fivethirtyeight--2020-02-10--What Are The X-Factors That Could Shake Up New Hampshire?

Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : It ’ s hard to believe that last Monday was the Iowa caucuses and now , it ’ s time for New Hampshire to vote for a Democratic nominee tomorrow .
Obviously , we missed the big X factor of the Iowa caucuses — no results that Monday and still no declared winner because of data issues — but we ’ re done with Iowa ; it ’ s time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going on in the Granite State ?
Bernie Sanders sits atop nearly all of the recent New Hampshire polls we have , and has a 68 percent chance of winning the most votes there , according to our primary forecast , but Pete Buttigieg isn ’ t too far behind Sanders in our polling average and he even led in one recent Suffolk New Hampshire poll .
How would you describe the state of the race ?
And what factors should we be looking at that could affect who wins on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyst ) : I guess a major question is whether voters will strategically funnel toward the two leading candidates — Sanders and Buttigieg — which would hurt someone like Warren ( whose voters maybe move to Sanders ) as well as Biden or Klobuchar ( whose voters possibly move to Buttigieg ) .
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : +1 to that , Geoffrey .
Strategic voting can make primaries unpredictable .
Since New Hampshire looks like a two-man race , that can cause a stampede of support from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front-runners they prefer .
geoffrey.skelley : Perhaps that ’ s part of why Biden went all in on that video attacking Buttigieg , to stall a continued rise ?
natesilver ( Nate Silver , editor in chief ) : I think our model likely has a fairly good handle on New Hampshire .
We have Bernie with a 68 percent chance to win and Buttigieg at 27 percent , which leaves 5 percent with a miracle upset by Warren , Biden or Klobuchar .
That all sounds about right to me .
perry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) : It feels like Sanders is the favorite , but Buttigieg could still win .
Warren and Biden seem likely to be vying for third and fourth .
Klobuchar seems likely to finish fifth , as she doesn ’ t seem as strong as she was in Iowa .
sarahf : I ’ ve wondered Perry , if maybe given what happened in Iowa , it ’ s Biden who finishes fourth or fifth .
New Hampshire is just another state that ’ s really hard for him demographically .
And after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high single digits wouldn ’ t totally shock me .
His footprint and enthusiasm in the state just seems much smaller ( I know , reader , crowd sizes are not the best proxy for a candidate ’ s enthusiasm ) .
His campaign is already lowering expectations in New Hampshire , but I wonder how that would shake up the race going forward .
nrakich : I would caution against any overinterpretation by the media or others if someone like Biden finishes fifth .
If that happens , it would probably only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which really isn ’ t significant .
Similarly , the collapse of Biden or Warren in New Hampshire opens the door for someone like Klobuchar or Gabbard to finish third , which would surely grab some headlines .
But if it ’ s a third-place finish with 10 percent , that ’ s really not all that impressive .
natesilver : I mean , it ’ s not clear to me that the Biden campaign would rather have Buttigieg win New Hampshire than Sanders .
If Buttigieg wins New Hampshire , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a win by Biden in South Carolina could be more impactful .
It ’ s also not clear to me whether that ad will be effective .
It might be !
Reporters on Twitter seem to think it ’ s smart !
But , Buttigieg is also using his lack of Washington experience as an asset , and it seems a bit mean-spirited in a state where voters sort of like civility .
sarahf : Right , mayors … are supposed to revitalize sidewalks ?
geoffrey.skelley : I agree , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended effect .
Voters have likely already factored in Buttigieg ’ s lack of big-time experience at this point .
nrakich : Yeah , Sarah , I found that ad ineffective .
It felt like it was belittling the important , if not world-changing , work that local government does every day .
However , Geoffrey , I ’ m not sure voters have fully priced in Buttigieg ’ s lack of experience .
He hasn ’ t really had a scrutiny cycle this election the way that , say , Warren has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew enough about him to have an opinion , according to an average of polls taken from Dec. 19 to Jan. 15 .
So there is room for more people to learn about him in a negative way .
natesilver : I ’ m not sure I totally agree that Buttigieg hasn ’ t faced scrutiny ?
He ’ s gotten a LOT of media attention , as this is really the third different period of the campaign in which he ’ s perceived to have surged .
nrakich : But very little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think this cycle has shown candidates need to do a bit better than Buttigieg has done so far before they really start to get negative attention .
Look at Warren — she rose in the polls for months , to more than 20 percent , before the narrative really turned against her .
natesilver : I don ’ t know , Rakich , I probably spent too much time on Twitter , where Buttigieg isn ’ t super popular .
sarahf : What do you all think about turnout here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential to be an X-factor ?
It surprised me that turnout was lower in Iowa just given everything around 2018 and record turnout for a midterm .
geoffrey.skelley : New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner — whose main job seems to be protecting New Hampshire ’ s first-in-the-nation presidential primary — predicted 420,000 voters would turn out for the combined Democratic and Republican primaries .
He very specifically predicted — how is unclear — 292,000 Democratic votes and 128,000 GOP ones .
If the Democrats reach that mark , it would basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 2016 Republican primary .
( Democrats had a little over 250,000 votes last time around . )
sarahf : And so if Gardner ’ s predictions are accurate , Geoffrey , that would mean pretty high turnout for Democrats , right ?
geoffrey.skelley : Yeah , that would slightly outpace the 288,000 or so who voted in the 2008 Democratic primary .
Of course , it ’ s important to remember that cycle had two competitive contests going on , whereas the Republican contest this time around isn ’ t competitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could influence how unaffiliated voters choose to behave , as they can vote in either party ’ s primary .
sarahf : I was just going to ask about that .
How much do we think it matters that New Hampshire ’ s primary isn ’ t closed , meaning independents and those not registered as Democrats can still participate ?
Do you think it makes New Hampshire a good general election bellwether test ?
And what does it mean , if anything , for this year ’ s candidates ?
Does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not sure whether it makes New Hampshire a good bellwether .
But independents are a bit more unpredictable and it ’ s one of the things that makes polling harder .
geoffrey.skelley : Well , New Hampshire ’ s turnout as a share of the voting-eligible population in the 2016 primary was 52 percent for the two parties combined .
It ’ s general election turnout was around 72 percent .
While that ’ s a very high presidential primary turnout — New Hampshire tends to have the highest or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not really sure it tells you much about the general election .
perry : Because Buttigieg ( anti-Trump Republicans ) and Sanders ( kind of disaffected voters more broadly ) are both arguing they can appeal outside of traditional Democratic blocs , it will be interesting to see if one or both of them are successful in doing so .
Neither of those candidates are likely to dismiss the role of independents and unaffiliated voters — they are appealing to them as part of their strategy .
natesilver : Independents seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But they ’ re different types of independents .
The Sanders folks are people whose views are probably liberal , or at least eccentric but averaging out to liberal , but who just don ’ t really like the Democratic Party as a concept .
The Buttigieg folks are more your classic crossover independents and moderate Republicans .
There is SOME feeling on the ground here that Buttigieg is prepared to do well with these sorts of independents outside of metro areas , and if he beats his polling here , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : You ’ ve looked into this a little , Geoffrey .
But aren ’ t candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang largely the ones doing well with independents or more conservative voters here in New Hampshire ?
In which case , I ’ m not sure how much New Hampshire ’ s independent streak has an opportunity to be a wild card here .
natesilver : I think they ( Gabbard , Yang ) may be doing well in a RELATIVE sense .
That ’ s why Gabbard might get like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here instead of 2 or 3 percent .
But not in an ABSOLUTE sense .
Sanders and Buttigieg have the highest share of the vote among independents .
geoffrey.skelley : Right , Gabbard ’ s overall support in polls has mostly come from people who identify as independents or even Republican .
So that might help her at the margins , but that isn ’ t going to make her competitive .
It ’ s kind of important to win over Democrats in a Democratic primary — just ask Sanders about his 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t beat Clinton was that he rarely won more support from Democrats than her .
nrakich : Here ’ s a potentially fun X-factor : What if we get a national poll on Monday that says something dramatic ?
Like Biden still has a commanding national lead , or Buttigieg now has 20 percent .
Could that affect New Hampshirites ’ strategic voting , or the media ’ s expectations ?
natesilver : It ’ ll affect our model !
Our model is going to react quite strongly in one direction or another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maybe also fairly strongly to Nevada and South Carolina polls .
I don ’ t know that it ’ ll affect coverage here though .
It might affect Biden ’ s strategy though .
Like , if they think they ’ re still strong in Nevada/South Carolina , that would have some impact .
sarahf : On that note , we still haven ’ t had a horse race poll conducted entirely after Friday ’ s debate .
Do you think there were any last-minute surprises there that the polls might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday ?
Much of pundit-land seems to have thought Amy Klobuchar knocked it out of the park , for instance .
But I wonder if that ’ s enough to help her here in New Hampshire .
Because does a third-place finish vs. a fourth-place finish matter really matter if you ’ re Klobuchar ?
natesilver : Two of the three tracking polls showed a rise for Klobuchar at the expense of Buttigieg .
These are small sample sizes , so one needs to be a little bit careful — and I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ipsos ( of national voters , not New Hampshire ) showed both Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing well .
But , a mini Klobu-surge that hurts Buttigieg and helps Sanders is certainly a plausible story .
nrakich : Yeah , our polling with Ipsos seemed to show a status-quo-preserving debate .
Sanders and Buttigieg , who were already the candidates doing best in New Hampshire , got high marks from viewers .
So did Klobuchar , but she ’ s had strong debates before , and while they probably have helped her get to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see any reason why this one would produce a more sudden surge for her .
geoffrey.skelley : The challenge for Klobuchar is , if she finishes at like 9 percent or something , does she really go on ?
Nevada and South Carolina do not look good for her at all — she ’ s at 3 percent and 2 percent in our polling averages , respectively — and I ’ m not sure you can spin a performance like that in New Hampshire into more support in the next set of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain support from winning or nearly winning , but for someone further down the list , that ’ ll be harder .
Then again , she may just want to make it to Super Tuesday [ March 3 ] to run in her home state of Minnesota — though losing your home state is not a great look .
… natesilver : I think she ’ ll go on if she beats Biden .
Maybe not otherwise .
But who knows !
If it feels like a wide-open race , maybe she stays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plausible compromise candidate down the line .
And as Geoffrey said , Minnesota votes on Super Tuesday .
sarahf : This is probably getting a little ahead of ourselves , because it ’ s not about New Hampshire specifically .
But people usually drop out after Iowa — except given the mess that was Iowa this year , that didn ’ t happen .
But there ’ s usually a second wave after New Hampshire .
Do we think that will hold true ?
Or is this field so fractured and splintered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on ?
nrakich : Yeah , I think Michael Bennet and maybe Deval Patrick drop out after New Hampshire .
geoffrey.skelley : It ’ s been clear that Bennet wanted to keep going at least up to New Hampshire .
So after he wins like 1 percent on Tuesday , that will presumably be the end of the line for him .
Patrick , however , probably wants to hang on until South Carolina .
A Super PAC running ads on his behalf is dropping a fair amount of money there , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : OK , let ’ s end on one or two final X-factors you think could throw a curveball in New Hampshire ’ s primary — and don ’ t say , “ We don ’ t get any votes.
” That would just be cruel and unusual punishment after Iowa .
geoffrey.skelley : I don ’ t think we have to worry about that !
New Hampshire ’ s primary is state-run , not party-run , so it ’ ll use the normal voting apparatus .
In terms of curveballs , Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twist .
The new CBS News/YouGov poll that came out on Sunday had her in a clear third at 17 percent .
We ’ ve heard anecdotally that she has a great ground game here , so maybe she will end up holding onto support better than some polls suggest .
That could help Buttigieg if Warren supporters aren ’ t moving to Sanders .
nrakich : I guess I am just looking for whether Buttigieg ’ s momentum — which has been clear in the day-by-day polls — continues over the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overtake Sanders .
But any disruption in the narrative , from the debate to a national poll to a well-timed attack from another candidate , could in turn disrupt that momentum .
perry : Biden basically conceded in the debate that he wouldn ’ t win New Hampshire .
Probably not ideal ( at least for winning , perhaps smart in terms of expectations setting . )
He released a buzzy video attacking Buttigieg .
I don ’ t know how that plays .
But Biden is the person I ’ m most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could get 19 percent or 9. geoffrey.skelley : Perry , 19 percent would be a W for Biden , so that would be a curveball !
nrakich : Geoffrey , you ’ re just playing into the expectations game !
!
geoffrey.skelley : I ’ m just reading into what the media would say about Biden getting 19 percent .
It would be taken as a win .
nrakich : Just a couple weeks ago , Biden was forecasted to get 20 percent of the vote , on average , in our model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s perceived as a win , his strategy of lowering expectations will have been very successful .
geoffrey.skelley : Sure , but in the aftermath of a rough performance in Iowa , and the downplaying of expectations by Biden , I ’ m pretty sure the press would enthusiastically latch onto a Biden comeback narrative .
nrakich : I think that ’ s probably right .
But people need to take a step back and realize that the right interpretation of that would probably be , “ Iowa was a weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s campaign was on the brink of death , and then he recovered masterfully !
” sarahf : Anyone other than Sanders finishing first , though , would be a pretty big deal .
I could see Sanders ’ s margin only being one or two points , but given the polls we do have , I still think he should win New Hampshire .
But Nathaniel is right in that there ’ s still room for a last-minute surge to take hold .
And yeah , understanding how Biden will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me .
natesilver : I don ’ t know how people ( by which I mean the media ) would react to like a 2-point Sanders win , which is one of the more plausible scenarios .
nrakich : Oh , I guess I ’ m also looking to see how many candidates finish about 15 percent and therefore qualify for delegates .
The more candidates who get delegates , the more chance we have of a ~~ CoNtEsTeD cOnVeNtIoN !
!
!
~~

