The Polls Speak

Greetings, it’s time for a post-debate quick peek at the polls. Sure, it’s a little early, but that’s the whole fun. Plus, I’m comfy drawing a few conclusions already. Here they are:

Buttigieg didn’t get a bounce. But his narrative shifted. It’s *all* about Iowa for him.

Real Clear Politics lists five surveys taken after the debate. His numbers: 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. That’s not a boost. His overall average is 6.3. He’s about a point ahead of Kamala Harris. None of this is new. Mayor Pete has picked up a point, maybe a point and a half nationally over the past few weeks. He’s got less support than he had in late April/early May. Repeat. This is not a surge.

What about Iowa? USA Today has him within striking distance of the lead. At 13%. This is good for him. No question. But an Emerson survey partially taken before, partially after, has him at 16%. Another data point from CBS/YouGov entirely pre-debate is at 14%. The proximal event for him in Iowa was his recent bus tour, not the debate. Continue reading “The Polls Speak”

Bernie’s Squad

If you weren’t aware that AOC (and squadmate Ilhan Omar) recently endorsed Bernie Sanders, you’re likely not hanging out in this particular corner of the universe. You also likely figured this is a good thing for him, but not something that’s going to rocket him to the top of the polls.

One could even argue that losing the endorsement to Elizabeth Warren would have hurt him more than having it will help him. I think this is true. Though you can also argue it may help her in a way to not have it. If Warren wants to play Goldilocks between a too left Bernie and a too centrist Biden, maybe more than one candidate benefits here.

Regardless, it means a couple of other things too:

This is a check on Warren

Bernie is a true believer. Warren is an extremely left-leaning politician. It’s not impossible he could ever temper an answer for political purposes, but how they’re each approaching his Medicare for All plan is very telling. He’s quick to explain taxes will go up for middle class voters, but their premium/deductible savings will exceed the tax increase.

She’s incapable of saying the “taxes will go up” part. Perhaps she remembers Walter Mondale saying he would raise taxes in 1984. His line was “Ronald Reagan won’t tell you he’s raising your taxes, I just did.” Reagan won 49 states. Then he passed major tax legislation that lowered marginal rates. Then George Bush the Elder won the presidency. This isn’t a great memory for older Democrats.

It’s easy for Democratic candidates to talk about raising taxes on upper income voters. It’s now easy to talk about wealth taxes. Admitting a family of four with $58,000 in pre-tax income is going to have a larger payroll deduction is a tax too far for Warren to say out loud. Continue reading “Bernie’s Squad”

Iowa Wants a Choice

Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are way ahead in national surveys. Bernie Sanders is the only other candidate in double-digits. This has been the score for weeks. Shhh. Don’t tell Iowa. They seem to have other ideas. A new Emerson poll is out. Pete Buttigieg is third, at 16%, within striking distance of Biden and Warren (each 23%.) Sanders is hanging around at 13%.

Are we sure it’s not a fluke. Yeah, we’re sure. CBS/YouGov ran a survey a week prior and Mayor Pete got 14%. That was double his score from their previous poll taken at the end of August. He’s moving. It follows a statewide bus tour. He was already polling ahead of his national average there.

Biden and Warren were tied at 22% in the CBS/YouGov poll. The CNN/Des Moines Register survey from mid-September had her at 22%, him at 20%. Think it’s safe to say the two are fairly even at the moment. Sanders is all over the place. 21% with CBS/YouGov, only 11% with CNN/DMR. In the past couple months he’s polled as high as 26%, as low as 9%.

This is a four person race. And if Buttigieg does well enough in February, it makes it a four person race nationwide. Having Biden and Warren in the low 20s rather than the high 20s leaves a lot more space for an extra contender. Iowans pay more attention than the rest of us. They take that first voters thing seriously. The Emerson poll indicated 25% of respondents have already seen at least one candidate in person.

As much as the media and the past couple months of national data indicate otherwise, these voters aren’t content with choosing from three septuagenarians. We hear that a moderate like Buttigieg needs to take voters from Biden. That there’s only so much space in that lane. But the numbers indicate Warren and even Sanders are just as impacted by his gains.

Also, if you went back to 2008 and told whomever was near where your time machine landed that a male candidate who is in full favor of a public option for health care, wants to add 6 people to the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, and has a husband was considered too moderate, they’d think you were insane, not from the future.

Buttigieg sounds moderate, especially compared to some of his competitors. He’s well to the left of the Barack Obama who governed for 8 years, at least on domestic and climate policy, the thing 90% of Democratic primary voters are more interested in. More important than ideology, he’s objectively different from the other three, and Iowans want that choice.

He may not get a debate bump nationally, but I’m guessing he will in Iowa, which is going to make this even more interesting when the next survey hits. The majority of the Emerson poll was taken pre-debate. Iowans regularly are willing to support a candidate who isn’t in the national top tier.

When a Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum won Iowa, they didn’t have the financial resources to capitalize going forward. Buttigieg has twice as much money in the bank as Biden and has out-raised him each quarter. His future is squarely in Iowa’s hands. He may not have to win there, but if not, he’s gotta get very close. Even more than most years, the Hawkeye State will tell us how many contenders we have.

A Few Post-Debate Questions

You don’t need to read another debate recap. Too many people were on stage for too long arguing about things they mostly agree on. Nobody had the kind of horrible, cringe-worthy moment that ends careers. Nobody landed the thirty second shot that makes a president.

Whenever the next one of these is (November 20) is too soon. That preamble of whining aside, after processing what happened yesterday, I have some questions:

Will Biden’s supporters ever care that he can’t speak coherently for more than 8 seconds?

We’ve all learned from the first debate and adjusted expectations downward. When Biden gets ruffled and can’t finish a thought, we shrug. When he sounds like a paternalistic old man, it tends not to matter. Joe means well. It’s not like his supporters aren’t watching the debates. Debate audiences skew older. So does his base.

But good lord. The 8 seconds thing isn’t hyperbole. If you have time to play back parts of the debate, start timing him from the beginning of his answer. It’s 50/50 whether he gets to the 8 second mark without losing his thought, moving into “the fact of the matter is” as a bridge, etc.

This seems disqualifying to me. If he gets nominated, it means holding up a year from now while Trump is trying to bully him. More importantly, it means being able to execute the office of President of the United States five years from now. People make the point that Biden has always rambled and garbled. True. Continue reading “A Few Post-Debate Questions”

Beating Trump

It’s Debate Day! Tonight, 12 contestants will scrap and claw in the attempt to forward their odds of stepping on to a stage with Donald Trump about a year from now. Every poll and metric indicates Democratic primary voters are primarily concerned with beating Trump.

FiveThirtyEight is partnering with Ipsos to measure the same voters before and after the debate. One of their measures is how likely voters think each candidate is to defeat Trump. You’ll notice this closely mirrors the national poll numbers for each candidate.

It’s not exact. Joe Biden is at 70% chance, Elizabeth Warren at 62%, and their poll numbers are a little closer. Kamala Harris is at 46% while Pete Buttigieg is 43%. Their polling is reversed. You get the idea. It’s close enough. Candidates will need to spend the evening convincing voters they can beat Trump.

The principle of show, don’t tell applies. Amy Klobuchar consistently makes the most direct argument that she would beat him. She wins by a lot in Minnesota. Which is fairly purple these days. And is a Midwestern state not that different from Wisconsin. So by the transitive property, she’d defeat him. Except that Dem voters only think she has a 32% chance of doing so, about the same as the very unproven Andrew Yang. Continue reading “Beating Trump”

Pre-Debate Standings

None of the first three Democratic presidential debates have moved the world. At least not on their own. But you never know when a fleeting moment will launch or smash a campaign. Let’s take a look at where the contestants are now on the eve of the event.

We’ve got new polling in most of the early voting states, and plenty of recent national surveys. A few candidates are waiting until the 10/15 deadline to announce their Q3 fundraising numbers, but unless Beto O’Rourke has a shockingly robust number to surprise us with, there won’t be much news.

All poll numbers are based on the most recent Real Clear Politics average for national and state polls. Fundraising numbers are shown as Q3/Q2.

The Front-Runners: Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden

National: 26.0%, 27.8%

IA: 22.7%, 19.3%

NH: 28.0%, 24.3%

NV: 18.5%, 22.5%

SC: 15.8%, 39.5%

Money: $24.6M/$19.2M, $15.2M/22.0M

These two are way, way, way ahead of everyone else. I’ve got Warren listed first, because she’s close in national surveys, leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and has a clear funding advantage.

Not only did she out-raise Biden by about $10 million in Q3, a far smaller percentage of her donors have maxed out. On the other hand, he’s shown resiliency for several months and has a larger advantage in South Carolina than she has anywhere. Continue reading “Pre-Debate Standings”

Who’s Taking the Extra Seat at the Table?

Appearances often deceive. Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are combining for more than 50% in most national polls. They’re as tied as you can be right now. The Real Clear Politics average has him at 26.5%, her at 26.0%. Warren leads more often, Biden by larger margins when he’s ahead.

By most metrics, it’s clearly a two-person race. Bernie Sanders is lingering in the mid-teens. His heart attack hasn’t seemed to hurt his numbers much, but he was already trailing the leaders. None of the others have any polling momentum to speak of.

Pete Buttigieg is now slightly ahead of Kamala Harris, but that was her dropping more than him rising. Her numbers were at their peak 90 days ago. His best showing was back in May. Beto O’Rourke summited in March. Cory Booker last had a polling pulse in December. Andrew Yang has the most momentum, but he’s still only at 3% nationally.

So either Biden hangs on, eventually saved by his South Carolina firewall, or Warren continues her upward momentum, leaving the field in her wake. Nothing more to see here. And not much time to even look when impeachment and a new cascade of world events are diverting attention from the nomination contest.

Next week Democrats will put 12 contenders on the same stage at the same time. There’s a reason nobody has done this before. What are the odds someone breaks out? Besides Kamala’s 15 days of polling fame, the previous sessions have had less impact than was customary over the past couple decades. No matter what Biden or Sanders do or don’t do, their numbers stay where they were.

No matter what any lower-tier candidate says or does, or however strong their 20 second zinger, they don’t gain polling support. Only Warren seems to benefit beyond picking up a few extra internet dollars. If polls are showing a clear trend, and debates aren’t a chance to change the narrative anymore, how does this become a more interesting contest?

Continue reading “Who’s Taking the Extra Seat at the Table?”

The Heartbeat of the Democratic Party

Bernie Sanders is recovering from the procedure that put two stents in one of his arteries. It’s taken a couple days, but the media is finally using correct terminology. He’s tweeting about why Medicare for All is necessary. The campaign has confirmed he will attend the October 15 debate in Ohio.

We can now safely ask the crass political questions about the impact of his hospitalization. Say what you will about the candidate who isn’t even a registered Democrat, but the insurgent of 2016 is now the heartbeat pushing policy through the party’s arteries.

Elizabeth Warren is running on a version of his platform, and the two combine for 40% of the total polling support. Virtually all non-Biden candidates have adopted a chunk of his agenda. Beyond the presidential campaign, AOC and the Squad have built on Bernie’s foundations.

Given that, here’s what I’m curious about:

Continue reading “The Heartbeat of the Democratic Party”

Who Had a Neutral Quarter?

As interesting as the big winners and losers are, some candidates had a neutral third quarter. If they don’t make it to the nomination, they’ll look back on the summer of 2019 as a missed opportunity. If one should upset the leaders to grab the prize, the story is how they didn’t collapse while others did. While we wait to see which it is, here’s how they scored:

Pete Buttigieg (C+): Could have been worse. Mayor Pete is roughly where he was in the polls 90 days ago. He’s arguably in fourth. He was in fifth. His Iowa and New Hampshire numbers are still better than his national polls. He’s still on the statistical outside looking in.

When he was fifth in July, the gap was between fourth and fifth. Now that he enters October in fourth, the gap is between third and fourth. Buttigieg’s most notable Q2 success was on the funding side. He narrowly led the entire field. For Q3, he managed another $19.1 million. It’s down about 25% from last quarter, and trails Bernie Sanders ($25.3 million), with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren yet to report.

For the second straight quarter, he raised significantly more than Kamala Harris ($11.6 million.) Mayor Pete clearly has a very dedicated donor base, both large and small denomination versions.

He didn’t do anything wrong. No big fumbles, no bad debates, no clips that are sure to cause trouble in 2020. Mayor Pete just didn’t stand out. The voters weighing him and Elizabeth Warren have lined up behind her so far. If he’s a semi-moderate Biden alternative, few voters have actually moved yet.

Continue reading “Who Had a Neutral Quarter?”

Who Had a Bad Quarter?

Yesterday was about the winners. Today we hang out with the losers. You won’t see any of the candidates who dropped out here. None of them started the quarter with a prayer. Succumbing to the inevitable is at worst neutral. We still have plenty of candidates to discuss.

From failing to capitalize to failing to get traction to the grease fire that is Kamala for (not enough of) the People, here’s the dishonorable list:

Amy Klobuchar (D+): She’s ahead of Michael Bennet, Steve Bullock, et al. She didn’t need to drop out like John Hickenlooper. She’s not scorned like John Delaney. But Klobuchar is barely hanging in. Unless her poll numbers improve, she won’t qualify for Debate #5.

And it’s questionable that debates are forwarding her campaign in any way. She gets to appear on Sunday shows with decent regularity. The media takes her as seriously as they can given her poll numbers. There’s just no hook to her campaign. She lacks charisma, and her platform is electability due to her electoral results in Minnesota.

It’s 1000% clear her only path is a Biden implosion. Since he ended the quarter with equal or better numbers than he started it with, Klobuchar had a bad quarter.

Continue reading “Who Had a Bad Quarter?”