Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter 4 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 2/3/20

D-Day In Iowa Update - The 2020 Election process Begins Today

Election Day
Election Day
(Image by ShanMcG213)
  Details   DMCA

Beginning tomorrow I will be tracking the RealClearPolitics (RCP) final averages with the actual caucus or primary results, and I will also track who is getting it right and who is getting it wrong. Most pollsters got it very wrong in 2016, both in the state primary/caucus polls and thereafter preceding the general election. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump significantly over-achieved the respective polls, and almost every pollster called the election, both the popular and electoral college votes for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the best and most shocking example was Michigan where, according to Real Clear Politics, eighteen polls were conducted in advance of the primary with all eighteen predicting a Hillary Clinton victory by an average of 21.4 percentage points. Bernie Sanders won that primary by 1.5 percentage points, overachieving the Real Clear Politics projected average by 34%. For any number of reasons, which I will spell out in the months ahead, I expect polling to be even less accurate this year. OpEdNews will hold the pollsters accountable because the mainstream media and the Establishment poll tracking sites look the other way in the face of flawed polling methodology and poor results.

There were two new polls in Iowa released over the weekend:

· DFP/Civiqs has Sanders ahead with 28%, Warren in second with 21%, Buttigieg and Biden tied for third at 15%. Klobuchar in fifth at 8%

· Emerson has Sanders at 28%, Biden at 21%, Buttigieg at 15%, Warren at 14%, Klobuchar at 11%.

· Final average of 15 January Iowa polls: Sanders 23%; Biden 21%; Buttigieg 17%; Warren 16%; Klobuchar 9%

You can already see than the polls are all over the place with Sanders in the RCP lead, but with some pollsters calling it for Sanders by as much as +9 points, others calling it for Biden by +6, and one calling it for Buttigieg by + 2. One thing does seem clear though if one studies all the polls objectively: Bernie Sanders is ahead and is surging.

In New Hampshire:

· UMass/Lowel l: Sanders 23%; Biden 22%; Warren 19%; Buttigieg 12%; Gabbard 8%; Klobuchar 7%

· Boston Herald/FPU: Sanders 31%; Biden 24%; Warren 17%; Buttigieg 8%; Klobuchar 4%; Gabbard 3%

· WHDH/Emerson: Sanders 29%; Biden 14%; Buttigieg 13%; Warren 12%; Steyer & Klobuchar 8%; Gabbard & Yang 7%

· January average of 14 polls: Sanders 24%; Biden 19%; Warren & Buttigieg 14%; Klobuchar 6%; Gabbard 5%; Yang 4%; Steyer 3%. Sanders sits atop twelve of those. Early in the month Biden won one by + 4 and Buttigieg won one by + 1. Yet the pollsters are showing vastly different results even for Bernie Sanders. They show him ahead down the stretch by anywhere from + 1 to + 15.

· Final week of January: Sanders 28%; Biden 19%; Warren 15%; Buttigieg 12%; Klobuchar 6%; Gabbard 5%; Yang 3%; Steyer 3%

· RCP Average: Bernie Sanders by + 9.

Sanders is clearly pulling away in New Hampshire. Gabbard is surging, which I attribute to a backlash against CNN arrogantly scheduling town halls for every candidate on the eve of the primary everyone except Tulsi, that is. They have not responded to inquiries from the media or Gabbard with a reason for their boycott of Gabbard.

Finally, almost all of the pollsters are now asking respondents how certain they are about how they will vote. Sanders is coming out way ahead of the pack when this question is asked.

 

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Jerry Policoff Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

I am a retired advertising sales executive/manager and am now Executive Director of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC). I am also a member of the Senior Editor Team at Op Ed News. I also serve as Research Director and Board (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Obama Admin Seeks Permission To Lie In Response To Freedom Of Information Requests - Even To The Courts

Quinipiac: Sanders Trounces Clinton Nationally in Matchups Against ALL GOP Challengers

Barack Obama Spins the Facts, Takes Single-Payer Health Care Off the Table

PA Dem State Committee Takes Single-Payer Healthcare Mainstream, Unanimously Endorses It

Poll Excludes Single-Payer Healthcare; Respondents Implicitly Endorse It Anyway

Health Insurance Monopolies Are Illegal. There Is No Insurance Antitrust Exemption

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

3 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments


Meryl Ann Butler

Become a Fan Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Jun 5, 2006), 82 fans, 646 articles, 1971 quicklinks, 5984 comments, 7 diaries (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Thanks, Jerry, looking forward to more!


Submitted on Tuesday, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:38:56 AM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help

Meryl Ann Butler

Become a Fan Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Jun 5, 2006), 82 fans, 646 articles, 1971 quicklinks, 5984 comments, 7 diaries (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Watching the comment feed on Bernie's live feed during and after his comments after the caucus...many people posting that their precinct's delegates went for Sanders...NYT listed results, showing Sanders as winning, see screenshot below ...but now the page says: "Iowa Democratic officials say a delay in results is largely because of a "quality control" effort. Initial results reported by the Associated Press have been removed from this page while we wait for party officials to release results."

Here's what it looked like when I first saw it:


(Image by Unknown Owner) Details DMCA

and here's what it looks like now:


(Image by Unknown Owner) Details DMCA

Eventually, all the info will be in and reported...so why would someone want a delay? Would it be so they could deny Sanders his victory speech?

Submitted on Tuesday, Feb 4, 2020 at 5:39:35 AM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help
Indent

Jerry Policoff

Become a Fan (Member since Apr 30, 2007), 20 fans, 32 articles, 251 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Meryl Ann Butler:   New Content

Thanks Meryl Ann.

This is very important. Supposedly no results were released, so this seems to expose that as a lie perpetrated with the cooperation of the media.

They said on CNN last night that Iowa used this same app in 2016 when it appeared that Bernie had won only to have Hillary arrogantly declare victory and head to New Hampshire. Iowa Democrats then declared Hillary the winner by two-tenths of a point and refused to release any raw data. Is last night a repeat of 2016? One has to wonder if Iowa is anything but a corrupt system designed to enable the DNC.

Howie Klein at "Down With Tyranny" was leaked numbers purportedly revealing the results of the killed Des Moines Register Poll. Hw did not vouch for its authenticity, but one has to wonder:


Sanders: 33%

Biden: 15%

Buttigieg: 12%

Klobuchar: 13%

Warren: 11%

Yang: 7%

Gabbard: 3%

Steyer: 1%

Submitted on Tuesday, Feb 4, 2020 at 1:19:29 PM

  Recommend  (1+)
Help

Dennis Kaiser

Become a Fan
Author 10174
Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Jan 22, 2008), 40 fans, 71 articles, 569 quicklinks, 6219 comments, 48 diaries (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

What an injustice to the people of Iowa. They are seeing their voice is meaningless in the oligarchy the DNC has become. A result of this is but a microscopic view of what this primary will be. Once again their words are meaningless as their actions are handing the 2020 election over to Trump.

If this isn't gross tampering of our election process I don't know what is.

Submitted on Tuesday, Feb 4, 2020 at 4:13:35 PM

  Recommend  (1+)
Help