What Are The X-Factors That Could Shake Up New Hampshire?
Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): It’s hard to believe that last Monday was the Iowa caucuses and now, it’s time for New Hampshire to vote for a Democratic nominee tomorrow. Obviously, we missed the big X factor of the Iowa caucuses — no results that Monday and still no declared winner because of data issues — but we’re done with Iowa; it’s time to talk New Hampshire.
What’s going on in the Granite State? Bernie Sanders sits atop nearly all of the recent New Hampshire polls we have, and has a 68 percent chance of winning the most votes there, according to our primary forecast, but Pete Buttigieg isn’t too far behind Sanders in our polling average and he even led in one recent Suffolk New Hampshire poll. How would you describe the state of the race? And what factors should we be looking at that could affect who wins on Tuesday?
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): I guess a major question is whether voters will strategically funnel toward the two leading candidates — Sanders and Buttigieg — which would hurt someone like Warren (whose voters maybe move to Sanders) as well as Biden or Klobuchar (whose voters possibly move to Buttigieg).
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): +1 to that, Geoffrey. Strategic voting can make primaries unpredictable. Since New Hampshire looks like a two-man race, that can cause a stampede of support from the lower-polling candidates to whichever of the two front-runners they prefer.
geoffrey.skelley: Perhaps that’s part of why Biden went all in on that video attacking Buttigieg, to stall a continued rise?
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I think our model likely has a fairly good handle on New Hampshire. We have Bernie with a 68 percent chance to win and Buttigieg at 27 percent, which leaves 5 percent for a miracle upset by Warren, Biden or Klobuchar. That all sounds about right to me.
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): It feels like Sanders is the favorite, but Buttigieg could still win. Warren and Biden seem likely to be vying for third and fourth. Klobuchar seems likely to finish fifth, as she doesn’t seem as strong as she was in Iowa.
sarahf: I’ve wondered Perry, if maybe given what happened in Iowa, it’s Biden who finishes fourth or fifth. New Hampshire is just another state that’s really hard for him demographically.
And after Iowa, a Biden finish in the high single digits wouldn’t totally shock me. His footprint and enthusiasm in the state just seems much smaller (I know, reader, crowd sizes are not the best proxy for a candidate’s enthusiasm). His campaign is already lowering expectations in New Hampshire, but I wonder how that would shake up the race going forward.
nrakich: I would caution against any overinterpretation by the media or others if someone like Biden finishes fifth. If that happens, it would probably only be by a point or two, which really isn’t significant.
Similarly, the collapse of Biden or Warren in New Hampshire opens the door for someone like Klobuchar or Gabbard to finish third, which would surely grab some headlines. But if it’s a third-place finish with 10 percent, that’s really not all that impressive.
natesilver: I mean, it’s not clear to me that the Biden campaign would rather have Buttigieg win New Hampshire than Sanders. If Buttigieg wins New Hampshire, it’s an extremely wide-open race, and a win by Biden in South Carolina could be more impactful.
It’s also not clear to me whether that ad will be effective. It might be! Reporters on Twitter seem to think it’s smart! But, Buttigieg is also using his lack of Washington experience as an asset, and it seems a bit mean-spirited in a state where voters sort of like civility.
sarahf: Right, mayors … are supposed to revitalize sidewalks?
geoffrey.skelley: I agree, it’s unclear if that ad will have its intended effect. Voters have likely already factored in Buttigieg’s lack of big-time experience at this point.
nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, I found that ad ineffective. It felt like it was belittling the important, if not world-changing, work that local government does every day.
However, Geoffrey, I’m not sure voters have fully priced in Buttigieg’s lack of experience. He hasn’t really had a scrutiny cycle this election the way that, say, Warren has.
And only 73 percent of Democrats knew enough about him to have an opinion, according to an average of polls taken from Dec. 19 to Jan. 15. So there is room for more people to learn about him in a negative way.
natesilver: I’m not sure I totally agree that Buttigieg hasn’t faced scrutiny? He’s gotten a LOT of media attention, as this is really the third different period of the campaign in which he’s perceived to have surged.
nrakich: But very little of that media attention has been negative. I think this cycle has shown candidates need to do a bit better than Buttigieg has done so far before they really start to get negative attention. Look at Warren — she rose in the polls for months, to more than 20 percent, before the narrative really turned against her.
natesilver: I don’t know, Rakich, I probably spent too much time on Twitter, where Buttigieg isn’t super popular.
(I definitely spend too much time on Twitter.)
sarahf: What do you all think about turnout here in New Hampshire? Does that have the potential to be an X-factor? It surprised me that turnout was lower in Iowa just given everything around 2018 and record turnout for a midterm.
geoffrey.skelley: New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner — whose main job seems to be protecting New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary — predicted 420,000 voters would turn out for the combined Democratic and Republican primaries. He very specifically predicted — how is unclear — 292,000 Democratic votes and 128,000 GOP ones. If the Democrats reach that mark, it would basically match the Republican turnout mark of 288,000 in the 2016 Republican primary. (Democrats had a little over 250,000 votes last time around.)
sarahf: And so if Gardner’s predictions are accurate, Geoffrey, that would mean pretty high turnout for Democrats, right?
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, that would slightly outpace the 288,000 or so who voted in the 2008 Democratic primary. Of course, it’s important to remember that cycle had two competitive contests going on, whereas the Republican contest this time around isn’t competitive — sorry, Bill Weld. That could influence how unaffiliated voters choose to behave, as they can vote in either party’s primary.
sarahf: I was just going to ask about that. How much do we think it matters that New Hampshire’s primary isn’t closed, meaning independents and those not registered as Democrats can still participate? Do you think it makes New Hampshire a good general election bellwether test?
And what does it mean, if anything, for this year’s candidates? Does that help Sanders? Buttigieg?
natesilver: I’m not sure whether it makes New Hampshire a good bellwether. But independents are a bit more unpredictable and it’s one of the things that makes polling harder.
geoffrey.skelley: Well, New Hampshire’s turnout as a share of the voting-eligible population in the 2016 primary was 52 percent for the two parties combined. Its general election turnout was around 72 percent. While that’s a very high presidential primary turnout — New Hampshire tends to have the highest or nearly the highest every cycle — I’m not really sure it tells you much about the general election.
perry: Because Buttigieg (anti-Trump Republicans) and Sanders (kind of disaffected voters more broadly) are both arguing they can appeal outside of traditional Democratic blocs, it will be interesting to see if one or both of them are successful in doing so. Neither of those candidates are likely to dismiss the role of independents and unaffiliated voters — they are appealing to them as part of their strategy.
