Categories
Uncategorized

How Important are Arizona and Pennsylvania and How do they Compare now to 2016?

October 13, 2020

In today’s New York Times, there was an article that claimed the Trump campaign “appears to recognize that the two states (Wisconsin and Michigan) no longer represent his likeliest path to re-election.” This observation is based on the Trump campaign’s decision to reduce its television ads in these two states.

Instead, The Times reports that the Trump campaign has decided to go for the trifecta of Arizona, Pennsylvania and, of course, Florida. These three states would contribute 60 electoral votes and with North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes, would put the campaign very close to victory.

Considering that Trump is currently behind Biden in both Michigan and Wisconsin by a combined 13 points, this seems like a wise decision. I have posted on his chances in Florida and I consider this state still in play. But what about Arizona and Pennsylvania?

In Tables 1 and 2 below, I show what the election looked like in the same time period in both 2016 and 2020 in Arizona.

ARIZONA 2016CLINTONTRUMP
10/6 – 10/81087 LV2.94448
9/29 – 10/7633 LV4.34846
10/2 – 10/4296 LV5145
10/1 – 10/3655 LV4.24941
9/26 – 9/30500 LV4.45046
9/25 – 9/28500 LV4.34747
AVG48.20%45.5
TABLE 1
ARIZONA 2020  BIDENTRUMP
10/6 – 10/91190 LV3.35246
10/6 – 10/7716 LV3.65242
10/2 – 10/4676 LV5143
9/30 – 10/3600 LV44839
9/20 – 9/221015 LV34647
9/19 – 9/22799 LV4.35244
AVG50.243.5
TABLE 2

As it stands today (Table 2), Biden on average is leading Trump in Arizona by 6.7%. At the same point in 2016, Clinton was leading Trump by 2.7%, a four percent difference in Biden’s favor.

Moving to Pennsylvania, we find that in 2016 Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump by 8 points in the polls. When the last ballot was counted, Donald Trump won the state by 0.7%.

2016 PENNSYLVANIACLINTONTRUMP
10/7 – 10/114839
10/4 – 10/94440
10/5 – 10/74840
10/3 – 10/64937
9/28 – 10/24738
9/30 – 10/35040
9/27 – 10/24541
AVG47.339.3
TABLE 3

In Table 4 below, you will find that according to the average of polls, during the same period, Biden leads Trump by 7 points.

2020 PENNSYLVANIABIDENTRUMP
10/10 – 10/124745
10/6 – 10/115144
10/4 – 10/55045
10/2 – 10/45046
10/1 – 10/55441
9/30 – 10/45443
9/30 – 10/25144
AVG5144
TABLE 4

In other words, the race at this point is almost the same as it was in 2016. Now if you are a Trump supporter don’t go out and celebrate just yet. None of this suggests that the polls this time are as wrong as they were in 2016.

Do I agree with the Trump campaign for repositioning from Michigan and Wisconsin to Arizona and Pennsylvania? Focusing on Arizona is a good move and it should have been a priority from the beginning. They took it for granted.

The demographics in Arizona reflect the typical Trump voter: 78% white, 4% black and a large population of gun owners and now it may very well may go Democratic.

Pennsylvania at this point is a longshot but their choices are limited with just 21 days left and a limited budget.

Time is running out for Donald Trump and he is running out of money. Beginning next week, I can start making predictions on these battleground states where the winner will be decided. Stay tuned and stay safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

Compared to Florida in 2016, How are Trump and Biden Doing?

October 12, 2020

We are now at 22 days until the election and although Biden is significantly ahead in the national polls, many swing states are still too close to call. As we all know by now, the national popular vote doesn’t determine who wins the White House.

Historically, the Republican nominee has to win Florida in order to win the election. Mathematically, there are other ways, but that road to victory is a rocky one and unlikely.

To determine where Biden is in relationship to Hillary Clinton on the same dates in 2016, I have compiled polling data from the same two periods, from September 21 through October 5, in both 2016 and 2020.

In Chart 1 and Table 1 below, you can see the Florida polls in 2016 showed the race very close during this period. Hillary Clinton had an average lead of only 2.6% during this period.

