Why I've really scaled back on posting about polls

[Godhumor]

My modus operandi for quite a while was to post new polls, critique then, if necessary, and discuss what they said about the state of the race. I've done this considerably less in the past month or so, and, at this point, I only plan on getting involved in polling discussions if a) there is a real misunderstanding on how to read the data or b) there is something unusual about the poll itself.

The reason for this pullback is pretty simple; there is nothing to talk about. Like it or not, this race is stable. Really stable. So stable it is boring to talk about polls.

We're nine weeks from the first primary contest and, let's be honest, the race hasn't budged since the "fun" of Biden and Benghazi. The national polls have settled on Hillary somewhere in the mid 50s, Bernie in the low to mid 30s and O'Malley at 5 or lower. Aggregating state polls since the Biden/Benghazi double feature have shown Clinton as the frontrunner by massive margins in most states, a narrower lead in Iowa and what looks to be a toss up in NH.

The second debate didn't move the needle. The MoveOn forum didn't do a damn thing. And not a single stump speech has upset the balance.

We're in the doldrums of the campaign season.

Maybe something will happen between now and early February, but we're quickly running out of time and events to do so. Frankly, I doubt we see an interesting poll again until the second half of January. Everything else will be either same old same old or a ridiculous two hundred post thread arguing a completely off the wall outlier that isn't backed up by subsequent polls.

In other words, I have no clue what I'm going to post anymore, heh.

[firebrand80]

1. The Republican race is a lot more interesting

As far as horse races go

[MeNMyVolt]

2. Agree. The only thing I see interesting on the horizon....

... is a M'OM bump after his showing in Iowa.

FWIW, I check all of your posts regarding polling and numbers. DU is lucky to have you here.

[Godhumor]

5. Thanks! I've had a lot of fun doing so

Tends to be good people here.

[think]

3. There's always issues...

[wildeyed]

4. Polls are not really predictive until around Christmas anyway.

Most people have not even tuned in yet. Obsessive poll watching, at this point, is just anxiety. Been there, done that....

The Republican train wreck is so amusing in comparison. Last I looked there, Rubio and Cruz were in the hunt, Trump was declining and Carson was steady. And they are getting ready to either debate or have a cage fight on CNN, Couldn't tell which from the ad I saw.

[brooklynite]

6. Amazing how many people are pushing the "it's too early" meme...

...after complaining that it was never too early to start Debates.

[morningfog]

8. Both can be true for different reasons.

We should have had earlier debates and more of them to get our candidates greater exposure and to frame national and world events real time.

As for the polling, it is still early, but I agree with the OP on the state of the race.

[brooklynite]

10. "Greater exposure" months before anyone's paying attention...

[morningfog]

11. Greater exposure=more attention. See, e.g. Trump.

That is not inconsistent with the significance of polls being less this far out.

The repub polling at this point is meaningless. The dems, as the OP says have stabilized and are more significant.

[wildeyed]

9. I'm not pushing any meme.

I never complained about too early to start debates. What are you even talking about? Look at last election cycle. Here's an article.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/24/early-state_polls_arent_predictive_--_yet__128828.html

The race might be stable, it might not be. I don't know enough of what is happening on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire to judge.

[morningfog]

7. You are correct. The state of the race is relatively

unchanged and static at this point. There are few events which can alter a race once it settles in.

At this point, it would take a major scandal involving one of the candidates or possibly a significant world/national event.

But the next foreseeable meaningful event is when votes begin to be cast.

If Bernie beats Hillary in either or both of the first two states, things could change.

[Godhumor]

12. Maybe they could, but I doubt it

Only one nominee in recent history has won all 50 states, and the demographics from NH and IA are very different than the Super Tuesday states.

A Bernie win in NH would be nice for him, but, if he can't convince non-whites to change their votes en masse, I think he is going to stop have a rough road into March.

[MaggieD]

13. I love your posts about polls

Don't find them boring at all.