natesilver: Independents seem to like both Buttigieg and Sanders here. But they’re different types of independents. The Sanders folks are people whose views are probably liberal, or at least eccentric but averaging out to liberal, but who just don’t really like the Democratic Party as a concept. The Buttigieg folks are more your classic crossover independents and moderate Republicans. There is SOME feeling on the ground here that Buttigieg is prepared to do well with these sorts of independents outside of metro areas, and if he beats his polling here, that might be a reason why.
sarahf: You’ve looked into this a little, Geoffrey. But aren’t candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang largely the ones doing well with independents or more conservative voters here in New Hampshire? In which case, I’m not sure how much New Hampshire’s independent streak has an opportunity to be a wild card here.
natesilver: I think they (Gabbard, Yang) may be doing well in a RELATIVE sense. That’s why Gabbard might get like 5 or 6 percent of the vote here instead of 2 or 3 percent. But not in an ABSOLUTE sense. Sanders and Buttigieg have the highest share of the vote among independents.
geoffrey.skelley: Right, Gabbard’s overall support in polls has mostly come from people who identify as independents or even Republican. So that might help her at the margins, but that isn’t going to make her competitive.
It’s kind of important to win over Democrats in a Democratic primary — just ask Sanders about his 2016 performance. One reason he couldn’t beat Clinton was that he rarely won more support from Democrats than her.
nrakich: Here’s a potentially fun X-factor: What if we get a national poll on Monday that says something dramatic? Like Biden still has a commanding national lead, or Buttigieg now has 20 percent. Could that affect New Hampshirites’ strategic voting, or the media’s expectations?
natesilver: It’ll affect our model! Our model is going to react quite strongly in one direction or another to the next few national polls, and maybe also fairly strongly to Nevada and South Carolina polls. I don’t know that it’ll affect coverage here though.
It might affect Biden’s strategy though. Like, if they think they’re still strong in Nevada/South Carolina, that would have some impact.
sarahf: On that note, we still haven’t had a horse race poll conducted entirely after Friday’s debate. Do you think there were any last-minute surprises there that the polls might be late to pick up on going into Tuesday?
Much of pundit-land seems to have thought Amy Klobuchar knocked it out of the park, for instance. But I wonder if that’s enough to help her here in New Hampshire. Because does a third-place finish vs. a fourth-place finish matter really matter if you’re Klobuchar?
natesilver: Two of the three tracking polls showed a rise for Klobuchar at the expense of Buttigieg. These are small sample sizes, so one needs to be a little bit careful — and I’d note that our post-debate poll with Ipsos (of national voters, not New Hampshire) showed both Buttigieg and Klobuchar doing well. But, a mini Klobu-surge that hurts Buttigieg and helps Sanders is certainly a plausible story.
nrakich: Yeah, our polling with Ipsos seemed to show a status-quo-preserving debate. Sanders and Buttigieg, who were already the candidates doing best in New Hampshire, got high marks from viewers. So did Klobuchar, but she’s had strong debates before, and while they probably have helped her get to where she is, I don’t see any reason why this one would produce a more sudden surge for her.
geoffrey.skelley: The challenge for Klobuchar is, if she finishes at like 9 percent or something, does she really go on? Nevada and South Carolina do not look good for her at all — she’s at 3 percent and 2 percent in our polling averages, respectively — and I’m not sure you can spin a performance like that in New Hampshire into more support in the next set of contests. Buttigieg might be able to gain support from winning or nearly winning, but for someone further down the list, that’ll be harder.
Then again, she may just want to make it to Super Tuesday [March 3] to run in her home state of Minnesota — though losing your home state is not a great look. …
natesilver: I think she’ll go on if she beats Biden. Maybe not otherwise.
But who knows! If it feels like a wide-open race, maybe she stays in as she’s sort of a plausible compromise candidate down the line. And as Geoffrey said, Minnesota votes on Super Tuesday.
sarahf: This is probably getting a little ahead of ourselves, because it’s not about New Hampshire specifically. But people usually drop out after Iowa — except given the mess that was Iowa this year, that didn’t happen. But there’s usually a second wave after New Hampshire. Do we think that will hold true? Or is this field so fractured and splintered that most candidates are going to cling on?
nrakich: Yeah, I think Michael Bennet and maybe Deval Patrick drop out after New Hampshire.
geoffrey.skelley: It’s been clear that Bennet wanted to keep going at least up to New Hampshire. So after he wins like 1 percent on Tuesday, that will presumably be the end of the line for him.
Patrick, however, probably wants to hang on until South Carolina. A Super PAC running ads on his behalf is dropping a fair amount of money there, for what it’s worth.
sarahf: OK, let’s end on one or two final X-factors you think could throw a curveball in New Hampshire’s primary — and don’t say, “We don’t get any votes.” That would just be cruel and unusual punishment after Iowa.
geoffrey.skelley: I don’t think we have to worry about that! New Hampshire’s primary is state-run, not party-run, so it’ll use the normal voting apparatus.
In terms of curveballs, Warren doing better than expected could be a twist. The new CBS News/YouGov poll that came out on Sunday had her in a clear third at 17 percent. We’ve heard anecdotally that she has a great ground game here, so maybe she will end up holding onto support better than some polls suggest. That could help Buttigieg if Warren supporters aren’t moving to Sanders.
nrakich: I guess I am just looking for whether Buttigieg’s momentum — which has been clear in the day-by-day polls — continues over the final stretch and is enough for him to overtake Sanders. But any disruption in the narrative, from the debate to a national poll to a well-timed attack from another candidate, could in turn disrupt that momentum.
perry: Biden basically conceded in the debate that he wouldn’t win New Hampshire. Probably not ideal (at least for winning, perhaps smart in terms of expectations setting.) He released a buzzy video attacking Buttigieg. I don’t know how that plays. But Biden is the person I’m most interested in — I feel like he could get 19 percent or 9.
geoffrey.skelley: Perry, 19 percent would be a W for Biden, so that would be a curveball!
nrakich: Geoffrey, you’re just playing into the expectations game!!
geoffrey.skelley: I’m just reading into what the media would say about Biden getting 19 percent. It would be taken as a win.
nrakich: Just a couple weeks ago, Biden was forecasted to get 20 percent of the vote, on average, in our model. If he gets 19 percent and that’s perceived as a win, his strategy of lowering expectations will have been very successful.
geoffrey.skelley: Sure, but in the aftermath of a rough performance in Iowa, and the downplaying of expectations by Biden, I’m pretty sure the press would enthusiastically latch onto a Biden comeback narrative.
nrakich: I think that’s probably right. But people need to take a step back and realize that the right interpretation of that would probably be, “Iowa was a weird hiccup for Biden,” not “Biden’s campaign was on the brink of death, and then he recovered masterfully!”
sarahf: Anyone other than Sanders finishing first, though, would be a pretty big deal. I could see Sanders’s margin only being 1 or 2 points, but given the polls we do have, I still think he should win New Hampshire. But Nathaniel is right in that there’s still room for a last-minute surge to take hold. And yeah, understanding how Biden will do remains a bit of a mystery to me.
natesilver: I don’t know how people (by which I mean the media) would react to like a 2-point Sanders win, which is one of the more plausible scenarios.
nrakich: Oh, I guess I’m also looking to see how many candidates finish about 15 percent and therefore qualify for delegates. The more candidates who get delegates, the more chance we have of a ~~ CoNtEsTeD cOnVeNtIoN !!! ~~


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-10--‘This Is A War’: New Hampshire Voters On The Eve Of The Democratic Primary

I ’ ve spent a couple of days in New Hampshire this past week and keep on realizing I ’ ve already been places .
I pulled into a brewery at the end of a dark , windy road ( is everything out of a Robert Frost poem up here ? )
and recognized the refurbished barn from another candidate ’ s tour of the place .
I drove up to my hotel and remembered that I ’ d eaten in its restaurant four years ago .
The snow is the same as in 2016 , too ; big flakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you wish you ’ d thought to bring waterproof mascara .
A lot of the voter talk is the same as four years ago , too .
Namely all the cynicism and worry — What ’ s the matter with America ?
and What ’ s the matter with the media ?
kind of stuff .
The only thing that ’ s different this year is that it ’ s coming from Democrats .
When you see candidates campaigning or voters listening to a stump speech , you don ’ t see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead it ’ s a business-like frenzy to , as Democrats see it , pull the country back from the brink .
“ It ’ s horrible to say but there ’ s more dumb people than I realized , or gullible people that don ’ t listen , ” Catherine Michel , 69 , told me .
We were standing flush to a wall in a VFW hall in Somersworth , watching a Joe Biden event break up .
The former vice president had arrived in the gray morning light in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glued to Biden ’ s face quite a bit these days as he looks to project the cool that seems to be rapidly leaving him with every passing poll .
Michel was there with her husband , David , and they were anxious to see Biden before they made their choice .
They couldn ’ t bear to see President Donald Trump on TV anymore .
“ He reminds me of Mussolini giving a speech , how he juts his jaw out and cocks his face , ” David said .
The Michels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that air of abrasive confidence in the president .
“ Trump is that dishonest bully and dishonest bullies often win , ” Catherine said .
“ It ’ s really scary .
So while I might support Bernie Sanders as the guy to stand up against a bully with lots of energy and just die punching him , is that the way to go ?
Or pick someone in the middle ?
” Jim and Mary from Dover , 78 and 74 , stood outside waiting to see Biden board his bus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ former vice president , but they ’ d entertained other options — Mary had been impressed with Amy Klobuchar ’ s performance during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings .
But Jim , a former registered Republican , said the senator from Minnesota didn ’ t stand a chance in the 2020 fray .
“ In normal times , she might have a chance , right ?
But this is a war .
This is not a nice political process .
This is a war and the poor Democrats think they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a campaign , and Trump is just gon na fight dirtier than anybody can fight , ” he said .
He brought up a friend who likes Rush Limbaugh — Jim is not a fan — and I asked if he thought the country ’ s political climate was in part the fault of the media .
“ No , it ’ s a citizen problem , ” he said .
“ If you watch a cable program with these terrible slams , then you have to make a point of watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two and hopefully you read a newspaper somewhere.
” Mary considered his point .
“ So what you ’ re saying is people should work harder at making their decisions rather than depending on the media to spoon feed it to them ?
” A few hours later , voters in North Hampton nursed beers as they waited for actress Ashley Judd , an Elizabeth Warren surrogate , to arrive .
But those at one table I approached hadn ’ t realized they ’ d walked into a political event .
John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 58 , were friendly , but John told me he ’ d given me a fake last name — media distrust is a constant theme on the trail .
Far from seeking out the political , the couple told me their Republican friends don ’ t even know they ’ re Democrats .
They only talk politics to each other these days , so as not to rock the boat .
“ All it would take was one conversation to blow that all up , ” John said .
He said it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ talk like everyone feels the same way ” about Trump and politics .
Lately , John has found that people make assumptions about what you ’ re OK with .
He ’ d been on a work trip in Texas and , “ I sat in a car with a group of people that were customers and I heard them make racial comments and a few years back they wouldn ’ t have.
” When Judd got up to speak , it was a brief approximation of a politician ’ s speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and her connection to Warren and called Trump ’ s State of the Union “ a moral injury.
” You get used to hearing anyone with a microphone at events like these say the same sorts of things .
But then Judd said something else .
“ Earlier today we had a very extraordinarily moving panel with the incredible people in New Hampshire who work at stopping intimate partner violence and stalking , ” she said .
“ It ’ s a sad thing to say but American men kill American women at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day and that event was open to the press and none of the media chose to come.
” I ’ d seen the email for the event .
I think I thought the drive was too far , simple as that .
If I ’ m really being honest , I didn ’ t think about it all that much .
Probably because American men do kill American women so often and probably because men have been killing the women they know and love since the dawn of time .
Sad , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear the statistic in that cozy New Hampshire bar ; you are alive and they are not .
What ’ s so often lost in the primary rush — the horserace ups and downs — is the primary reason for government : a need to regulate ourselves , to instill order and some semblance of justice in society .
But justice is often as wide as the chancellor ’ s foot — which is to say , wholly unjust .
Still , the sense that society has to wrangle some order is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what sort of order to instill — economic , diplomatic , militaristic .
Sometimes the little things like keeping people alive gets lost in the shuffle .
So too do our individual sensibilities — everything becomes so zoomed out that you can only see a mass of people moving one way or the other , not the component parts .
It ’ s easier to tell that story on television or in 1,200 words .
Catherine Michel ’ s father was a Trump supporter .
He passed away , but when she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the present tense , since parents are always on your shoulder , wherever you are .
She was explaining to me , I think , that he wasn ’ t defined by the last presidential candidate he supported .
“ He raised five girls and a boy .
He ’ s very democratic and loving and liberal and education for the minorities and charity and global warming , of course , ” she said .
“ But then when he listens — the media .
… ” She sort of paused , looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to be really careful .
”

