On the Morning Consult Poll, Margins of Error, and the Undecideds in the Democratic Primary

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

Update/Correction: Morning Consult has responded to the article via email, apologizing that our initial query went to spam. The article has been updated to reflect their insistence that they do not simply “flush” undecided voters as the piece originally suggested it may. Rather, Morning Consult strongly asks people to say which way they would lean if they had to choose (no option for undecided/don’t know on this follow up question).

Morning Consult regularly has Joe Biden a fair higher than every other polling firm at this point, and, as they have usually throughout the 2020 Democratic primary cycle to date, also have Bernie Sanders a bit higher than the average.

Morning Consult also has, by far and away, the largest sample size each week, with a reported margin of error (MOE) of 1%. So, is Morning Consult or its MOE wrong? Or are all the other polling firms missing something that Morning Consult is onto with its large sample size and, per my diving into their full tables as sent to me over the course of three weeks around Biden’s entry into the race, fair weighting of a broad array of demographics?

Based on data in this chart and further explanation below, I think neither is quite wrong. It’s just that Morning Consult is handling undecided voters in a unique way that understandably stretches Biden’s share and, to a lesser extent, Sanders’ share. (MC in the chart = Morning Consult; DK = Undecided or Don’t Know respondents.)

I wrote about this problem (and proved absolutely correct) ahead of the UK General Election in 2017 here. And I spent a bit of time on it for this 2020 Democratic cycle in this article, but without the specific focus on Morning Consult.

When polling firms simply flush “undecided” or “don’t know” voters from their sample and then report the findings without any other adjustments, they automatically boost the leader an extra amount, and where the lead is already big, the problem becomes even worse. I noted originally here that I was unsure whether or not Morning Consult was following this practice. Anthony Patterson, Morning Consult’s Director of Communications, has written to clarify:

[T]hose respondents who select “don’t know” or “no opinion” the first time around are then prompted with the lean question and provided candidate options along with an option for “someone else.” If someone selects “someone else” they are asked to specify and write-in a name. With that said, respondents are not permitted to select undecided for this particular question.

But what would happen if they allowed people to remain undecided or did not ask the lean question at all? Patterson noted that their lead data scientist is currently out of the office, and that I could expect further response once they return.

Supposing their initial undecided numbers are similar to other polling firms, Column B in the above chart are Morning Consult’s numbers as reported for June 10-16, while Column C is what you get if you put back in the current average of other polling firms’ undecided/don’t know respondents. Biden’s share drops 6.4%; Sanders’ drops 2.7%. And this brings them both into pretty close alignment with the strict average of all polls in the field at least one day in June (and RealClearPolitics’ overall average right now as well).

In fact, Elizabeth Warren at a 3.1% difference is the only candidate’s average that falls outside the 1% MOE as compared to the June strict average. Buttigieg is at 1.7%, but since I’ve found over several election cycles that a strict 10 day average is generally right within a 1% margin, on the gap between two leading candidates or parties on the final results, this hardly seems remarkable.

Now, my #10at10 average will keep Morning Consult’s results in them as presented by Morning Consult. I’m even more against unskewing polling for presentation in averages than FiveThirtyEight (which uses a non-transparent House Adjustment on polls). The basic point of this exercise is to show 1) once again, that how a polling firm handles undecideds matters quite a bit and 2) that there really may not be as big of difference as there would initially seem between Morning Consult and the rest of the recent results we have seen. Elizabeth Warren’s total is lower than the recent average, outside the MOE, on this account, but with results for Warren ranging from 5% to 19% nationally over the course of June so far, this one difference among twenty-one candidates as polled by Morning Consult is not really all that surprising.

This is a particular data choice by Morning Consult, certainly defensible, but also a data choice that goes a long way to explaining why their share for Sanders and especially for Biden is higher than average. As my previous two articles have noted, most Democrats are persuadable (considering more than one candidate, only having “soft support” for their first choice) and there is reason to believe that Biden’s support is exaggerated based on very particular analysis of polling data (including undecideds).

If you assume that Morning Consult is getting about an average number of undecided/don’t know respondents as other pollsters, but are pushing people hard to say which way they lean when they are genuinely undecided, their results are pretty consistent with the rest of the field right now: Biden in the low 30s, Sanders around 16 or 17%.

More articles by:
July 16, 2019
Conn Hallinan
The World Needs a Water Treaty
Kenneth Surin
Britain Grovels: the Betrayal of the British Ambassador
Christopher Ketcham
This Land Was Your Land
Gary Leupp
What Right Has Britain to Seize an Iranian Tanker Off Spain?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Democratic Virtues in Electing a President
Thomas Knapp
Free Speech Just isn’t That Complicated
Binoy Kampmark
The Resigning Ambassador
Howard Lisnoff
Everybody Must Get Stoned
Nicky Reid
Nukes For Peace?
Matt Johnson
The United States of Overreaction
Cesar Chelala
Children’s Trafficking and Exploitation is a Persistent, Dreary Phenomenon
Martin Billheimer
Sylvan Shock Theater
July 15, 2019
David Altheide
The Fear Party
Roger Harris
UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Bachelet’s Gift to the US: Justifying Regime Change in Venezuela
John Feffer
Pyongyang on the Potomac
Vincent Kelley
Jeffrey Epstein and the Collapse of Europe
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Hissy-Fit Over Darroch Will Blow a Chill Wind Across Britain’s Embassies in the Middle East
Binoy Kampmark
Juggling with the Authoritarians: Donald Trump’s Diplomatic Fake Book
Dean Baker
The June Jobs Report and the State of the Economy
Michael Hudson – Bonnie Faulkner
De-Dollarizing the American Financial Empire
Kathy Kelly
Remnants of War
B. Nimri Aziz
The Power of Our Human Voice: From Marconi to Woods Hole
Elliot Sperber
Christianity Demands a Corpse 
Weekend Edition
July 12, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Skull of Death: Mass Media, Inauthentic Opposition, and Eco-Existential Reality in a Pre-Fascist Age of Appeasement
T.J. Coles
“Strategic Extremism”: How Republicans and Establishment Democrats Use Identity Politics to Divide and Rule
Rob Urie
Toward an Eco-Socialist Revolution
Gregory Elich
How Real is the Trump Administration’s New Flexibility with North Korea?
Jason Hirthler
The Journalists Do The Shouting
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Pâté Politics in the Time of Trump and Pelosi
Andrew Levine
The Electoral Circus as the End of Its Initial Phase Looms
David Swanson
Earth Over the Brink
Ron Jacobs
Presidential Papers
Robert Hunziker
The Flawed Food Dependency
Dave Lindorff
Defeating the Trump Administration’s Racist, Republican-Rescuing Census Corruption
Martha Rosenberg
Pathologizing Kids, Pharma Style
Kathleen Wallace
Too Horrible to Understand, Too Horrible to Ignore
Ralph Nader
An Unsurpassable Sterling Record of Stamina!
Paul Tritschler
Restricted View: the British Legacy of Eugenics
John Feffer
Trump’s Bluster Diplomacy
Thomas Knapp
Did Jeffrey Epstein “Belong to Intelligence?”
Nicholas Buccola
Colin Kaepernick, Ted Cruz, Frederick Douglass and the Meaning of Patriotism
P. Sainath
It’s Raining Sand in Rayalaseema
Charles Davis
Donald Trump’s Fake Isolationism
Michael Lukas
Delisting Wolves and the Impending Wolf Slaughter
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Shaking Off Capitalism for Ecological Civilization