lead not only increases by roughly 2 points BUT his support rises above 50%. There are still 5.4% undecided and they are still overwhelmingly favorable to him, not Ryan, increasing the likelihood his margin increases to 8-10 percent.

Polling errors have varied by region, with the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic and Florida being among the worst. Still, this would suggest we're headed for another polling error. Though the size and scope are unclear, it's fairly likely to be rather significant for many in certain states.

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Mexican President Obrador: Trump Prosecutions Are Anti-Democratic

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador says the "whole world" knows "they" (U.S. elites) want to arrest Donald Trump to "remove him from the ballot", noting that he "too was a victim of a fabricated crime" and "it's completely anti-democratic", adding "they're not allowing people to be the ones to decide."

There you have it, folks. It's not hyperbolic at all to say we're about as "democratic" as a failed narco state.

Live Streamed on March 19, 2023 1:50 PM ET
The Point of No Return: Impact of Trump's Indictment

Locals Livestream before the Book Club to discuss the political impact of the expected indictment of Donald J. Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg next week.

Live Streamed on February 9, 2023 2:01 PM ET
Study: Masks Do Not Prevent Covid-19 Or Influenza

A new study published to Cochrane Library titled "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses" concludes waring masks make "little to no difference" . Cochrane Library is considered a "Gold Standard" and boasts on its site the slogan, "Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health."

It's the latest but perhaps the most significant study to date indicating what we all suspected to be true yet I've been digitally persecuted for discussing. While the methodology is different, the conclusion verifies the conclusion I shared with you nearly two years ago.

URL to Study Cited:

Barnes and Baris Episode 29: What Are the Odds?

Watch Live 3:00 PM EST — Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss in detail bombshell results within the Public Polling Project for Early Spring 2021, and more civil unrest amid the trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd.

Support the Public Polling Project

Locals Communities​​​​​​​​

Like on Facebook

Follow on Twitter​​​​​​​​

Theme Song: "Highway" By Grammy Considered Bowen Band

Barnes and Baris Episode 29: What Are the Odds?
Live chatted 6 hours ago
Episode 340: Inside The Numbers With The People's Pundit

LIVE at 12:00 PM EST — Are presidential primaries ever “civil”? Columnist @KurtSchlichter joins us live to discuss it and his latest column as a wake-up call to the right. Plus, much more on polling results!

Watch: Quite Frankly Interview LIVE at 7PM ET!

Watch: Very much looking forward to digging into the new poll and news with Frank on Quite Frankly. Will be a lengthy talk!

🚨LIVE @ 7pm ET🚨: A head-spinning topics tonight w/ Rich Baris
@Peoples_Pundit in for his monthly visit! Join us live!

Watch/Chat on:
Theta, Dlive, or Twitch

It’s Basically the Perfect Day

It’s 67, sunny, not at all humid, basically the perfect day in eastern North Carolina.

How about by you?

post photo preview
The New York Times' Utterly Ridiculous "Fact-Check" on Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) Failure
NYT Providing Their Preferred Political Party Political Cover for Bank Collapses

On Thursday morning, The New York Times published a remarkably ridiculous "fact-check" targeting "conservative pundits" who cited "wokeness" as a reason Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) failed last week. It's remarkable only in the sense the Gray Lady would attempt to provide their preferred political party political cover in the wake of the worst bank failure in the U.S. since the Great Depression using such an intellectually weak argument.

Malinformation, misinformation and disinformation are staples within and between the pages of the Times. Hell, widespread suffering from illusory truth effect is now a critical condition to their business model.

But the collapse of SVB—the 16th largest bank in the U.S.—is the second largest bank failure in U.S. history. As of December 31, 2022, the Federal Reserve estimated SVB to have $209 billion in assets. When Washington Mututal failed on September 25, 2008, the bank had $307 billion in assets. That failure dwarfed the prior largest at Indymac Bank, F.S.B. ($31 billion) on July 11, 2008.