I’ve spent a couple of days in New Hampshire this past week and keep on realizing I’ve already been places. I pulled into a brewery at the end of a dark, windy road (is everything out of a Robert Frost poem up here?) and recognized the refurbished barn from another candidate’s tour of the place. I drove up to my hotel and remembered that I’d eaten in its restaurant four years ago. The snow is the same as in 2016, too; big flakes that catch in your eye and make you wish you’d thought to bring waterproof mascara.
A lot of the voter talk is the same as four years ago, too. Namely all the cynicism and worry — What’s the matter with America? and What’s the matter with the media? kind of stuff. The only thing that’s different this year is that it’s coming from Democrats.
When you see candidates campaigning or voters listening to a stump speech, you don’t see a lot of unbridled merriment or excitement. Instead it’s a business-like frenzy to, as Democrats see it, pull the country back from the brink.
“It’s horrible to say but there’s more dumb people than I realized, or gullible people that don’t listen,” Catherine Michel, 69, told me. We were standing flush to a wall in a VFW hall in Somersworth, watching a Joe Biden event break up. The former vice president had arrived in the gray morning light in his aviator sunglasses, lenses that have been glued to Biden’s face quite a bit these days as he looks to project the cool that seems to be rapidly leaving him with every passing poll.
Michel was there with her husband, David, and they were anxious to see Biden before they made their choice. They couldn’t bear to see President Donald Trump on TV anymore. “He reminds me of Mussolini giving a speech, how he juts his jaw out and cocks his face,” David said. The Michels wanted to know what candidate could puncture that air of abrasive confidence in the president. “Trump is that dishonest bully and dishonest bullies often win,” Catherine said. “It’s really scary. So while I might support Bernie Sanders as the guy to stand up against a bully with lots of energy and just die punching him, is that the way to go? Or pick someone in the middle?”
Jim and Mary from Dover, 78 and 74, stood outside waiting to see Biden board his bus. Both said they would vote for the former vice president, but they’d entertained other options — Mary had been impressed with Amy Klobuchar’s performance during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings. But Jim, a former registered Republican, said the senator from Minnesota didn’t stand a chance in the 2020 fray. “In normal times, she might have a chance, right? But this is a war. This is not a nice political process. This is a war and the poor Democrats think they’re going to have a political process and a campaign, and Trump is just gonna fight dirtier than anybody can fight,” he said. He brought up a friend who likes Rush Limbaugh — Jim is not a fan — and I asked if he thought the country’s political climate was in part the fault of the media. “No, it’s a citizen problem,” he said. “If you watch a cable program with these terrible slams, then you have to make a point of watching the other slams. Then you blend the two and hopefully you read a newspaper somewhere.”
Mary considered his point. “So what you’re saying is people should work harder at making their decisions rather than depending on the media to spoon feed it to them?”
A few hours later, voters in North Hampton nursed beers as they waited for actress Ashley Judd, an Elizabeth Warren surrogate, to arrive. But those at one table I approached hadn’t realized they’d walked into a political event. John and Deanna of Hollis, 67 and 58, were friendly, but John told me he’d given me a fake last name — media distrust is a constant theme on the trail. Far from seeking out the political, the couple told me their Republican friends don’t even know they’re Democrats. They only talk politics to each other these days, so as not to rock the boat. “All it would take was one conversation to blow that all up,” John said. He said it’s uncomfortable for them because their friends “talk like everyone feels the same way” about Trump and politics. Lately, John has found that people make assumptions about what you’re OK with. He’d been on a work trip in Texas and, “I sat in a car with a group of people that were customers and I heard them make racial comments and a few years back they wouldn’t have.”
When Judd got up to speak, it was a brief approximation of a politician’s speech — she talked about her humble roots and her connection to Warren and called Trump’s State of the Union “a moral injury.” You get used to hearing anyone with a microphone at events like these say the same sorts of things. But then Judd said something else.
“Earlier today we had a very extraordinarily moving panel with the incredible people in New Hampshire who work at stopping intimate partner violence and stalking,” she said. “It’s a sad thing to say but American men kill American women at a rate of three to four a day and that event was open to the press and none of the media chose to come.”
I’d seen the email for the event. I think I thought the drive was too far, simple as that. If I’m really being honest, I didn’t think about it all that much. Probably because American men do kill American women so often and probably because men have been killing the women they know and love since the dawn of time. Sad, but wholly typical. But it was lacerating to hear the statistic in that cozy New Hampshire bar; you are alive and they are not.
What’s so often lost in the primary rush — the horserace ups and downs — is the primary reason for government: a need to regulate ourselves, to instill order and some semblance of justice in society. But justice is often as wide as the chancellor’s foot — which is to say, wholly unjust. Still, the sense that society has to wrangle some order is agreed upon. What elections are about is what sort of order to instill — economic, diplomatic, militaristic.
Sometimes the little things like keeping people alive gets lost in the shuffle. So too do our individual sensibilities — everything becomes so zoomed out that you can only see a mass of people moving one way or the other, not the component parts. It’s easier to tell that story on television or in 1,200 words.
Catherine Michel’s father was a Trump supporter. He passed away, but when she spoke about him, it was in the present tense, since parents are always on your shoulder, wherever you are. She was explaining to me, I think, that he wasn’t defined by the last presidential candidate he supported. “He raised five girls and a boy. He’s very democratic and loving and liberal and education for the minorities and charity and global warming, of course,” she said. “But then when he listens — the media. …” She sort of paused, looking for the words. “The media has to be really careful.”


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-10--Election Update: Our First Big National Poll Shows Just How Unsettled The Race Is

It ’ s been a week since Iowa voted , and we have few national polls to help us understand just how much the caucus results — messy though they were — have affected the attitudes of potential Democratic primary voters around the country .
But today Quinnipiac University released a national survey conducted entirely after Iowa voted , and it found a new polling front-runner : Sen. Bernie Sanders , who led the field with 25 percent support .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , meanwhile , fell nine points since Quinnipiac last conducted a national survey in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders has led in a national Quinnipiac survey during the 2020 cycle .
As you can see in our national polling average , the gap between Biden and Sanders is shrinking , too — they ’ re essentially tied at 22 percent .
The Quinnipiac poll also underscored just how fragmented voter support currently is — five candidates polled at least 10 percent .
Just behind Biden , who polled at 17 percent , came former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 15 percent and Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg wasn ’ t too distant of a fifth at 10 percent , which marked a 4-point increase from Quinnipiac ’ s late January poll .
As for how this poll affects our primary forecast , it didn ’ t shift things that dramatically because the model had already anticipated Sanders ’ s national numbers would improve after Iowa while Biden ’ s would fall .
However , the fact that Bloomberg made such a substantial gain — he nearly doubled his support from 8 percent in Quinnipiac ’ s January poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also increasingly likely that no one will win a majority of pledged delegates .
Bottom line : Sanders ’ s gains were already priced in , so the Quinnipiac poll largely fit within the model ’ s expectations , but there ’ s also a lot of uncertainty and a 1 in 4 chance that no single candidate wins a majority .
In the meantime , though , the campaigns ’ immediate focus is New Hampshire , which holds its primary tomorrow .
With the new national poll plus several new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this morning now incorporated into our model , the FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Sanders a 2 in 3 ( 67 percent ) chance of winning the Granite State .
Buttigieg — who had been gaining ground in New Hampshire but whose polling numbers there appear to have leveled out — has a 3 in 10 ( 29 percent ) chance .
No other candidate has more than a 2 percent chance of carrying the state , although our model has Warren and Biden in a tight race for third place — Warren is forecast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on average , while Biden gets 13 percent ( but remember , the margin of error of these estimates is quite large ) .
These odds have changed little over the last few days , in part because we keep getting a ton of New Hampshire polls that say roughly the same thing : Sanders leads , with Buttigieg hovering in striking distance and all other candidates trailing to various degrees .
We ’ ve gotten five polls in just the last 24 hours , including the final installments of the three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The final 7 News/Emerson College poll , conducted Saturday and Sunday , found Sanders at 30 percent , Buttigieg at 23 percent , Klobuchar at 14 percent , Warren at 11 percent and Biden at 10 percent .
When you adjust for Emerson ’ s house effects ( Emerson has tended to show better numbers for Sanders than other pollsters ) , our model interprets this as a 1-point Sanders lead .
• The final Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll , also conducted Saturday and Sunday , gave Sanders 27 percent , Buttigieg 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Warren 12 percent each .
But because Suffolk has historically featured pretty poor numbers for Sanders , our model interprets this as a 10-point Sanders lead .
• And according to the last installment of CNN/University of New Hampshire poll , conducted Feb. 6-9 , Sanders at 29 percent support , Buttigieg at 22 percent , Biden at 11 percent , Warren at 10 percent and Klobuchar at 7 percent .
After our house effects adjustment , the model interprets this as a 5-point Sanders lead .
These final tracking polls disagree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size of Sanders ’ s lead , but are generally positive for Sanders .
Emerson and Suffolk also found Klobuchar making a small charge into third place ; for example , she has gone from 6 percent in Feb. 6-7 ’ s Suffolk poll to 14 percent in this latest one .
This has perhaps come at the cost of blunting Buttigieg ’ s momentum , as his vote share has not changed much over the last few days in either poll , even though he gained several points in them throughout last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN/UNH ’ s poll that we ’ ve gotten have shown little movement for all candidates .
We also got two new non-tracking polls of New Hampshire : • According to the University of Massachusetts Lowell , Sanders has 25 percent in New Hampshire , Buttigieg has 17 percent , Warren 15 percent , Biden 14 percent and Klobuchar 8 percent .
After the house effects adjustment , that ’ s akin to a 7-point Sanders lead .
However , it ’ s worth noting that this poll is a little older than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feb. 4-7 .
• Finally , American Research Group , in a poll fielded Saturday and Sunday , says that Sanders is at 28 percent , Buttigieg is at 20 percent , Biden and Klobuchar are each at 13 percent and Warren is at 11 percent .
That computes to a 5-point Sanders lead in our model , after house effects are considered .
These polls suggest there is still a chance that Warren , Biden or Klobuchar could catch Buttigieg for second place .
However , at the same time , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll we ’ ve seen in New Hampshire this week : Sanders has a modest lead .

It’s been a week since Iowa voted, and we have few national polls to help us understand just how much the caucus results — messy though they were — have affected the attitudes of potential Democratic primary voters around the country. But today Quinnipiac University released a national survey conducted entirely after Iowa voted, and it found a new polling front-runner: Sen. Bernie Sanders, who led the field with 25 percent support.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, fell nine points since Quinnipiac last conducted a national survey in late January. This is the first time Sanders has led in a national Quinnipiac survey during the 2020 cycle. As you can see in our national polling average, the gap between Biden and Sanders is shrinking, too — they’re essentially tied at 22 percent.
The Quinnipiac poll also underscored just how fragmented voter support currently is — five candidates polled at least 10 percent. Just behind Biden, who polled at 17 percent, came former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 15 percent and Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14 percent. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg wasn’t too distant of a fifth at 10 percent, which marked a 4-point increase from Quinnipiac’s late January poll.
As for how this poll affects our primary forecast, it didn’t shift things that dramatically because the model had already anticipated Sanders’s national numbers would improve after Iowa while Biden’s would fall. However, the fact that Bloomberg made such a substantial gain — he nearly doubled his support from 8 percent in Quinnipiac’s January poll to 15 percent — means that it’s also increasingly likely that no one will win a majority of pledged delegates. Bottom line: Sanders’s gains were already priced in, so the Quinnipiac poll largely fit within the model’s expectations, but there’s also a lot of uncertainty and a 1 in 4 chance that no single candidate wins a majority.
In the meantime, though, the campaigns’ immediate focus is New Hampshire, which holds its primary tomorrow. With the new national poll plus several new New Hampshire polls from last night and this morning now incorporated into our model, the FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Sanders a 2 in 3 (67 percent) chance of winning the Granite State. Buttigieg — who had been gaining ground in New Hampshire but whose polling numbers there appear to have leveled out — has a 3 in 10 (29 percent) chance. No other candidate has more than a 2 percent chance of carrying the state, although our model has Warren and Biden in a tight race for third place — Warren is forecast to get 14 percent of the vote, on average, while Biden gets 13 percent (but remember, the margin of error of these estimates is quite large).
These odds have changed little over the last few days, in part because we keep getting a ton of New Hampshire polls that say roughly the same thing: Sanders leads, with Buttigieg hovering in striking distance and all other candidates trailing to various degrees. We’ve gotten five polls in just the last 24 hours, including the final installments of the three tracking polls in the state:
The final 7 News/Emerson College poll, conducted Saturday and Sunday, found Sanders at 30 percent, Buttigieg at 23 percent, Klobuchar at 14 percent, Warren at 11 percent and Biden at 10 percent. When you adjust for Emerson’s house effects (Emerson has tended to show better numbers for Sanders than other pollsters), our model interprets this as a 1-point Sanders lead.
The final Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll, also conducted Saturday and Sunday, gave Sanders 27 percent, Buttigieg 19 percent, Klobuchar 14 percent and Biden and Warren 12 percent each. But because Suffolk has historically featured pretty poor numbers for Sanders, our model interprets this as a 10-point Sanders lead.
And according to the last installment of CNN/University of New Hampshire poll, conducted Feb. 6-9, Sanders at 29 percent support, Buttigieg at 22 percent, Biden at 11 percent, Warren at 10 percent and Klobuchar at 7 percent. After our house effects adjustment, the model interprets this as a 5-point Sanders lead.
These final tracking polls disagree more than they did yesterday about the size of Sanders’s lead, but are generally positive for Sanders. Emerson and Suffolk also found Klobuchar making a small charge into third place; for example, she has gone from 6 percent in Feb. 6-7’s Suffolk poll to 14 percent in this latest one. This has perhaps come at the cost of blunting Buttigieg’s momentum, as his vote share has not changed much over the last few days in either poll, even though he gained several points in them throughout last week. And the three installments of CNN/UNH’s poll that we’ve gotten have shown little movement for all candidates.
We also got two new non-tracking polls of New Hampshire:
According to the University of Massachusetts Lowell, Sanders has 25 percent in New Hampshire, Buttigieg has 17 percent, Warren 15 percent, Biden 14 percent and Klobuchar 8 percent. After the house effects adjustment, that’s akin to a 7-point Sanders lead. However, it’s worth noting that this poll is a little older than the others, as it was conducted Feb. 4-7.
Finally, American Research Group, in a poll fielded Saturday and Sunday, says that Sanders is at 28 percent, Buttigieg is at 20 percent, Biden and Klobuchar are each at 13 percent and Warren is at 11 percent. That computes to a 5-point Sanders lead in our model, after house effects are considered.
These polls suggest there is still a chance that Warren, Biden or Klobuchar could catch Buttigieg for second place. However, at the same time, they confirmed the findings of almost every other poll we’ve seen in New Hampshire this week: Sanders has a modest lead.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-10--Live From Manchester: The Politics Podcast Previews The New Hampshire Primary

At a live show in Manchester , Hew Hampshire , the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew previewed what to expect from @ @ @ @ @ They also debated the likelihood of a contested convention and played a round of “ @ @ @ @ @ You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the @ @ @ @ @ downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If @ @ @ @ @ , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
@ @ @ @ @ show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , @ @ @ @ @ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter @ @ @ @ @

At a live show in Manchester, Hew Hampshire, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew previewed what to expect from the New Hampshire primary. They also debated the likelihood of a contested convention and played a round of “Guess What Americans Think.”
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast Live in Manchester, New Hampshire
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-10--How Much Do Iowa And New Hampshire Actually Matter?

During primary season , we hear a lot about Iowa and New Hampshire , the first two states in the @ @ @ @ @ state has many delegates up for grabs , so why does it seem like they @ @ @ @ @ the nomination ?
We crunched the numbers to see just how important it is to @ @ @ @ @

During primary season, we hear a lot about Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states in the nation to vote. Neither state has many delegates up for grabs, so why does it seem like they are so crucial to winning the nomination? We crunched the numbers to see just how important it is to win the early states.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--What Our Forecast Says About The New Hampshire Primary At The District Level

According to early estimates out of Iowa , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg won 14 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention , Sen. Bernie Sanders won 12 , Sen. Elizabeth Warren won eight , former Vice President Joe Biden won six and Sen. Amy Klobuchar won one .
But how did Klobuchar snag a national delegate when her share of the statewide vote was 12 percent , below the delegate threshold of 15 percent ?
It ’ s because she got more than 15 percent in Iowa ’ s 4th Congressional District , and around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awarded based on results at the district level , not the statewide level .
The same is true in New Hampshire .
Of the Granite State ’ s 24 pledged delegates , eight are divvied up among candidates based on their statewide vote shares , eight are allotted based on their vote shares in the 1st Congressional District and eight are allocated based on their vote shares in the 2nd Congressional District .
The FiveThirtyEight primary forecast model thus estimates the number of pledged delegates each candidate will win at both the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those estimates are pretty much identical in the two districts .
That ’ s because our forecast uses demographic differences to predict how districts might vote differently from each other — and , well , there are few demographic differences between New Hampshire ’ s districts .
For example , both are 91 percent non-Hispanic white , have similar density and religiosity scores and have median household incomes of just over $ 70,000 a year .
So just as it does statewide , our New Hampshire forecast thinks Sanders will pick up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district , with Buttigieg the only other candidate poised to capture a significant number .
Despite the districts ’ overall similarities , the political geography of New Hampshire will remain important for interpreting the election results tonight .
The 1st Congressional District covers eastern New Hampshire , from the Seacoast to the White Mountains .
It juts inland enough to include Manchester , the state ’ s most populous city .
The presence of many well-to-do suburbs around Manchester and along the Massachusetts border makes the 1st District , by a hair , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wealthier half .
Accordingly , while the district still voted for Sanders by 20 points in 2016 , establishment-aligned former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton still did slightly better here than in the state as a whole .
Look for Buttigieg to do well in suburbs like Bedford , one of the few localities Clinton carried in 2016 .
Specifically , the area from Manchester to the Atlantic Ocean is full of high-income suburbs that usually vote Republican in general elections — practically tailor-made for Buttigieg and stated goal of winning over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look for Sanders to do well in population centers like Manchester and college towns like Durham , just as he did in Iowa .
As of Feb. 10 at 5 p.m. Eastern , our model is forecasting Sanders to net an average of 3.6 pledged delegates in the 1st District , while Buttigieg receives an average of 2.7 .
No other candidate is poised to get more than one .
The westerly 2nd Congressional District stretches all the way from the Massachusetts border to New Hampshire ’ s northern tip .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suburbs ( e.g.
, Windham , another town that voted for Clinton in 2016 ) that might go for Buttigieg , but in general it is more rural and working-class than the 1st District .
New Hampshire ’ s rural areas could be a wild card ; Sanders romped there in 2016 ( particularly in the liberal towns along the border with Vermont — Sanders ’ s home state , obviously ) , but Buttigieg won most of the rural counties in Iowa .
Nashua and Concord , the district ’ s two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battleground areas .
In 2016 , the 2nd District voted for Sanders over Clinton by around 25 points , and he is investing in it again in 2020 : He has nine field offices in the district , two more than Buttigieg lists on his website ( Warren has opened 10 offices in the 2nd ) .
Our forecast thinks Sanders will win 3.5 delegates here , on average ; Buttigieg 2.7 ; and no other candidate gets more than one .
In other words , our model is expecting New Hampshire ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which should make the delegate math simple .
But Iowa taught us that sometimes we should expect the unexpected .
Tune into our live blog tonight , where we ’ ll be tracking the results as they come in .

According to early estimates out of Iowa, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg won 14 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention, Sen. Bernie Sanders won 12, Sen. Elizabeth Warren won eight, former Vice President Joe Biden won six and Sen. Amy Klobuchar won one. But how did Klobuchar snag a national delegate when her share of the statewide vote was 12 percent, below the delegate threshold of 15 percent? It’s because she got more than 15 percent in Iowa’s 4th Congressional District, and around two-thirds of Iowa’s delegates are awarded based on results at the district level, not the statewide level.
The same is true in New Hampshire. Of the Granite State’s 24 pledged delegates, eight are divvied up among candidates based on their statewide vote shares, eight are allotted based on their vote shares in the 1st Congressional District and eight are allocated based on their vote shares in the 2nd Congressional District. The FiveThirtyEight primary forecast model thus estimates the number of pledged delegates each candidate will win at both the state and the district level.
Right now, those estimates are pretty much identical in the two districts. That’s because our forecast uses demographic differences to predict how districts might vote differently from each other — and, well, there are few demographic differences between New Hampshire’s districts. For example, both are 91 percent non-Hispanic white, have similar density and religiosity scores and have median household incomes of just over $70,000 a year. So just as it does statewide, our New Hampshire forecast thinks Sanders will pick up most of the delegates in each congressional district, with Buttigieg the only other candidate poised to capture a significant number.
Despite the districts’ overall similarities, the political geography of New Hampshire will remain important for interpreting the election results tonight. The 1st Congressional District covers eastern New Hampshire, from the Seacoast to the White Mountains. It juts inland enough to include Manchester, the state’s most populous city. The presence of many well-to-do suburbs around Manchester and along the Massachusetts border makes the 1st District, by a hair, New Hampshire’s more highly educated and wealthier half. Accordingly, while the district still voted for Sanders by 20 points in 2016, establishment-aligned former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton still did slightly better here than in the state as a whole.
Look for Buttigieg to do well in suburbs like Bedford, one of the few localities Clinton carried in 2016. Specifically, the area from Manchester to the Atlantic Ocean is full of high-income suburbs that usually vote Republican in general elections — practically tailor-made for Buttigieg and stated goal of winning over “future former Republicans.” However, look for Sanders to do well in population centers like Manchester and college towns like Durham, just as he did in Iowa.
As of Feb. 10 at 5 p.m. Eastern, our model is forecasting Sanders to net an average of 3.6 pledged delegates in the 1st District, while Buttigieg receives an average of 2.7. No other candidate is poised to get more than one.
The westerly 2nd Congressional District stretches all the way from the Massachusetts border to New Hampshire’s northern tip. It also contains a handful of those affluent Boston suburbs (e.g., Windham, another town that voted for Clinton in 2016) that might go for Buttigieg, but in general it is more rural and working-class than the 1st District. New Hampshire’s rural areas could be a wild card; Sanders romped there in 2016 (particularly in the liberal towns along the border with Vermont — Sanders’s home state, obviously), but Buttigieg won most of the rural counties in Iowa. Nashua and Concord, the district’s two biggest cities, also could be important battleground areas.
In 2016, the 2nd District voted for Sanders over Clinton by around 25 points, and he is investing in it again in 2020: He has nine field offices in the district, two more than Buttigieg lists on his website (Warren has opened 10 offices in the 2nd). Our forecast thinks Sanders will win 3.5 delegates here, on average; Buttigieg 2.7; and no other candidate gets more than one.
In other words, our model is expecting New Hampshire’s two districts to vote similarly, which should make the delegate math simple. But Iowa taught us that sometimes we should expect the unexpected. Tune into our live blog tonight, where we’ll be tracking the results as they come in.
Joshua Darr contributed research.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--New Hampshire Primary: Live Updates And Results

Search
No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--Eating Pancakes, Ice Fishing And Getting Tattoos With New Hampshire Voters

While in New Hampshire , our fearless podcast host and reporter , Galen Druke , interviewed a number of voters @ @ @ @ @ be voting for in the state ’ s primary , along with their hopes and @ @ @ @ @ Here are four of our favorite conversations .
First up , a conversation with two @ @ @ @ @ young WWE fan ) on a frozen lake .
Next , a chat with a @ @ @ @ @ a tattoo .
Third , a couple Galen met at a diner in Manchester , @ @ @ @ @ a woman who owns a sugar house , where she makes maple syrup .

Eating Pancakes, Ice Fishing And Getting Tattoos With New Hampshire Voters
While in New Hampshire, our fearless podcast host and reporter, Galen Druke, interviewed a number of voters about who they’d be voting for in the state’s primary, along with their hopes and fears for the future. Here are four of our favorite conversations.
First up, a conversation with two ice fishermen (and a young WWE fan) on a frozen lake.
Galen goes ice fishing in Massabesic Lake, NH
Next, a chat with a Los Angeles transplant while getting a tattoo.
Galen gets a tattoo in Manchester, NH
Third, a couple Galen met at a diner in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Galen goes to a diner in Manchester, NH
Finally, a woman who owns a sugar house, where she makes maple syrup.
Galen visits a sugar house in Chester, NH


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--28 Scenarios For What Things Could Look Like After New Hampshire

