Has Bernie Sanders plateaued?

[brooklynite]

The polling aggregation model at Pollster.com is dramatic: Bernie Sanders shooting up from virtually nothing (note - while he does so, Hillary Clinton does not notably drop):



However, if you scale the chart from May 26, the day of Sanders' announcement and the point at which he began to actively campaign, the image is different:



Only a couple points of growth. It appears that a lot of his original growth was in anticipation of his campaign, rather than because of it.

Sanders has been actively campaigning for more than two months. In that period, there have been 35 national polls; five of them (not in any chronological group) have put Sanders about 20%. His average poll number is 16.7, which is about what he got in last week's IPSOS/Reuters poll.

I respect the number of people he's turned out a rallies. The question is: are these people who were already committed to him, and are reflected in the 16% average? And if so, has he reached a ceiling of support, absent any significant change in campaign dynamics?

[HooptieWagon]

1. 28,000 people in Portland last night says no.

[Adrahil]

14. Logical disconnect, I think.

It's too early to call Bernie at a plateau, I think, but crowd-size isn't a good way to measure how the polls are going to go. Bernie does have very passionate supporters. But how many Democrats do you think are in the Portland area?


I do think it's an indicator his fundraising is going to do well this quarter, at least relatively speaking.

We'll have to see how the polls have shake out in the long term. Certainly, I think the meteoric rise phase is over, at least for now.

[artislife]

19. Tucson?

I say it is always good to live in hope! It helps the cells function better. So I applaud your thinking, it is the very best for your individual well being.

[Adrahil]

21. OK, I don't know what that means, but thanks!

I will say this.... if Bernie DOES get the nomination, he is going to need a truly historical level of grassroots support. Should he be our nominee, I hope he can pull it off. I have my doubts, but I would certainly do my part.

[LWolf]

36. There are polls, and then there are people.

I've never really depended on polls.

I'm wondering...just wondering, because as a person who doesn't use polls, I'm obviously not knowledgeable on the subject, but I'm wondering...

How are polls conducted? By phone? It seems like more and more people don't use land lines, and screen cell phone calls. I know I don't answer any call that I can't identify. If I don't know who's calling, it goes to voice mail. If a message is left and it's pertinent, I return the call.

So I'm never going to be polled. How many more people are out there that will not be included, and how does that skew a "representative" sample?

I don't know. But I wonder.

If Sanders is drawing increasingly large crowds through word of mouth, not MSM coverage, what might poll conductors be missing?

[Adrahil]

38. Hi, I'll try to answer your questions....

First, a disclaimer. I will not claim to be an expert, just an enthusiast. As an engineer, I've learned that a good model fed by lots of data can yield accurate predictions. I find the subject of polling fascinating and always have.

So some points.

Every pollster is a bit different. Most good polls are conducted via phone (land and cell) by a live interviewer. Some are conducted via the internet from a respondent pool, but those have generally been less reliable. A couple firms are working with new internet models that may prove to be more reliable.

Now, you might say, but I will never be polled, so people like me are not represented. That is always a risk, but pollsters usually have a demographic model they need to satisfy. That's why sometimes after they get your demo info, the pollster will say thanks, and you're done. Also, fortunately for pollsters, they have a control. They can compare their predictions to the actual result. By doing so, they can adjust their demographic requirements and even adjust their weighting models to correct for respondent biases. In the end, the part that matters is how well did they predict the actual result?

Individual polls are interesting, but where the power of data REALLY emerges is when the results of many polls are combined. Not only do errors tend to correct themselves, but it becomes easier to identify outliers (that is, data samples that are not representative of the majority of data) and just plain ole lousy polling firms. Such aggregation is powerful on it's own, but it gets even stronger when combine with other data points with some predictive power (such as economic conditions, etc.). Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com site is probably the most famous and successful of the these. His predictions have been uncannily accurate.

Now to your last question. That's a good one. It COULD be that the big crowds are simply a measure of enthusiasm of Sanders supporters, rather than a direct analog for their percentage of their representation in the electorate. That's almost certainly partially true, since the supporters of "insurgent" candidates are almost always more enthusiastic than those of the establishment candidates. But that may not be the whole story. Large crowd sizes could also be a leading indicator of support that may show up in later polls (that wouldn't surprise me, but that remains to be seen). And, of course, you always have to keep in mind that even very large crowds typically represent a small percentage of the electorate.

[dsc]

44. great post

I would add one thing in particular about the cell phone issue. Pollsters are well aware of the issue and have done various things to handle it. It has been shown that people who have landlines who are otherwise similar demographically are similar to those who don't. Thus if you are a 20 year old male who has a landline you aren't likely to be hugely different than a 20 year old who doesn't. So pollsters make sure that they get the cell phone demographic represented in their land line sample.

[LWolf]

46. Thanks!

This gives me food for thought.

[HooptieWagon]

54. 27,000 tonight in LA.

[CountAllVotes]

2. We've Only Just Begun

[cyberswede]

3. I dunno...his line trends up.

Hillary's trends down, tho.

[Vincardog]

4. The more people hear Bernie's message the more they support him. Plateaued? No just building

His launching pad. Watch his support ROCKET as his message is revealed to the public.

[Agschmid]

5. I will say this...

In a primary national polls while they do provide information aren't all that important.

It really is all about the first states they can really change an election.

[Adrahil]

16. It's a combination of many things that can be a predictor.

Bernie will do well in states that are in his demographic corner. But unless the picture drastically changes, he's gonna take it on the chin on Super Tuesday.


Of course, we are still many months away.

[ibegurpard]

6. I was wondering when Clinton Inc

Was going to get back to the poll inevitability messaging... nothing else is working.
See the latest Iowa PPP poll? He's narrowed her lead some more.

[matt819]

7. Circle Jerk

Maybe the term dates me. And maybe I'm using it wrong.

But all of these political prognostications and drive by analyses based on one poll or one incident is a huge waste of time, energy, and pixels.

I know, I know. We're a political forum, and this is what we do on political forums. But, jeez, it gets so fucking exhausting.

[Adrahil]

18. That doesn't represent a single poll however.

I agree that too many people hang their hat on one poll (usually the one that supports their position, or hopes). But in the aggregate you get a better picture. Personally, I think we're still too far out to make any for SURE statements. But I think given Clinton's lead, it WOULD be safe to say a Sanders nomination would be pretty unprecedented. But I'm sure many of his supporters think he's an unprecedented candidate.

[matt819]

29. Oh, right

That post mentioned two polls. Great. Makes all the difference.

[Adrahil]

32. Umm... that's a poll aggregation site.

Each dot represents a data point. Lots of polls are represented there.

[matt819]

34. Okay, I stand corrected

I glossed over it. Doesn't change my original point (don't let facts get in the way, hey?).

[Adrahil]

35. To be fair, you posted an opinion, not a fact.

But yeah, some folks, myself included, do enjoy trying to "read the tea leaves" as it were. Not everyone does, and that's fine with me.

[kenfrequed]

42. Uhm...isn't Saying he has plateaued also an opinion?

Or is there a crystal ball that clearly reads "Bernie Sanders will rise no more in the polls."


Sounds more like some kind of random internet Tarot reading to me.

It always surprises me how few of these Bernie-bashing posts actually are about substantive issues.

[brooklynite]

48. In what way is expressing an opinion about his performance as a candidate "bashing"?

[Adrahil]

50. well, right now it is.

In a month or so, we'll see if Bernie has leveled out. I don't think quite yet. But he has slowed down, I think.

But for the most part, poll analysis is a matter of educated opinion.

[dsc]

45. yeah it pretty much does

[artislife]

8. Possibly

oh wait.
Roughly 4000 at Westlake, 12,000 inside UW and 3,000 outside
20,000 in the Rose Stadium (old school), roughly 8,000 outside

Lets see tonight in LA. If his numbers dip, then you might be on to something.

[brooklynite]

12. A fair question however...

...how many attendees are already to committed to him (baked into his vote share), vs how many are prospective new supporters?

[artislife]

15. Yes fair

unless you are intimately aware of the traffic in both cities that would stop most look sees. Especially Portland, they had two other major events. I refuse to say a Taylor Swift in Seattle was a major event.

[Adrahil]

33. actually, I don't think that's quite the right question.

I think the RIGHT question is, how do the crowd sizes translate to percentage of the actual vote.

I have no doubt Bernie excites his core supporters and they are turning out big for him. What does that mean in terms of actual broad-based support though?

I mean, Ron Paul was known for out-drawing all his rivals, but he never got eh nomination.

And so my words are misinterpreted, I do NOT think Sanders is the left's Ron Paul.

[Fawke Em]

30. Well, the capacity at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena

is lower than at the Rose Garden, so it WILL dip.

Just keep that in mind when the inevitable posts like the OP start happening.

[artislife]

31. It will be the end of the campaign for sure

heh

[BooScout]

9. I think he has....

He hasn't moved much in weeks. He appeals to only to one segment of the Democratic Party. Hillary has a much broader base.

[artislife]

22. They seem to be pretty spread out across the country

Ours do seem to be clustered to where he is speaking. Like Tuscon, NOLA, Milwaukee, Seattle, Portland and tonigt, LA.

He is pretty good at finding us, I guess.

[tularetom]

59. You're equating name recognition with support

Look, we're all political geeks here. I've known about Bernie Sanders for years, listened to him on the Tom Hartmann show.

Saturday we had both our kids and their spouses over for dinner. Three of them are more or less apolitical and son in law thinks he knows everything about politics because he watches Fox. Not one of the four of them had even heard of Sanders. They all assumed Hillary Clinton was already nominated. We're talking people in their late 40's-early 50's, all with at least a couple years of college.

They're my kids and I love 'em, but lets face it, they are your stereotypical low information voters and I believe there are millions more like them out there. Bernie Sanders has an uphill battle getting his message to people like these, but if he can, he will appeal to them a lot more than Clinton's cautious finger-in-the-wind don't offend anybody policy stances.

It's way premature to say any candidate has "plateaued", particularly the one nobody has heard of, since there hasn't yet been a single debate.

[kenfrequed]

43. Always puzzled me as well

If Bernie is such a non-threat, then why is it there are so many Hillary people screaming about him here?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. He's a racist secretly working with Liberty University and he bites people!!!11!

[840high]

60. he hates kittens.

[Zorra]

13. No. But thanks so much for your sincere concern! nt

[Stuckinthebush]

17. More or less

Aside from the DU excitement I think he has reached close to his ceiling. I'm sure we will see Clinton as the nominee.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. This just seems reactionary, man. Big crowds all weekend, so you post this. Good for you.

Let me tell you this. We need a fucking Primary. Those of you who dig one candidate and despise the others are not all that supportive of the process which this Party and this country really needs. The 2008 Primary was very healthy for my State Party. We had many visits to Oregon by both Clinton and Obama, now here's Sanders. Prior to 2008, the last Democratic contender for the nomination to visit Oregon as candidate was Robert F Kennedy. That was 1968 you know. 40 years. So I was thrilled that they had to fight for it.
Also, by our standards the Portland rally was medium sized so watch out. 70,000 for Obama during election week 08. 70,000.
I did not even think of trying to get into the rally, not even after they moved to a larger arena. I knew it would be packed and there would be overflow.

[brooklynite]

24. Last time I checked, this was a political blog...

...where we, you know, discuss politics.

The notion that, somehow, saying something perceived as negative is either going to depress your candidates' turnout or hurt his supporters' feelings seems a little silly.

[kenfrequed]

47. right back atcha!

Really, if Bernie wasn't a threat to the inevitable, you wouldn't be making a big deal about it.

I don't see tons of posts ripping on Chafee or O'Malley or Webb from the Hillary people. If Bernie had Kucinich numbers you would be fixated on anyone else on the board. I imagine there would be tons of posts quashing anything pro-Biden or assailing people calling on Warren to run.

I'm not asking you to stop supporting your candidate, I am merely asking you to be honest about your posts.

[brooklynite]

49. Fair point...

...the reason I don't discuss Chafee, O'Malley or Webb (nb - I HAVE discussed O'Malley's prospects relative to his record as Governor back when the campaign started), is that their campaigns haven't risen to the level of consequence to be interesting from a political standpoint.

FWIW - I've been regularly posting event schedules for their supporters, even thought I'm not supporting their candidates, because I want as robust a Primary as possible. It's only the Sanders people who have objected.

[FreakinDJ]

23. Thanks to BLM he's got more publicity now then ever

24/7 plastered across news programs

[Jimmy Diblanet]

25. No...

Last week, Sanders' Facebook page got over 60,000 likes. Clinton's got a little over 37,000 likes. His Facebook page says 1,149,530 people are talking about Sanders. Only 279,085 are talking about Hillary. Clinton's total page likes are 1,150,448. Sanders is 1,666,871.

Originally I thought Sanders didn't have a chance. Now after seeing the massive rallies, my opinion has changed. His rally in Portland, Ore. drew 28,000 people. According to the Washington Post, the largest crowd yet attracted by Hillary Clinton‘s campaign was estimated at 5,500, which came at her formal New York kickoff event in June.

People will see Sanders' momentum and once they believe Sanders actually has a chance, his numbers will grow even more.

[aikoaiko]

26. I wonder when Obama overtook HRC in 2007?

I've been looking for graphs like yours from that time period, but my google-fu is weak.

This article shows some state data (although the main point of this article is that HRC is in a much bigger lead now than then).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/12/hillary-clinton-2016-2008_n_7049210.html

[brooklynite]

28. A key difference is that Clinton was generally at 35-40% in the 2007-2008 period...

...allowing Obama to collect enough non-Hillary votes to win. This time around, she's bee consistently at 55-60%. The only way Sanders can win is to take votes away from her.

[onehandle]

27. Ooh. First I was saying 2017. More recently I've been saying 2018. Now 2019 might not be enough.

But if the primary can be extended to 2020, Senator Sanders may have a chance to catch up.

[azmom]

37. Are you kidding me. We are just

Getting started.

[Gothmog]

39. Bernie appeals to a segment of the Democratic base

It is yet to be determined if Sanders can expand that appeal to other segments of the base. Time will tell

[Motown_Johnny]

40. Lets get a couple debates behind us...

before we start this kind of talk.

Once he and Hillary are on stage together, people will start to pay attention and actually choose.

[gollygee]

41. No. I think he'll do really well in the debates

and gain lots of momentum.

[lovemydog]

52. I don't think so.

I think most people are yearning for substantive change. They've identified wealth inequality as a significant issue and view Sanders as the most committed to changing it effectively.

[frylock]

53. And thus concludes our weekly "Has Bernie Sanders Plateaued?" thread..

see you all again in a week!

[Fawke Em]

55. 27,000 in L.A. right now.

16,500 in the arena and another 10,500 outside.

They had to add big screens outside for the overflow crowd.

Plateau, my ass.

[frylock]

57. Well there you go. He's clearly in a tailspin.

Moreover, there's not a whole lot of diversity in LA. It's not surprising that he would draw a crowd like that in such a homogeneous city.

[brooklynite]

61. You know I never said he dropping, right?

of course you do...

[frylock]

62. I was just riffing on your bullshit premise.

[brooklynite]

64. You mean the same premise that Nate Silver has put forward?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bernie-sanders-surge-appears-to-be-over/

[frylock]

67. Yep, the same one..

let's see what happens after those debates that Debbie Waterboy has FINALLY scheduled.

[TheFarS1de]

56. Simple answer ...

No .

[ram2008]

58. Trump is sucking the air out of everything

Wouldn't be surprised to see a temporary plateau, no one can break through in media coverage, be it Bernie, Hillary or the other Republican candidates.

[Agschmid]

66. I don't agree with this...

If anything I think a strong Trump would build support for Bernie, as he may be more electable against a Trump than say Walker or "Other".

[jfern]

63. Look at October 18, 2007

Here. Obama has been flat for months, while Hillary has been going up. She leads 48-21. It's over for Obama. Those 13 debates up to that point just didn't help him out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[brooklynite]

65. You want to know the difference?

Clinton was consistently in the mid 40s. That meant there was a majority of non-Clinton votes that Obama could go after. This time, Clinton is in the mid-50s. The only way Sanders can beat her is to actually take votes away from her. So far, he's not doing much of that.

[jfern]

68. Clinton is more like 50 with Biden running

and he's probably going to run.