Historically, bank failures are very uncommon. Yet, the second and third largest on record both just occurred in the span of a few days. On March 14, just two days after the collapse of SVB, Signature Bank surpassed Indymac and the August 2009 collapse of Colonial Bank ($26 billion) to claim the third largest bank failure in U.S. history at $110 billion.

That just doesn't happen. It didn't even happen during the Great Recession. In other words, this is cause for serious concern and Americans deserve more serious discourse. Unforunately, here is how the Times prefaced their "fact-check".

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
September 05, 2022
post photo preview
No, Trump's Presence In The Midterms Is Not "Risky" For The GOP
Without Trump, The GOP Struggles To Turnout Voters

How short our collective political memories are. Here we are in September, and many of the same arguments we've heard for the last three cycles are resurfacing just in time to influence the narrative before the pivot to the post-Labor Day period.

Unsurpringly, it's coming from the usual suspects.

Let's address some of those specifically, most notably a few arguments outlined by Nate Silver.

"Upset Democratic special election wins in Alaska and New York over the past two weeks are the latest sign that the political environment might be unusual for a midterm election."

Nonsense. Total nonsense.

In the Alaska at-large special election, the advantage in Republican primary vote share was twice the margin Trump won the state with in 2020, and dwarfed the 36.8% total Democratic primary share of the vote.

As all these "forecasters" know, this was the first time the state implemented rank choice voting. The referendum was pushed by a coalition of Democrats and Establishment Republicans desperately manuevering to insulate incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski from certain primary defeat at the hands of Trump-endorsed Kelly Tshibaka.

It worked, plain and simple, and more than 60% of Alaskan voters will now be representated by someone they otherwise never would've voted for, even if it is only for a few months.

It might be convienant for a liberal analyst cheering on Democrats to cite Mary Peltola's win as an example of "Republicans losing steam" or Trump being "risky for the GOP", but it's also extremely dishonest.

As far as NY-19, we'll come back to that in a bit.

"The past four special elections — two in New York, one in Alaska and one in Minnesota — all occurred after the seizure on Aug. 8, and they all showed excellent results for Democrats. And Democrats have actually gained about a point on the generic ballot since then, although it’s a small enough difference that it could be statistical noise."

Let's first deal with the polling.

Perhaps Democrats are gaining. But says who, the pollsters who routinely overstate Democratic support on the generic ballot, most recently in 2020 and 2018?

The RealClearPolitics final average for the House vote was Democrats +6.8% in 2020. That polling fueled a "consensus" narrative among forecasters expecting Democrats to expand their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives by as many as 15 seats.

How many seats did they win in 2020?

They lost 13 seats, including those rated Leans and Likely Democrat by Cook Political Report and 538. The Democratic advantage in the House vote was less than half the polling average.

In fact, in only three cycles—1986, 1990 and 2018—did Democrats NOT underperform their support indicated by the generic ballot. Further, in only one of those cycles Democrats outperformed, which was in 1990, albeit by a lousy two points. In 1986, the polling was right on the money. In 2018, the 1-point lead for Republicans published by Rasmussen Reports averaged down the Democratic edge in the RealClearPolitics final average. Without it, overstated 13-point leads for Democrats published by CNN and the Los Angeles Times would've almost assuredly resulted in another underperformance.

Democratic Midterm Vote Share vs. Generic Ballot Polls

There are only a few of us who have not blown these races cycle after cycle, Big Data Poll among them. The most recent national survey we conducted at Big Data Poll did in fact find a narrowing lead for Republicans, 42.5% to 41.2%. But that wasn't fueled by increased support for Democrats on the generic ballot, but rather decreased support for Republicans as more GOP-leaning voters moved to "undecided" or out of the likely voter screen, altogether.

None of this even begins to address the issue of summer response bias favoring Democrats before Labor Day. It's real, everyone knows that it is, and yet we are subjected to these overblown conclusions each and every election cycle. 

By the way, Donald Trump led Joe Biden by nearly 5 points—44.4% to 39.5%—in that very same national survey. Trump's outperformance of Generic Republicans and nominees has been consistent not only in our polling, but in other, reliably accurate firms.

In Pennsylvania, the CD Media Big Data Poll found Trump leading Biden 46.6% to 40.0%, while GOP gubernatorial and senatorial candidates ranged from 40.0% to 43.2%. In Georgia, Trump is outperforming GOP candidates by an even larger margin. Emerson College found the same disparity in both states, as well.

And there in lays the major problem with this narrative.

While we certainly see red flags for Republicans, we see other variables being the cause of it.

Put bluntly, elections in which Trump has not played a signfiicant role, Republican enthusiasm and turnout, thus overall electoral performance, has suffered.

"When that seizure occurred, a certain strain of conventional wisdom suggested that this could help Republicans in the midterms, such as by increasing the enthusiasm of GOP voters.2

If that’s true, it’s not showing up in the data."

First, notice how this analysis convienantly omits the historically high turnout in post-raid Republican primaries in Wyoming and Wisconsin.

In the former, normal turnout in the neighborhood of 100,000 votes swelled to more than 170,000. In the latter, what was believed to be a close proxy race pitting Trump against Mike Pence, ended up not at all that close. Trump-endorsed Tim Michels fairly easily defeated the Pence-endorsed former popular lieutenant governor, and Republican turnout increased by nearly 20% to 53% of the total two-party turnout, a reversal from 2018 when Democratic primary votes made up 53% of total turnout.

Furthermore, I reject the example of the MN-01, outright.

In 2018, Democrats outvoted Republicans in the primary districtwide, but not in 2022. In the special election, Republican Brad Finstad won the special and increased the GOP vote share to 51.1% juxtaposed to 48.6% in 2020, 50.1% in 2018, 49.6% in 2016, and 45.7% in 2014.

It's true Trump won the district by a larger margin in 2020, but that's exactly the point. He was not involved in that race, as was the case in NY-19.

Marc Molinaro ran a typical Republican campaign. Turnout suffered because of it and other factors, not because of Trump, who only lost it by 1.5% (49.8% to 48.3%). Yet, Molinaro still only lost by a point in a district the prior Democratic incumbent won by nearly 12 points with more than 350,000 votes, 52.5% to 42.9%. Only about 130,000 voters participated in the special, with the "missing" voters being from more working class precincts.

The Democratic-leaning "analysts" reading into NY-19 are beginning to remind me a little of Republican wishful-thinkers surrounding GA-06 in 2017. While Karen Handel managed to fend off John Ossoff in the special election, Republicans were unwilling to acknowledge the predictive value of the swing in the margin, itself.

Also worth noting, Republicans were at a structural disadvantage given Democrats were holding two primaries in the absense of a single GOP primary, which partly explains the closer-than-expected result in NY-23. Dutchess County, which voted for Biden in 2020, was the one area in which there was a Republican primary, and Molinaro swung it Republican.

For the last three cycles, we've had to suffer through similar narratives disguised as election analysis. Without Trump, the GOP would've lost their majority in the U.S. Senate in the last midterm election cycle. Judging by primary and special election pariticpation rates when he's not holding their hand, it's become crystal clear they are unable to motivate key voting blocs without him.

Perhaps that's what Nate Silver and others hope to help Democrats accomplish.

Nevertheless, in comparing congressional vote shares to presidential vote shares in Minnesota, ignoring entire key races and engaging in other statistical contortions, the left-leaning forecast crowd is hoping we don't notice they're falling back on apples to oranges because it's convienant, not because it's predictive.

Read full Article
September 02, 2022
post photo preview
Public Polling Project Pre-Labor Day 2022
Working Class Undecideds Tighten Generic Ballot

The Public Polling Project Pre-Labor Day National Survey finds Republicans leading Democrats on the Generic Ballot, albeit by a more narrow margin as working class voters move to the undecided column. Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to lead Joe Biden in the 2024 Rematch.



Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals