Why the Hell Isn't Larry Sharpe Being Polled in New York?
At least one-quarter of New Yorkers would tell you that they won't vote Democrat or Republican, if only pollsters would ask them.


New York politics, you may have heard, can be passionate and unpredictable. Democratic Socialists topple senior House incumbents, TV personalities escalator into and out of our lives, and a kind of low-level pressure of resentment constantly builds in the vicinity of the unloved machine politicians who reliably misgovern the place. At a time when Trumpism and the resistance to it are rubbing emotions raw, this mix of a frustrated populace and an entrenched political class is inherently volatile, as Rep. Joe Crowley (D–N.Y.) can certainly testify.
So why the hell aren't third-party candidates being polled for New York governor?
Former Sex in the City co-star Cynthia Nixon, for example, is running an in-your-face, headline-generating progressive challenge to incumbent Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Nixon is currently gathering petitions to compete in the Sept. 13 Democratic primary, but is already guaranteed a spot on the November general election ballot due to her nomination in mid-April by the Working Families Party (New York has six minor parties with automatic ballot access; the Libertarian Party is on track to gather the necessary signatures to get Larry Sharpe on there as well).
And yet when Siena College Research Institute conducted a general-election gubernatorial poll June 4-7, the choices were: Republican, Democrat, "wouldn't vote," "someone else," and "don't know/no opinion." Nixon's name only appeared as a Democratic alternative to Cuomo, and neither Sharpe nor Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins—who received 4.8 percent of the vote in 2014—were anywhere to be found. With the exception of gauging the comparative strengths of Cuomo and Nixon as Democratic nominees, how is this even a remotely useful poll?
Quinnipiac at least included Nixon as a third-party candidate in an April 26-May 1 survey—in which she pulled a close third place with 20 percent, behind GOP nominee Marc Molinaro's 23 percent, and Cuomo's 40 (this compares to a 57-26 percent split when it's just Cuomo vs. Molinaro). But even there, no Hawkins, and nothing about Sharpe, who was the second-biggest fundraiser in the race as of January 2018, and is a rising star in the country's third-largest political party capable of generating Politico headlines like "A New York rarity: A serious Libertarian candidate."
What happens when you put all five leading candidates in the same poll? Sharpe commissioned Gravis Marketing to find out June 4-7, and the polling firm came up with this:
- 42.8 percent Cuomo
- 17.8 percent undecided
- 14.9 percent Molinaro
- 14.6 percent Nixon
- 5.5 percent Sharpe
- 4.2 percent Hawkins
This is no doubt a smaller overall number than the energetic Sharpe would like to see, though there are reasons for optimism in the cross-tabs. But even with the caveat that third-party candidates historically get oversold in pre-election polls (a factor you can and should adjust for), the important thing here is that Sharpe, Nixon, and Hawkins—and possibly former Syracuse mayor Stephanie Miner, a decently powerful Democrat who just threw her hat in the ring as an independent—should be in any poll that claims to tell us something useful about the New York gubernatorial race. With three serious left-of-center contenders going after an unlovable legacy Democrat, this race in a heavily blue state could get weird in a hurry.
As FiveThirtyEight number-cruncher Nate Silver said in the spring of 2016 about listing Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson in polls, "Some pollsters don't like to include third-party candidates because, for a variety of reasons, polls sometimes overstate their numbers. But it's not a pollster's job, in my view, to take that choice away from the voter when they'll have it on the ballot. They can always ask the question both ways, too—with Johnson and without." (FiveThirtyEight's final forecast for Johnson was 4.8 percent; he ended up with 3.3.)
Over at Newsgrowl, Steve Goodale recently asked polling companies why they weren't including Sharpe and Hawkins. The results were pretty interesting.
Siena College Research Institute spokesperson Steven Greenberg gave Goodale a particularly unsatisfying answer: "We only did head-to-head, Democrat vs. Republican, matchups as the rest of the ballot is still in flux." This despite Hawkins and Nixon already being on the ballot, and the near-certainty that Sharpe will get there.
Greenberg did send us a copy of a poll from the 2014 race that included Hawkins, and pointed out that, "not atypical for a minor party candidate in pre-election polling—he polled at nearly twice what he wound up receiving at the ballot box."
Again, per Nate Silver, the traditional third-party fade is not a sufficient reason to ignore that many voters will in fact vote for smaller-party candidates. Gravis has a combined 24.3 percent going to non-traditional candidates even without including Stephanie Miner. Chop those results by a third and you still have a sizable chunk of the electorate. By not including candidates who stand to have measurable impact, "pollsters are putting their thumb on the scale," FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten has argued. It's free and misleading publicity for the front-runners.
Marist, which has yet field a general-election poll, told Goodale that the general custom is to "include ballot status candidates," a category that won't kick in for Sharpe until he collects enough signatures. But even then: "In instances when we poll with a media partner, candidate inclusion is determined at the discretion of the media partner." As Goodale notes:
In practice, their media partners tend to prefer sticking with just Democrats and Republicans.
For example, in this March 2014 Marist Poll of the New York gubernatorial general election only Democrats and Republicans are mentioned. This is despite the fact that in March 2014 the Green Party had guaranteed ballot access for the general election. At the time of this poll, Hawkins had been a declared candidate for two months, and was a shoo-in for the official nomination at the party convention in May.
But Marist had media partners (NBC 4 New York and the Wall Street Journal) and was forced (presumably kicking and screaming) to drop any mention of Hawkins by name from the poll. Respondents were not even given an option for "other"—the only choices were Democrat Andrew Cuomo, several possible Republican candidates (Rob Astorino, Carl Paladino, or Donald Trump—yes, that's right), or undecided.
Anthony Fisher wrote about the media-partner dodge in June 2016. I ranted a bit that cycle about the distorting effects of not including Gary Johnson and even Evan McMullin. And Nick Gillespie recently sat down with Larry Sharpe:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So Larry Sharpe is losing out to the most annoying Sex and the City girl? At least Sarah Jessica Parker is not running, because then it would really become a horse race for Larry.
I actually found her the least annoying, as the only one with a brain. SJP was the one who had me constantly cringing.
My Whole month's on-line monetary profit is $2287. i'm right now prepared to satisfy my fantasies basically and live home with my family moreover. I work only for two hours every day. everyone will utilize this home benefit
framework by this link.... https://howtoearn.club
I think the sub-heading answers the question asked in the headline, no?
If the sub-heading read "because the people who hire pollsters would prefer that third parties don't exist" - then it would be answering the question posed in the headline.
Maybe the Reason Foundation could commission some polls?
Ain't no way cosmo LINOs are going to give any of their pay to leave more money for Reason polls that ask libertarian questions.
As FiveThirtyEight number-cruncher Nate Silver said in the spring of 2016 about listing Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson in polls, "Some pollsters don't like to include third-party candidates because, for a variety of reasons, polls sometimes overstate their numbers.
This Nate Silver?
That article you linked is actually pretty good. He admits he botched it, skips the easy excuses, analyzes in detail what when wrong, and has a concrete plan for doing better next time but without overreacting. My scientific data says that puts him in the top 5.2% of pollsters.
I got a phone call in October of 2016 asking me if I was going to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I told them I was planning to vote for Carlotta the Mountain Tapir. They then asked me if I was going to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. I told them "Carlotta the Mountain Tapir." They then asked, "well, if you only had these two choices, who would you vote for?"
"Carlotta the Mountain Tapir."
They complained that that wasn't an option, and I pointed out to them that no, it totally was, there is a write-in option on the ballot sheet?and, not only that, there are candidates running who will be LISTED ON THE BALLOT who aren't Trump or Clinton.
That's when they hung up on me.
#NoRegrets
I would totally vote for her.
And, as a bonus, if Carlotta loses you can still have her for dinner.
Perhaps edible politicians are too ahead of their time at this point, though.
Plus, you are what you eat, so . . .
So you're a (body part omitted)?
I've had the same experience, but with less tapir.
""Why the Hell Isn't Larry Sharpe Being Polled in New York?""
Is he Democrat? Is he Republican? There's your answer.
"Is he Democrat? Is he Republican?"
Well, what is he? I'm sure he leans Democrat.
Hey, Larry, word to the wise: in NY and CA you can talk about open borders, but be careful in other places, wink-wink.
I believe Larry is getting polled!
No one needs more than two choices of political candidates.
"With the exception of gauging the comparative strengths of Cuomo and Nixon as Democratic nominees, how is this even a remotely useful poll?"
It helps suppress the third party vote. That's useful to the major parties.
Sharpe is an opportunist who jumped on the Anybody-but-Vohra bandwagon, and deserves to be poled, all right.
According to Wikipedia, Vohra is an Indian cricket player.
Would it be at all possible to go after these polling companies for undeclared "in kind" campaign contributions as these have a clear advertising value?
You'd run into the same problem underlying the polls - like the polls, the laws are designed to protect the political establishment, not to give extra prominence to third parties.
Sure, if enforced according to the letter (which they probably won't be), these laws could promote third parties, but at some cost in freedom - after all, don't pollsters have as much right to be partisan as anyone else?
It would be difficult, because the same theory would have you going after newspapers, too.
It would be better to just kill off the idea of "in kind" contributions, which is a concept just intended to make people afraid to engage in political speech.
I am a Trumpist nowadays but am a 99% voter for three decades so election years my landline gets deluged with pollster calls and some even come door knocking. For many years I would always praise Ralph Nader to the skies even though I have been a dedicated Chevrolet Corvair enthusiast since 1964 and consider the book "Unsafe At Any Speed" to be absolute proof of the Russian axiom that paper will accept any writing.
I promoted Ralphie boy, of course, because he was a useful idiot to confound and curse the Democrats. In recent elections I find I don't need to replace Nader because the Dems are quite capable of raising up their own useful idiots without my help.
The 2016 election proved that polls are no longer useful in delivering facts. Due to many factors, but mostly Emperor Hussein's divisiveness, most people no longer give willing accurate answers to polls.
That, and the fact that the response rate for most polls is in the single digits, which theoretically renders them unsound even if the people who answered were perfectly honest.
The polling industry just kind of ignores the problem, because, what are they going to do? Just go out of business?
The pollsters are Democratic machine flunkies, connected to the guvmint teat. The Republican (RINO in NY) Party is all but dead so no problem including them against their preferred candidate. Given the 2 party system is dead in NY you don't want "3rd party" or Democratic Primary contenders messing with the (Tammany) political machine of honest and dishonest graft. Having "Alexia-hyphen- the socialist" upending the standard bearers disrupts the flow of money. Having 3rd party candidates messes up the NY dictators who want to pretend they have overwhelming support to bolster their promotions from prince of NY to King of the US.
Can't believe ANYONE would vote for Cuomo, or any other crooked NYS incumbent. Pisses me off.
You must NOT be on the gubmint teat. Culmination and his ilk get support from those that like the government nipple.
*cuomo. Fucking tablet side on Reason sux.
*tablet use
The pollsters finally do us the favor of ignoring an embarrassing impostor and Matt has the gall to complain!
This is a really good blog.
situs judi bola
prediksi togel sgp