Conflict of interest in Iowa poll where Warren leads Biden

[Curky]

An Iowa poll finds Elizabeth Warren leaving Joe Biden by 3%.
The poll was conducted for Focus on Rural America, a renewable fuel PAC owned by Patty Judge, who appears to be in Elizabeth Warren supporter:

A few weeks ago, Ms.Judge and Warren toured a facility together, and Judge praised and appeared to endorse Warren:

“Candidates need to engage meaningfully with rural Americans, and Senator Warren has shown that she is serious about winning back voters lost to Trump.

http://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2019/06/13/warren-judge-tour-ethanol-plant/

Today she praised Warren again:

“I’m excited to see Iowans closely followed the first debate and will continue to work with the candidates to ensure they are engaging rural Americans in a meaningful way,” said Focus on Rural America Chair Lt. Governor Patty Judge. “Our poll shows that Iowans are paying attention and that they are prioritizing someone who can win rural America, because that’s what it will take to beat President Trump.”

http://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2019/07/03/july-2019-poll-results/

This is not what an unbiased pollster does.

[Politicub]

1. Thank you for your concern.

[Curky]

2. Do you dispute there conflict of interest?

This is no different from an internal poll.

[Politicub]

4. Yes, I do. It looks like a hit-job post to me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Me too...

If they are going to freak out about one poll...

[Politicub]

25. New Twist: OP had Warren as their nominee pick when the original message was posted

He or she was shook by their own analysis, I guess.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. That's too funny.

[Andy823]

23. Me three. nt

[karynnj]

17. I do

They support an interest group and have - per you - endorsed Warren. However, they COMMISSIONED a poll - they did not do it.

IF you had information that they slanted the question in some way or that they systemically introduced bias by the method by which they created the sample -- THEN you could argue that the goal was to put out a poll that made Warren look good. You have not done that.

[Demsrule86]

9. The poll was essentially tied for the three front runners when you looked at the numbers. Thise

explains all the excess verbiage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Don't you love poll truthers?

[George II]

3. Interesting observation.

[Curky]

6. Thanks. You don't see Pew or Suffolk editorializing like this

Because they don't have a dog in this fight.

[ehrnst]

38. What "dog" do the others have? (nt)

Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2019, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Patty Judge didn't conduct the poll. David Binder did.

David Binder is one of the country’s foremost pollsters and political observers.

He spent most of the 2016 election away from the coasts – instead doing intensive polling and focus groups in America’s heartland. On November 9, 2016 many Americans woke up just a bit surprised at the outcome of the election, to say the least. David wasn't.

David will provide an overview of what he saw during his travels, including how conventional wisdom about a host of topics – like how the public perceives free education – is neither conventional nor wise. He will also offer some thoughts about how foundations can better assess voter attitudes on a number of issues that they fund.

Finally, David will pull out his crystal ball and offer some thoughts about a number of topics in advance of the midterm elections.

This session is designed to be highly interactive – David will provide some introductory comments, but we encourage people to come with lots of questions and ideas of their own. There will be time at the end for networking, drinks and snacks with your fellow communications peers.

[Curky]

7. If Gallup conducted a poll paid for by Trump

We wouldn't trust that Gallup poll.

[Curky]

8. David binder is not one of the country's "foremost pollsters"

Explain.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Here is the contact information for North California Grantmakers

David Binder is one of the country’s foremost pollsters and political observers.

He spent most of the 2016 election away from the coasts – instead doing intensive polling and focus groups in America’s heartland. On November 9, 2016 many Americans woke up just a bit surprised at the outcome of the election, to say the least. David wasn't.

David will provide an overview of what he saw during his travels, including how conventional wisdom about a host of topics – like how the public perceives free education – is neither conventional nor wise. He will also offer some thoughts about how foundations can better assess voter attitudes on a number of issues that they fund.

Finally, David will pull out his crystal ball and offer some thoughts about a number of topics in advance of the midterm elections.

This session is designed to be highly interactive – David will provide some introductory comments, but we encourage people to come with lots of questions and ideas of their own. There will be time at the end for networking, drinks and snacks with your fellow communications peers.

https://ncg.org/events/conversation-david-binder-leading-pollster-reports-heartland

Northern California Grantmakers
160 Spear Street, Suite 360
San Francisco, CA | 94105

[phone]: Phone
[phone]: Fax

You can share your concern over their characterization of David Binder's polling acumen or lack thereof with them.

[Demsrule86]

12. A Warren supporter still owns the poll...and I look at it and saw the top three tied...not Waren

winning.

[rurallib]

13. I put 2 low count Biden followers on ignore yesterday

whose only purpose here was to troll other Dem candidates.
You look to be of the same ilk.
Be darned if I will watch someone tear our good candidates down, even by association.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in any candidate.

That allows me to call out silliness whenever it raises its sad face.

[oldsoftie]

19. And not to be offended by it too

[Andy823]

24. There are a lot more

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2019, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Seems like every day new posters claiming to support Biden show and start causing arguments. They are easy to spot.

To be honest it's not just Biden, although they seem to pick him the most, the do the same thing with other candidates, a lot like 2016, only now they have a lot more candidates to pick from than just Hillary and Bernie.

