FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Analysis of Undecideds Suggests Biden’s Support May be Exaggerated

Photo Source: Joe Bidens Senate Photo – Public Domain

A number of other polls have put Democratic undecided figures between 20% and 35% over the last month: USC (27%), Monmouth (20%), Ipsos/Reuters (21%), ABC/Washington Post (35%), all nationally, and then the state polls from Suffolk in New Hampshire (27%), Firehouse/Øptimus in South Carolina (20%), andTel Opinion Research in Florida (28%). Several polling firms simply do not report undecideds, culling them from the sample before reporting on decided voters, while others press initially undecided respondents hard for which way they are leaning. CNN (7%) and Quinnipiac (8%) represent the very lowest end of those reporting undecided numbers.

As I have argued previously, in accurately projecting the 2017 United Kingdom general election, undecided voters matter enormously. Simply excluding them, particularly when they are large in number, is a way to artificially boost the leading candidate or party.

YouGov Blue prompted respondents to select all candidates they are considering with their vote, then to rank them, and also to indicate any candidates they would not consider. Biden’s support, not excluding undecideds, jumped to 25.4% among people of color/hispanic voters. This is still a far cry from figures for Biden in the upper thirties to mid-forties as reported in many recent polls, including support from as many as 50% of non-white voters in a recent CNN/SSRS national sample [pdf]. In the data set including undecideds from YouGov Blue, women of color, often said to be the backbone of the Democratic party, were even more undecided than the 30% in the full sample – 45 of 110 (41%) not yet having a first choice and just 26 (24%) selecting Biden.

Bernie Sanders was selected as the first choice by 10.7% in the raw YouGov data, 11.5% in my topline, and Warren came third in both the raw sample (9.9%) and in my re-weighting (also 9.9%).

As weighted by Data for Progress, with undecideds simply excluded, Biden led with 33%, followed by Sanders (17%), Warren (16%), Buttigieg (9%), Harris (7%), and O’Rourke (4%) with 13% selecting someone else [pdf].

Pundits of a wide range of data literacy previously thought Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders would easily be surpassed as name recognition increased for candidates with lesser support. That has not happened, and many of those same pundits now seem prepared to declare Joe Biden nearly impossible to catch for the remaining candidates. Does he have a 10% lead over Sanders (my topline), a 16% lead (Data for Progress’ figures), or does Biden have a nearly insurmountable lead as in the latest Harvard-Harris (30%) [pdf] and Hill/HarrisX (32%) releases?

***

The fundamental fault lines in the 2016 Democratic primary were around race/ethnicity, age, and to a lesser extent gender. Clinton won big with non-white voters, especially older black women, while Sanders won big with younger voters, including young women. With young voters of color, Sanders likely had a small edge over Clinton.

Morning Consult has sent me the detailed data tables from three weeks of their large-sample-sized weekly updates for the Democratic primary. The data covers April 15 to May 5, with respondents from approximately half before and half after Biden’s announcement. Unlike CNN’s 36% advantage among non-white voters for Biden, based on a sample size under 200, more than 18,000 decided or leaning non-white voters reached by Morning Consult favored Biden by just 12% over Sanders. While Biden enjoyed a much larger lead of 22% over that three-week period among African American respondents (similar to the most recent Morning Consult overall lead of 20%), he led by just 1% with Hispanic Democratic primary respondents.

All of this would suggest that Biden’s lead in the Democratic primary has been greatly exaggerated by artificial exclusion of undecided voters, small sample sized polls that are off base with respect to non-white voters, not to mention age, and, where we have data on this from Monmouth [pdf] and YouGov [pdf], a respondent pool much more favorable to Hillary Clinton in 2016 vote report than was the actual gap between her and Sanders. Emerson Polling, which excludes undecided respondents from its release but reports how its respondents voted in the 2016 Dem primary and has a sample that accurately reflects the results of that contest, released a poll Monday evening. It shows just a 8% lead for Biden over Sanders, with Warren and Kamala Harris 15% further back at 10%.

In that case, Sanders is wise to continue with his campaign’s strategy of working to register and motivate younger and undecided voters instead of giving in to panic over polls like the most recent from New Hampshire by Monmouth showing an 18% lead for Biden, but greatly over weighting voters 50-years-old and older.