CHART 1
2016 SURVEY DATETRUMPCLINTON
10/3 – 10/54446
10/4 – 10/44547
10/2 – 10/44544
9/27 – 10/44047
9/27 – 10/24449
9/28 – 9/294647
9/27 – 9/294246
9/19 – 9/214544
TABLE 1

In 2020, Trump and Biden, are again reprising the 2016 contest as shown in Chart and Table 2 below.

CHART 2
2020 POLL DATEBIDENTRUMP
10/6 – 10/74346
9/29 – 10/74945
10/2 – 10/45046
10/1 – 10/55140
10/1 – 10/44545
10/1 – 10/45145
9/30 – 10/14742
9/23 – 9/264643
9/21 – 9/225047
TABLE 2

The only difference is that Biden has an average 3.7% lead, a minor improvement of only 1.1% over 2016. (Remember the MOE is about +/-3%) Simply put, it looks pretty much the same as 2016. Just a reminder, Donald Trump carried Florida by only 1.2%.

Can anyone tell you which candidate will likely win Florida? Of course not. The only thing we can predict is that, as is usual in Florida, the race will likely go down to the last vote counted.

The only good news is that Florida seems positioned to count the ballots efficiently and relatively quickly. But the race will likely be too close to call on election night.

Remember, if Florida goes for Biden it will certainly be close. If Trump wins Florida, it will also be close. In either case, the ballot counting and recounting could go on for weeks.

I don’t know about you, but I’m going to bed early knowing that the ballot counting will still be going on when I wake up. Be safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

Is Election Turnout Declining in Florida?

October 9, 2020

I’m sure many of you have heard or read that election turnout has declined in the United State over the past several decades. Until recently, this has been the conclusion of even political experts and it stems from how statisticians and political scientists were calculating turnout.

The primary statistic that experts have used to calculate turnout is based the voting-age population (called VAP). Today, that includes any person 18 and older regardless if the are eligible to vote.

The problem with this statistic is that it includes non-citizens and felons which, of course, cannot legally vote. Prior to 1970, this difference was not particularly significant, but in the last 35 years, the number of ineligible felons and non-citizens has significantly increased.

Consequently, using the VAP statistic is inadvertently increasing the number of eligible voters, which distorts the turnout percentages.

Increasingly, political scientists have adopted a new metric, which is called Voter-Eligible Population (VEP).

With this change, they have eliminated people who cannot legally vote, such as felons and non-citizens. Consequently, the number of eligible voters has declined and the percent of voter participation has increased accordingly.

To demonstrate how this change has altered reporting statistics, I have created a chart of both VEP and VAP turnout figures in Florida since 1980, shown in Chart 1 below.

Chart 1

The red line is the older method (VAP) and the blue line represents the preferred method (VEP). Notice that the line differences increases over time, due to the elimination of prohibited voters. In Table 1 below, I show the Florida turnout percentages using the turnout of both VEP and VAP calculations since 1980.

YEARVEPVAPDIFF
201664.50%56.90%7.6
201262.80%55.10%7.7
200866.10%57.60%8.5
200464.40%56.10%8.3
200055.90%47.90%8
199651.90%46.10%5.8
199255.90%50.20%5.7
198849.00%44.60%4.4
198452.40%48.30%4.1
198052.00%48.70%3.3
Table 1

As you can see, the VAP percentages are considerably lower than the VEP percentages. The fourth column is the percent difference between the two methods and it shows that as time moves on, the percent differences increase due to the increasing number of felons and immigrants.

On average, the difference between VAP and VEP data over this 32 year period, is 6.3%. In other words, the VEP calculations show that voting participation actually increased over this period.

Finally, when the state reports turnout figures they use the percent of registered voters. This statistic overestimates the turnout rate because it only counts voters who have registered to vote rather than those who are eligible to vote and every state has their own registration requirements.

And what about November 3rd? I would be shocked if Florida and the nation have anything less than record turnouts no matter how it is calculated. The intensity, and not enthusiasm, will drive people to the polls. Anger motivates more than love…Do as my mother always said: voter early and often…

Categories
Uncategorized

In 2016, did Clinton have a bigger lead in the Battleground states than Biden has today?

October 8, 2020

Watching Fox News this morning (yes, I watch both CNN and Fox News, that’s why I’m fair and balanced!) they had a report from the Hoover Institution which compared an online-survey of Battleground states conducted by YouGov/Economist to actual 2016 Battleground votes on the same dates.

To summarize, they found that when you compare the national votes to the Battleground states they concluded that “Overall, in the battleground states Trump has cut his disadvantage of 7-plus points (national vote) to about 4 percent, which makes these states still up for grabs.”

Although their methodology is sound, it does rely on an outside survey and the estimate of turnout of third party candidates vote which they admit is far fewer in the Battleground states.

It seems to me the easiest way to determine where the two candidates stand now as compared to 2016 is to compare Trump and Clinton’s current Battleground polls on this date, to the October 8, 2016 Trump/Biden Battleground polls. This will tell us if Biden is outperforming or underperforming Hillary Clinton at this exact date some 26 days until the election.

Fortunately, Real Clear Politics has already done the hard work for me by keeping data on the 2016 Battleground states. In Table 1 below, you can see how similar 2016 and 2020 are in respect to both the Democrat’s average lead over Trump at this exact date.

BATTLE GROUND STATES 
Oct. 8, 2016Oct. 8, 2020Difference
Clinton AVGBiden AVG
5.10%4.6%0.5%
Table 1 : Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona

In 2016 on October 8, 2016, Hillary had an average percent lead from all six Battleground states of 5.1%. Today, Joe Biden has an average poll lead of 4.6% in the same six states, a difference of only 0.5%.

In other words, Joe Biden is almost exactly were Hilary was in 2016. On election day, Donald Trump won all six if these states by a total average of only 1.1%.

So if you are a Trump supporter, you can see his chances of staying in the White House are exactly like they were in 2016 when he collected 101 electoral votes in these six states.

If you are a Biden supporter, start saying a novena to the Patron Saint of Polling and hope this time they are accurate. Be safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

Party Identification and Personal Identity

October 7, 2020

Sine the 1960’s, political scientists have concluded that partisanship is acquired mainly through socialization and predominately from our parents. By the time of early adulthood, most people’s political beliefs have hardened. That doesn’t mean some people can’t change later in life, but it is more the exception than the rule.

A recent national pilot survey included some questions on whether voters party identification is an important part of their personal identity. Personal identity is a concept that a person develops over a lifetime that determines who you are.

Sone identities, however, such as the color of your skin or where you grew up are out of your control. Other identities may evolve over time such as religious beliefs, but generally most people’s identities last a lifetime.

But what about partisan beliefs? When you identify with a party do you develop personal identity with it?

The understanding of personal identity and political beliefs is not well studied. But in a recent pilot survey (March, 2020) by the American National Election Studies, they did ask several questions about personal identity and party choice.

One of those questions, asks about the importance of party to their personal identity. In Table 1 below, you will see that only 19% said it wasn’t important at all.

How important is being [a Democrat/ Republican/ Independent] to your identity?
1. Not at all important19.0 %
2. A little important20.0 %
3. Moderately important27.0 %
4. Very important9.0 %
5. Extremely important16.2 %
TABLE 1

More importantly, more than half (52%) said that it was moderately to extremely important to their identity. To demonstrate what that means, they used this follow-up question.

How often do you think about the fact that your are [a Democrat/a Republican/an Independent]?

1. All of the time20.0 %
2. Often22.0 %
3. Sometimes29.4 %
4. Rarely21.0 %
5. Never7.6 %

The fact that someone thinks of their party all the time seems unusual. Yet 20 percent said that was the case. And another 22% said they often think of their party identification as well.

To demonstrate how it affects a person’s political identification, I have compared this identity rating with their partisanship choice, from strong Republican to strong Democrat, as shown below in Chart 2.

CHART 2

The rating scale for personal identity ranges from 1 to 4, with one meaning not important at all and 4 extremely important. In other words, a higher personal identity score shows stronger personal identification. For example, strong Republicans have a personal identity score of 3.48, which shows that strong Republicans intensely identify with their party.

But for weak Republicans and Democrats, the identity scores are lower, at 2.03 and 2.14 respectively.

In other words, the higher the personal identity score the more intense their party strength. Conversely, the lower the score the less intense is their party strength.

But the biggest surprise is how Independents rate themselves. Pure Independents score 2.87, followed by Independents that lean toward either Republicans or Democrats.

What this shows is that the concept of “independence” is an important personal identification for some voters.

This is surprising since their is no party called Independent. (I don’t count the American Independent Party in this context.)

But to some voters, being a political independent is an important personal identity. Unencumbered by partisan beliefs, they can make choices on the candidates based on their position on the issues and not what party they belong. And it is how they see themselves.

In a political sense, that seems unusual, but for the independent voter it makes all the sense in the world.

The fact that many Republicans and Democrats consider their personal identity as a “Republican” or a “Democrat” explains why many react angrily when discussing politics with the opposite side.

I remember my mother telling me never to discuss religion or politics with my friends in the neighborhood. Now I know why. Take her advice and keep your personal identities to yourself. Be safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

How the 2016 Most Accurate Pollster Sees this Election.

October 3 2020

[With the President testing positive for Covid-19 and his current hospitalization, we will follow future polls in the next week to see if any significant changes have occurred. Stay tuned…]]

In 2016, when most pollsters called the election for Hillary Clinton, one little-known pollster called it right. That’s the Trafalgar Group located in Atlanta, Georgia. The company advertises it uses a live callers, IVR (robocalls), email and text messages, but it is their use of what they call the “Social Desirability Bias” effect, where some voters tell pollsters what they believe is the popular response in vote choice rather than their real choice.

So I thought we should look at how they currently see the 2020 election through their latest’s polls and compare it to the average of polls.

One of the drawbacks for this firm is that it doesn’t conduct a lot of surveys, at least in compared to more national firms. So I will use only their latest survey and include the date of the survey as well.

Starting with Florida, on September 3, 2020, their survey gave Donald Trump a 3-pont lead over Biden, at time whey the average of polls gave Biden a 3% lead. However, the current average has Biden leading by only by 1.5%.

In Wisconsin, Trafalgar has Biden leading by 3% (9/24). The average of Real Clear Politics polls at this time had Biden with a 5.5% lead.

In Michigan, Trafalgar has Trump ahead of Biden by 1.7% (9/22), while the average of polls give Biden a 5.2% lead.

Trafalgar Group had Trump leading Biden in Pennsylvania by 2.4% while the average had Biden ahead by 5.7%.

In Minnesota, Trafalgar had the race tied (8/18). The average of polls showed Biden ahead by 9.4% (9/24).

On August 8, Trafalgar reported a 1 point lead for Trump in Arizona, when the average during that same time period had Biden ahead 3.7%.

In North Carolina, they had Trump up by 2-points (9/11) and the average of polls at the same time showed a Biden leading by 1.2%

To compare Trafalgar’s polling average versus all poll averages we find that they have Biden with an average lead in all seven states of only 0.85%. The average lead of all polls, however, shows Biden with a leading by 4.1%. That would indicate that on average, Trafalgar Group differs from other polling firms on Biden’s current lead is 3.2%.

Although the Trafalgar group has Biden slightly ahead, it is statistically far different from other polls on average. The biggest differences are for Pennsylvania and Minnesota where virtually every other pollster has Biden leading substantially.

It is important to know that this polling firm is rated as having a Republican bias, but it still had a better track record than other pollsters in 2016.

The major difference between the Trafalgar and other survey firms is that it says it uses a social desirability bias correction. However, it does not explain how this question is incorporated into the final percentages.

The use of IVR calls (interactive voice response) could explain some of their slant toward Trump as well. IVR surveys cannot use cell phone numbers and are restricted to land line calls. This means an older voter response rate, which translates into more Trump voters in the sample.

If their latest series of polls in the battleground states of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are accurate, Donald Trump will win the Electoral vote and, of course, the election. At least, that is what the most accurate pollster of 2016 suggests.

When you see a commercial for a stock or wealth management firm, they always end it with the following caveat: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results

I think that is good advice even for pollsters….Be safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

WILL THE ABORTION DEBATE HELP or Hurt JOE BIDEN?

September28, 2020

With the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice about to begin in October, the abortion rights debate is likely move to center stage. In a Pew Research survey conducted on August 4, 2019, showed that 61% of registered voters agreed with “abortion should be legal in all/most circumstances.” And 38% said it should “illegal in most/all circumstance’s.”

In a July 2018 General Social Survey (GSS) found that 49% of all voters supported a “woman’s right to have an abortion for any reason.” Why the difference? Although the Pew survey is more recent, it is highly unlikely the time difference is the main reason for the significant increase. More likely it is the wording of the question.

The most important variance in poll results is the wording of the question. The key word in the Pew survey is “legal,” where the GSS question states “a women’s right.” Some voters may have interpreted to legal as in laws and to a woman’s right, as an intrinsic right that we enjoy independently of any laws.

In their most recent survey (July 2020), the GSS changed the wording to apply to the respondent’s reaction if the Supreme Court reduced current abortion rights. Below is the exact wording and the results from 2400 national interviews.

How pleased or upset would you be if the Supreme Court reduced abortion rights?Percent %
1. Extremely pleased33
2. Moderately pleased16.5
3. Slightly pleased10
4. Neither pleased nor upset23.3
5. Slightly upset5.1
6. Moderately upset5.2
7. Extremely upset6.9

Instead of asking if abortion should be legal or a woman’s right, it asks their reaction to a possible ruling restricting abortion. This wording not only tells us how the voter feels about this possible change but it also measures their intensity as well.

Intensity determines whether a person will likely act on their beliefs. For example, a person who is extremely upset about the ruling is more likely to join a protest against it than a person who is just moderately upset.

Based on this alone, we can estimate the voting potential based on how pleased or upset by a Supreme Court ruling or even the reaction to the confirmation of a Justice who’s past rulings would suggest overturning or diluting the Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

And for abortion supporters, this is the main problem that Republicans have long understood: those opposed to abortion are more likely show their anger at the ballot box than those who support the right of a woman to have an abortion.

Will the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court prior to the election effect the outcome? Not likely. For 98% of voters, who they will vote for is a done decision. Be safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

DOES AMERICA STILL HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE SUPREME COURT?

September 25, 2020

With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Donald Trump has promised to fill her vacancy prior the end of his term. And the Republican Senate has decided to accommodate him with a vote on his nominee, even though they took the opposite position when Obama was in his final term. As Yogi Berra would say: “It’s deja vu all over again.”

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion with undue Government restriction, the evangelical right and many conservatives have the made the Court a battleground for new appointees.

This ongoing battle for control of the Court has led me to wonder if it has affected voters confidence in this institution over the past 40 years. And does it affect Republicans and Democrats differently.

Below is as chart displaying the percent of all voters percent of confidence in the Court since 1975. As you can see it varies over time, ranging in a low 23% in 2014 to a high of 37% in 1991.

This chart tells us little about the dynamics, except that it fluctuates over the years. To get a better idea of what is affecting these changes, we need to look at both Republicans and Democrats evaluations of the Court over time as shown below.

RED LINE = REPUBLICAN OPI NIONS / BLUE = DEMOCRAT OPINONS

Although both parties confidence in the Court has fluctuated over the past 40 years, the Democrats have been more consistent than the Republicans, averaging around 30%. The Republicans seem to be reacting to what party controlled the White House.

When Jimmy Carter was President (1977-1981), Republican confidence dropped by 10% during his term. When Ronald Reagan held the White House, confidence rose by over 10%. And most recently, with the 2016 election of Donald Trump, Republican confidence jumped by 15%.

For Republicans, the value of the Supreme Court increases and decreases depending on the party of the President. For Democrats no so much.

This is not surprising, since of the Evangelical voter has become a large component of the Republican Party’s coalition. In Chart 2 below, you can see the difference between Republican and Democratic voters on whether the Bible is the word of God.

CHART 2

I wasn’t able to find data on evangelic voters, but belief in the “Bible is the word of God” is probably a good substitute. As you can see, more Democrats than Republicans believed that the Bible was the word of God until the mid 1990’s. After the year 2000, the Republicans increasingly supported this opinion and Democrats faded until the gap between the two parties reached 17%.

And that brings us to the what is driving the Supreme Court battle: the right to have an abortion. In Chart 3 below, the gap between Republicans and Democrats on abortion rights has exponentially expanded over the past 27 years.

Today, there is a 35% difference in the two parties on the right for a woman to have an abortion for any reason. And I can guarantee you that the intensity of the anti-abortion voters far exceeds those who believe in abortion rights. And this fact is driving the current political battle over the appointing a new Supreme Court Justice.

It is not surprising that Amy Coney Barrett is viewed as the leading candidate to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. She is Catholic and has been critical of the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in the past, according to news reports and is supported by virtually all anti-abortion groups.

To sum this up, the Supreme Court is more important to rank and file Republicans that it is to Democrats. The reason for this is abortion. Republicans tend to lose confidence in the Court when a Democratic President is elected. Democratic confidence in the Court is less affected by the President’s Party. Now you can watch the political battle for the Court appointment and tell your friends why it’s happening. Be safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

It’s Getting Closer!

September 23, 2020

We are at 40 days until the Presidential Election and the polls should become more accurate. Almost all public surveys are now using likely voter samples, which will give Trump a slight bump from the all voters samples as I have pointed out previously. (http://thepoliticsdr.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=1517&action=edit).

There have been a flurry of new state polls in the last couple of weeks and I have updated six of the seven battleground states. I have eliminated Minnesota from the list because Biden is pulling way ahead of Trump in the latest polls. On average, he now has a 10 point lead in the North Star State.

On average, Biden now leads Trump in all six states by only 3.9%. In Florida, his average lead is 1.5%, an increase of 0.3% since September 12. This Florida average includes an ABC news / Washington Post poll having Trump leading in Florida by 4%. But so far that is the only current survey giving Trump the lead in the Sunshine State.

  PREV
% Sept. 12
CURRENT LEAD%
SEPT 23rd
DIF
%
FLORIDA 1.21.50.3 
WISCONSIN6.36.90.6 
MICHIGAN4.26.52.3 
PENNSYLVANIA4.33.8-0.5
MINNOSOTAN/AN/AN/A
ARIZONA 4.84.4-0.4 
NORTH CAROLINA 0.80.7-0.1 
AVERAGE 3.63.90.37  

Pennsylvania has Biden leading by 3.8%, a slight drop of 0.5% since September 12. In Michigan, Biden has extended his average lead to 6.5%, an increase of 2.3% since September 12.

In Arizona, Biden has given up some ground where his average dropped 0.4% since the 12th. That same ABC/Washington Post poll also had Trump leading by 1%, but so far it’s the only one in that category.

And North Carolina also shows the race tightening. Biden’s average lead declined by 0.4% in the past 11 days. Not a tsunami, but a very slow erosion.

The average lead for Biden in the Big Three (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida) is now 3.9%. If Trump can win these three states alone he’ll gain 65 electoral votes and almost certainly win the Electoral College. Carrying Arizona and North Carolina alone will not cut it. That would only give him 26 electoral votes.

This is still a close race for the Electoral College. Trump is unlikely to win the popular vote again. But his path to get a new set of White House keys will likely be in these states, but time is slipping away.

I will be updating this data on a regular basis as new polls in these states are posted. Be safe…

Categories
Uncategorized

How the George Floyd Killing and the Covid-19 Pandemic affected the American Voter

September 21, 2020

In search for interesting data about voters, I found a series of survey questions attempting to measure how voters feel about the country today.

Buried within a July, 2020 national survey of 3080 interviews with US voters conducted by the University of Michigan and Stanford University under the American National Election Studies auspices, I found this series of emotion measuring questions.

The timing of this survey followed the George Floyd killing and the ensuing protests and, of course, the Covid-19 Pandemic.

The interesting part of this group of questions is that it doesn’t identify either the Floyd killing or any of the resulting protests/riots that followed this horrific event or the Covid virus. It only asks how emotionally the respondent feels about the country today. To my knowledge this is the first time the results of this series has been published. Let me be clear, it does not reference any candidate or political party. These are raw emotional reactions to the national upheaval.

This is what academics call a pilot study, which is a preliminary survey using questions submitted by researchers from around the country. These questions are considered unique and usually have not been used in previous polls. After the survey is completed, the responses are evaluated for measurement value and considered for the inclusion in a main election survey.

The seven charts below show the responses to the questions. The responses range from “not at all” to “extremely.” I’m going to concentrate on the “very” and “extremely” responses, since these should express severe emotional responses.

All questions are preceded by the phrase “Generally speaking, how do you feel the way things are going in the country these days?” and followed by a statement. I’m not going to comment on this data, mainly because you could interpret them in several different ways. That is both it’s strength and weakness.

As a tip, concentrate on the extreme responses which will likely measure voters’ intensity on the issue. Feel free to leave a comment below on what you think voters are expressing with their reactions.

CHART 1
CHART 2

CHART 3
CHART 4

CHART 5

CHART 6

CHART 7

Be safe…