[Demsrule86]

26. You notice the Biden supporters who do what you say...I notice the other candidates supporter who do

the exact same thing...and elections attract people to a site like this...could be they just like Biden, Warren or Harris...so I would not assume they are here to cause trouble...if they are Mirt will ride to the rescue.

[Andy823]

34. Did you read my second paragraph?

To be honest it's not just Biden, although they seem to pick him the most, the do the same thing with other candidates, a lot like 2016, only now they have a lot more candidates to pick from than just Hillary and Bernie.

I know there are others picking other candidates.

[Demsrule86]

35. I saw that...I was merely noting that we tend to not notice if our person does it as much...

Also, I started posting either before or right after an election...I had been lurking but finally got up the nerve to write something. It is hard being new.

[karynnj]

16. The PAC funded the poll -- they did not conduct it

To say the poll is biased -- you need to make the case that either there was bias in creating the "frame" from which voters were sampled, there was bias in the sampling process, or that the questions or a preamble were framed in a way to bias the results. You claim nothing like this.

Note - I am for Warren, but more than that I have long hated the attacks on the pollster - and in this case, the organisation that commissioned the poll - because the results are not what you want.

A valid comment you could make is that, at this point, the result appears to be an outlier. However, I have not seen other post debate polls.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. You've been here long enough to know how polls work.

When one poll is shown as an anomaly, it does deserve some scrutiny and it's silly to suggest all polls should be weighed equally. That just isn't the case.

This poll absolutely conflicts with one just released yesterday by USA Today/Suffolk that had the breakdown:

Biden: 24
Harris: 16
Warren: 13
Sanders: 9

One of these polls is not right - it's either USA Today or the one funded by this PAC. I don't know which, as we don't have a third poll to compare it to - but until we do, it's not out of the realm of rationality to question the background.

FWIW, Nate Silver grades that Suffolk poll a B+ over at 538. David Binder isn't graded by him.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/iowa/

These are all valid questions when dealing with polls that are wildly off - as one has Biden with a comfortable +8 lead and the other has him in third place with Warren leading, despite the other poll having Warren in third place.

[karynnj]

21. Actually, I worked in statistics, analytical research and operations research for 24 years

before coming to DU. What I reacted to was a claim that the poll was biased. It very well may turn out that poll is an outlier, but without any backup, calling it "biased" is not really the way to deal with it.

As I said, the poll may very well be an outlier. Both polls have margins of errors. Until there is more polling, I would assume that Biden is likely higher than the 17% in the new poll and likely lower than the 24% in the USA Today poll. As more polls come in, the picture will be clearer.

They are not as "wildly" divergent as you suggest. Biden and Warren are both 7 points different between the polls -- and the margin of error on the USA Today poll is +- 4.4 percent. If the precision of the other poll is the same, these results could BOTH be accurate. Taking the two together, all three top candidates are not far from each other.

Harris is nearly the same in both. As to "comfortable lead", with a margin of error of 4.4 -- in the poll you cite, Biden could be slightly below 20 and Harris slightly above 20 - even as it more likely that he is the frontrunner from that poll.

[Drunken Irishman]

36. They're very different.

This really isn't up for argument. The polls show completely contradictory results

[SouthernProgressive]

20. We will know if it was an outlier soon enough. No worries. NT

[ucrdem]

22. I think that's a safe bet.

It's the only recent poll where Biden isn't leading and it frankly looked like astroturf when it was posted earlier, no offense to the poster! But it's a way one-off:



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Iowa:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

[MineralMan]

27. "This is not what an unbiased pollster does."

That's very true, which means...well, we know what it means.

Weak sauce that will not stand up to the flavors of the main dish, I believe.

[ucrdem]

28. It's boutique poll that is inconsistent with RCP national and Iowa data

Where Biden continues to lead in every poll ... but this one. I think it's fair to say hmmm

[MineralMan]

30. I really hate to see disinformation being used already in this

primary race, and that's what this poll is. Disinformation, pure and simple. Fortunately, we have other less biased polls to look at.

I don't know why people believe that such things will work. They never do, in the end. Now, the next time a poll comes from that source, we'll know it's bogus and ignore it. Not subtle work at all.

[ucrdem]

31. Ah. Okay I think we agree on this!

[bluewater]

40. This goes waaaay beyond "unskewing the polls". How Disappointing.

The pollster that conducted the poll is well respected and has done work for many prominent Democrats.

Do you have any actual proof at all that this poll is "disinformation, pure and simple"?

Please post a link from ANY reputable news source that agrees with you about this poll. Show one, just one, news source that calls it "biased" and "disinformation".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. The pollster did nearly two million dollars worth of polling for the DNC.

[bluewater]

42. You are right, the Pollster is reputable and well respected.

Unlike the post making bogus slams without facts.

thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. His client list is impressive and runs the gamut of Democratic politicians

https://www.opensecrets.org/expends/vendor.php?year=2016&vendor=David+Binder+Research

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. THIS

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287188171

[ucrdem]

37. He's also in virtual dead heat with Harris!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(except that he's beating her in every single poll)

[hedda_foil]

39. This is an IOWA poll. You're conflating the results with national polling.