* The design effect for the sample as a whole as re-weighted for gender is 1.13 ranging up to 1.55 for two smaller categories with an under sample: 18-29-year-olds and non-white males plus white males of hispanic ethnicity . Final exit polling numbers for the 2016 Democratic primary can be found by state (where they were taken) at CNN’s website or as aggregated by Gary Langer at ABC’s website or by Public Opinion Strategies in the Wall Street Journal. To obtain the raw data for the YouGov Poll, scroll to the bottom of the Rolling Stone article linked in the first paragraph above. All respondents were registered voters; 94% said they were likely or certain to vote in the 2020 Democratic primary or caucus in their state, and all but 7 of those who said “maybe” to voting in the 2020 Dem primary voted in the 2018 midterms.

More articles by:

Doug Johnson Hatlem writes on polling, elections data, and politics. For questions, comments, or to inquire about syndicating this weekly column for the 2020 cycle in your outlet, he can be contacted on Twitter @djjohnso (DMs open) or at djjohnso@yahoo.com (subject line #10at10 Election Column).

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
November 15, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
Meet Ukraine: America’s Newest “Strategic Ally”
Rob Urie
Wall Street and the Frankenstein Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Ukraine in the Membrane
Jonathan Steele
The OPCW and Douma: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Accused of Evidence-Tampering by Its Own Inspectors
Kathleen Wallace
A Gangster for Capitalism: Next Up, Bolivia
Andrew Levine
Get Trump First, But Then…
Thomas Knapp
Trump’s Democratic Critics Want it Both Ways on Biden, Clinton
Ipek S. Burnett
The United States Needs Citizens Like You, Dreamer
Michael Welton
Fundamentalism as Speechlessness
David Rosen
A Century of Prohibition
Nino Pagliccia
Morales: Bolivia Suffers an Assault on the Power of the People
Dave Lindorff
When an Elected Government Falls in South America, as in Bolivia, Look For a US Role
John Grant
Drones, Guns and Abject Heroes in America
Clark T. Scott
Bolivia and the Loud Silence
Manuel García, Jr.
The Truthiest Reality of Global Warming
Ramzy Baroud
A Lesson for the Palestinian Leadership: Real Reasons behind Israel’s Arrest and Release of Labadi, Mi’ri
Charles McKelvey
The USA “Defends” Its Blockade, and Cuba Responds
Louis Proyect
Noel Ignatiev: Remembering a Comrade and a Friend
John W. Whitehead
Casualties of War: Military Veterans Have Become America’s Walking Wounded
Patrick Bond
As Brazil’s ex-President Lula is Set Free and BRICS Leaders Summit, What Lessons From the Workers Party for Fighting Global Neoliberalism?
Alexandra Early
Labor Opponents of Single Payer Don’t  Speak For Low Wage Union Members
Pete Dolack
Resisting Misleading Narratives About Pacifica Radio
Edward Hunt
It’s Still Not Too Late for Rojava
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
Why Aren’t Americans Rising up Like the People of Chile and Lebanon?
Nicolas Lalaguna
Voting on the Future of Life on Earth
Jill Richardson
The EPA’s War on Science Continues
Lawrence Davidson
The Problem of Localized Ethics
Richard Hardigan
Europe’s Shameful Treatment of Refugees: Fire in Greek Camp Highlights Appalling Conditions
Judith Deutsch
Permanent War: the Drive to Emasculate
David Swanson
Why War Deaths Increase After Wars
Raouf Halaby
94 Well-Lived Years and the $27 Traffic Fine
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Coups-for-Green-Energy Added to Wars-For-Oil
Andrea Flynn
What Breast Cancer Taught Me About Health Care
Negin Owliaei
Time for a Billionaire Ban
Binoy Kampmark
Business as Usual: Evo Morales and the Coup Condition
Bernard Marszalek
Toward a Counterculture of Rebellion
Brian Horejsi
The Benefits of Environmental Citizenship
Brian Cloughley
All That Gunsmoke
Graham Peebles
Why is there so Much Wrong in Our Society?
Jonah Raskin
Black, Blue, Jazzy and Beat Down to His Bones: Being Bob Kaufman
John Kendall Hawkins
Treason as a Lifestyle: I’ll Drink to That
Ben Terrall
The Rise of Silicon Valley
November 14, 2019
Laura Carlsen
Mexico’s LeBaron Massacre and the War That Will Not Cease
Joe Emersberger
Oppose the Military Coup in Bolivia. Spare Us Your “Critiques”
Ron Jacobs
Trump’s Drug Deal Goes to Congress: Impeachment, Day One
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail