Someone should do a 2020 Google Consumer Survey poll

[Mr. Morden]

Like the ones here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=248866.0

Don't suppose anyone has $50 to burn?  The long wait for more 2020 presidential polls is annoying.  Not like four years ago, when PPP was giving us a new 2016 poll every week or two.

[The Other Castro]

I'll do one if someone can help me with the design.

[Maxwell]

actually can we not

[Mr. Morden]

I'll do one if someone can help me with the design.

You should talk to cinyc, since he's the guru of these things:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=248866.msg5328339#msg5328339

[SATW]

At first I thought it said 2002. and i was like wut.

[Mr. Morden]

Do you know how meaningless a poll 4 years out from an election is?

Of course it has no predictive power on what's going to happen in November 2020.  Yet, many 2020 polls will be conducted in the next few years, and they'll help set the narrative, and may even impact who ends up running.  E.g., if Trump has terrible job approval ratings but is still ~even in hypothetical general election matchups with Dems, that'll affect the coverage.  If Biden and Sanders lead Trump by double digits while Booker and Warren trail him (whether just because of name recognition or because of real differences in popularity) that'll add fuel to any "Draft Biden" or "Draft Sanders" efforts, and cause some in the media to talk about how the Dems need Biden or Sanders to run.

So I'm curious as to what these polls are going to look like, and am disappointed that we're not getting them yet.  Like I said, last time around, we were already starting to get polls by this point.

[The Other Castro]

I'm between doing a hypothetical Iowa Caucus with a bunch of Dems, or a series of general election matchups between Trump and some Dems.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

We might as well do one on the 2024 election while we're at it.

[Tender Branson]

GCS ?

Why not Zogby or ARG ?

[Crumpets]

Do you know how meaningless a poll 4 years out from an election is?

Maybe at predicting who the winner will be, but their usually alright at determining who will run, and what the basic "tiers" will be.  People like John Bolton who consistently poll at 0 and 1% are less likely to run and less likely to take off once they become candidates (see Jim Gilmore). Meanwhile, even those who polled well in 2013 (Rubio, Christie, Cruz, Paul) did go on to be at least competitive candidates before Trump steamrolled them. So, perhaps they're not useful at determining who the winner will be, so much as who the losers and non-entrants will be, and what people have an appetite for.

[The Other Castro]

I have started a 500 person National Democratic Primary poll.

[Mr. Morden]

I have started a 500 person National Democratic Primary poll.

Who did you include as candidates?

[The Other Castro]

I have started a 500 person National Democratic Primary poll.

Who did you include as candidates?

I was limited by the number of slots available, so some potential candidates failed to make the cut and I had to use some judgement (partially who I wanted to see, partially who I think will run). This probably won't please everyone, but I picked: Harris, Booker, Warren, Murphy, Gillibrand, Other (Write-in), and an option for those not voting in the Democratic primaries. The options are randomized with the exception of the Not Voting option and the Other option, which always appear last and second to last respectively.  

[Vosem]

I have started a 500 person National Democratic Primary poll.

Who did you include as candidates?

I was limited by the number of slots available, so some potential candidates failed to make the cut and I had to use some judgement (partially who I wanted to see, partially who I think will run). This probably won't please everyone, but I picked: Harris, Booker, Warren, Murphy, Gillibrand, Other (Write-in), and an option for those not voting in the Democratic primaries. The options are randomized with the exception of the Not Voting option and the Other option, which always appear last and second to last respectively.  

No Sanders or Klobuchar ? Also, just how many slots exactly were available?

[The Other Castro]

I have started a 500 person National Democratic Primary poll.

Who did you include as candidates?

I was limited by the number of slots available, so some potential candidates failed to make the cut and I had to use some judgement (partially who I wanted to see, partially who I think will run). This probably won't please everyone, but I picked: Harris, Booker, Warren, Murphy, Gillibrand, Other (Write-in), and an option for those not voting in the Democratic primaries. The options are randomized with the exception of the Not Voting option and the Other option, which always appear last and second to last respectively.  

No Sanders or Klobuchar ? Also, just how many slots exactly were available?

Sorry, it kept being weird when I tried to add more candidates so I could only do the number that I did. Coupons are available if people want to make their own for free. This didn't cost me anything.

[The Other Castro]

Errr I probably should have done more than 500, half of those are likely going to pick the not voting option.

[Jeppe]

Sorry, it kept being weird when I tried to add more candidates so I could only do the number that I did. Coupons are available if people want to make their own for free. This didn't cost me anything.

Where did you find the coupons?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Before you dismiss these, I'm pretty sure my GCS poll wound up being the most accurate Tennessee poll this cycle.

[cinyc]

Sorry, it kept being weird when I tried to add more candidates so I could only do the number that I did. Coupons are available if people want to make their own for free. This didn't cost me anything.

Where did you find the coupons?

The coupon offer was off during the late stages of the primaries, but is now back:  
https://surveys.google.com/offer/view_survey_offer

It is for $50 off your first survey, which, for a national survey, should buy 500 respondents.  Unfortunately, it is available for only those who haven't conducted a Google Survey before.

I think Google Surveys limits you to 7 potential candidates/options when doing a one-question poll.  If you include more than 7, they split the sample up, IIRC.  That really wouldn't work.  So, if you include a "I am not registered to vote/will not vote in the Democratic primary" option, you're down to 6 named candidates or 5 named candidates and a write-in Other.

Before you dismiss these, I'm pretty sure my GCS poll wound up being the most accurate Tennessee poll this cycle.

Perhaps, but most of our GCS polls were way off.  My Maine poll was a disaster.  Then again, so was UNH's poll.  IIRC, my late-in-the-field New Mexico poll wasn't terrible if you weighted those without demographic info at 1 - which is what we probably should do in the future.

I'm in the process of figuring out the 2016 state RV/LV weights, assuming Census asked the same voting questions they did in November 2012 and 2014.  It's probably too early to use a 2020 RV/LV screen, anyway.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Sorry, it kept being weird when I tried to add more candidates so I could only do the number that I did. Coupons are available if people want to make their own for free. This didn't cost me anything.

Where did you find the coupons?

The coupon offer was off during the late stages of the primaries, but is now back:  
https://surveys.google.com/offer/view_survey_offer

It is for $50 off your first survey, which, for a national survey, should buy 500 respondents.  Unfortunately, it is available for only those who haven't conducted a Google Survey before.

I think Google Surveys limits you to 7 potential candidates/options when doing a one-question poll.  If you include more than 7, they split the sample up, IIRC.  That really wouldn't work.  So, if you include a "I am not registered to vote/will not vote in the Democratic primary" option, you're down to 6 named candidates or 5 named candidates and a write-in Other.

Before you dismiss these, I'm pretty sure my GCS poll wound up being the most accurate Tennessee poll this cycle.

Perhaps, but most of our GCS polls were way off.  My Maine poll was a disaster.  Then again, so was UNH's poll.  IIRC, my late-in-the-field New Mexico poll wasn't terrible if you weighted those without demographic info at 1 - which is what we probably should do in the future.

I'm in the process of figuring out the 2016 state RV/LV weights, assuming Census asked the same voting questions they did in November 2012 and 2014.  It's probably too early to use a 2020 RV/LV screen, anyway.

That would have made mine more accurate too, since my results were Trump +33, and the actual was Trump +26, but the mystery demographic was just Trump +11, so that would have brought down the margin a bit.

[The Other Castro]

Looks like it's going to end up with around 250 responses or so. Warren has a slim lead so far as expected, but the numbers could be very interesting.

[Cynthia]

Done a Florida 2018 governor one.

[Donerail]

Done a Florida 2018 governor one.

Mine is underway currently, testing Buckhorn, Castor, Dyer, Gillum, Graham, and Morgan.

[Cynthia]

Done a Florida 2018 governor one.

Mine is underway currently, testing Buckhorn, Castor, Dyer, Gillum, Graham, and Morgan.

I only had Graham and Putnam, and I only have 9 valid responses out of 27 responded..

[justfollowingtheelections]

I am doing a 2020 survey right and I made the mistake of including Other as an option and 67% of the responses I have gotten so far are Other (Trump supporters?).  I do however have multiple gmail accounts so I'll try another one when I'm done with this one.