Manchester , N.H. — After an extremely confusing week in the Democratic presidential primary , I have some bad news : New Hampshire might not resolve as much as you think .
That ’ s for two reasons .
First , our study of past primaries finds that the bounces that result from New Hampshire are only about half as large as the ones that come out of Iowa .
The bounces from Nevada and South Carolina tend to be even smaller .
Instead , it ’ s an event like Super Tuesday that has the potential to produce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the symbolic importance of early-state victories diminishes as the race goes on , and the actual number of delegates at stake matters more , with the media giving more attention to contests in high-population , delegate-rich states like California and Texas , which both vote on Super Tuesday .
New Hampshire is still getting quite a lot of press coverage , obviously , but it also has just 24 delegates .
The second reason is that the leader in New Hampshire polls , Sen. Bernie Sanders , may not see his overall position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barring an extremely unlikely outcome like finishing in fourth place .
On the one hand , a New Hampshire win is largely priced in to Sanders ’ s numbers .
Since our forecast has Sanders winning New Hampshire about 2 out of 3 times , his current chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates nationwide ( 46 percent ) already account for his probable win in New Hampshire .
Furthermore , our model — which attempts to simulate how voters and the media will frame the outcome in New Hampshire — assumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bounce depends on “ expectations.
” ( This is defined as national polls adjusted for regional factors . )
And since Sanders has become the national polling front-runner — and New Hampshire neighbors his home state of Vermont — a win here is largely expected for him .
On the other hand , the primary field is such a mess that a loss here would probably be survivable for Sanders , especially if it is the second-place candidate in New Hampshire polls — former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Iowa , is still only at around 10 percent in national polls and has a lot of work to do to appeal to the more diverse electorates in Nevada and South Carolina .
Buttigieg would certainly become a major contender for the nomination if he won New Hampshire , although it would still be a wide-open process , with Sanders and other candidates having a pretty decent shot .
Let ’ s look at some numbers from our model … and then I ’ ll go ahead and add a major caveat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , here ’ s a list of scenarios based on the winner and his or her margin of victory .
I ’ m only listing scenarios if they occurred at least 100 times in 10,000 simulations ( or 1 percent of the time ) , which means this chart only includes scenarios that involve Sanders or Buttigieg winning .
( Collectively , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have about a 2 percent chance of winning New Hampshire — stranger things have happened !
— @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up more than 100 times . )
A narrow Sanders win ( specifically , by 4 percentage points or less ) would basically preserve the status quo ; he ’ d go from a 46 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates to a 48 percent chance .
Bigger Sanders wins would improve his position , perhaps making him more likely than not to win a majority of pledged delegates .
In a landslide win ( more than 12 percentage points ) , for instance , he ’ d have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A Buttigieg win , on the other hand , would cut Sanders ’ s chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates down to about 1 in 3 .
That ’ s not great for Sanders , although it ’ s hardly a disaster ; the bigger dangers to Sanders have always been a loss to Biden ( who could leap back ahead of him in national polls ) or Warren ( who could overtake him in the progressive “ lane ” ) .
And if we flip the race and look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than Sanders ’ s , New Hampshire matters quite a bit more .
A loss here would put him on the ropes , with other candidates ( Biden , former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , Klobuchar or Warren ) having a claim to being the most viable rival to Sanders , especially as they are polling better than Buttigieg in upcoming states .
And even with a win here , Buttigieg would need a fairly big bounce to become the national front-runner — bigger than the one he got for sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , emphatic win could do a lot more for him than a narrow one .
However , a Buttigieg win in New Hampshire would also increase the likelihood of no one winning a majority of pledged delegates and possibly producing a contested convention .
So if you ’ re rooting for chaos , the scenario you should probably be rooting for is a narrow Buttigieg win , one that would weaken Sanders but that wouldn ’ t necessarily be enough to establish Buttigieg as Sanders ’ s sole rival to the nomination .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t a great scenario for him either way .
Sanders is stronger overall , but Buttigieg is more in Biden ’ s lane .
Warren would probably slightly prefer Buttigieg winning , although the difference is not as large as I would have thought .
Keep in mind that there ’ s also a fair amount of overlap between Buttigieg and Warren voters , in that both candidates primarily rely on college-educated Democrats .
We can examine more detailed scenarios , but they don ’ t necessarily reveal all that much .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the second-place finisher in the race in addition to the winner ’ s victory margin .
Based on our research , the order of finish beyond first doesn ’ t actually matter very much — unless the race is so close that the outcome is ambiguous ( as it is in Iowa ) .
However , the share of the vote a candidate gets does matter , and candidates get a higher vote share on average when they finish in second place .
So Warren could considerably help her chances by beating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance .
Finally , here ’ s a table showing the post-New Hampshire odds based on the order of the top three finishers .
Again , you don ’ t see big differences here based on who finishes in second and third : But here comes that big , gaping caveat that I mentioned before : The media often comes up with inconsistent and even arbitrary framings regardless of the results .
It ’ s largely the media ’ s reaction that dictates the bounce in early states , where there are few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media seems to care quite a bit about who finishes third in New Hampshire .
Does that mean the media doesn ’ t take Sanders and Buttigieg as seriously as it should ?
Well , probably , yeah !
Nonetheless , the buzz among media elites and campaign professionals regarding Biden , Warren and Klobuchar could vary a lot based on the exact order of their finish , and that could affect the outcome in a number of ways in subsequent states , more so than our model assumes .
Keep in mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairly crude educated guess about these scenarios .
The only way to know for sure about how big the bounce will be is to wait for the polls , and the model will rapidly adjust once post-New Hampshire polls are published .

Manchester, N.H. — After an extremely confusing week in the Democratic presidential primary, I have some bad news: New Hampshire might not resolve as much as you think.
That’s for two reasons. First, our study of past primaries finds that the bounces that result from New Hampshire are only about half as large as the ones that come out of Iowa. The bounces from Nevada and South Carolina tend to be even smaller. Instead, it’s an event like Super Tuesday that has the potential to produce a big bounce. Our research finds that the symbolic importance of early-state victories diminishes as the race goes on, and the actual number of delegates at stake matters more, with the media giving more attention to contests in high-population, delegate-rich states like California and Texas, which both vote on Super Tuesday. New Hampshire is still getting quite a lot of press coverage, obviously, but it also has just 24 delegates.
The second reason is that the leader in New Hampshire polls, Sen. Bernie Sanders, may not see his overall position fundamentally change by whatever happens tonight — barring an extremely unlikely outcome like finishing in fourth place.
On the one hand, a New Hampshire win is largely priced in to Sanders’s numbers. Since our forecast has Sanders winning New Hampshire about 2 out of 3 times, his current chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates nationwide ( 46 percent) already account for his probable win in New Hampshire. Furthermore, our model — which attempts to simulate how voters and the media will frame the outcome in New Hampshire — assumes the magnitude of a candidate’s bounce depends on “expectations.” (This is defined as national polls adjusted for regional factors.) And since Sanders has become the national polling front-runner — and New Hampshire neighbors his home state of Vermont — a win here is largely expected for him.
Visiting Bernie Sandersâs biggest rally in New Hampshire
On the other hand, the primary field is such a mess that a loss here would probably be survivable for Sanders, especially if it is the second-place candidate in New Hampshire polls — former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — who ultimately wins. Buttigieg, even after Iowa, is still only at around 10 percent in national polls and has a lot of work to do to appeal to the more diverse electorates in Nevada and South Carolina. Buttigieg would certainly become a major contender for the nomination if he won New Hampshire, although it would still be a wide-open process, with Sanders and other candidates having a pretty decent shot.
Let’s look at some numbers from our model … and then I’ll go ahead and add a major caveat to everything that I said above.
First, here’s a list of scenarios based on the winner and his or her margin of victory. I’m only listing scenarios if they occurred at least 100 times in 10,000 simulations (or 1 percent of the time), which means this chart only includes scenarios that involve Sanders or Buttigieg winning. (Collectively, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have about a 2 percent chance of winning New Hampshire — stranger things have happened! — but no one scenario involving them came up more than 100 times.)
How New Hampshire could affect nomination odds, Part I Based on winner and margin of victory, according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast chance of winning the majority of delegates overall Winner ▲ ▼
NH Margin ▲ ▼
Biden ▲ ▼
Sanders ▲ ▼
Warren ▲ ▼
Buttigieg ▲ ▼
Other ▲ ▼
None ▲ ▼
Sanders large 12% 57% 4% 1% 2% 24% Sanders medium 13 53 4 2 2 25 Sanders narrow 15 48 5 2 2 27 Buttigieg large 13 31 5 18 4 29 Buttigieg medium 16 34 5 11 3 32 Buttigieg narrow 15 33 5 10 4 33 Specifically, we’re defining a “narrow” win as anything less than 4 percentage points over the second-place candidate, a “medium” win as 4 to 12 percentage points, and a “large” win as more than 12 percentage points. Scenarios are only listed if they had at least a 1 percent chance of occurring.
A narrow Sanders win (specifically, by 4 percentage points or less) would basically preserve the status quo; he’d go from a 46 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates to a 48 percent chance. Bigger Sanders wins would improve his position, perhaps making him more likely than not to win a majority of pledged delegates. In a landslide win (more than 12 percentage points), for instance, he’d have a 57 percent chance of getting that majority.
A Buttigieg win, on the other hand, would cut Sanders’s chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates down to about 1 in 3. That’s not great for Sanders, although it’s hardly a disaster; the bigger dangers to Sanders have always been a loss to Biden (who could leap back ahead of him in national polls) or Warren (who could overtake him in the progressive “lane”).
And if we flip the race and look at things from Buttigieg’s perspective rather than Sanders’s, New Hampshire matters quite a bit more. A loss here would put him on the ropes, with other candidates (Biden, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Klobuchar or Warren) having a claim to being the most viable rival to Sanders, especially as they are polling better than Buttigieg in upcoming states. And even with a win here, Buttigieg would need a fairly big bounce to become the national front-runner — bigger than the one he got for sort of halfway winning Iowa. A big, emphatic win could do a lot more for him than a narrow one.
However, a Buttigieg win in New Hampshire would also increase the likelihood of no one winning a majority of pledged delegates and possibly producing a contested convention. So if you’re rooting for chaos, the scenario you should probably be rooting for is a narrow Buttigieg win, one that would weaken Sanders but that wouldn’t necessarily be enough to establish Buttigieg as Sanders’s sole rival to the nomination.
As for Biden, there just isn’t a great scenario for him either way. Sanders is stronger overall, but Buttigieg is more in Biden’s lane. Warren would probably slightly prefer Buttigieg winning, although the difference is not as large as I would have thought. Keep in mind that there’s also a fair amount of overlap between Buttigieg and Warren voters, in that both candidates primarily rely on college-educated Democrats.
We can examine more detailed scenarios, but they don’t necessarily reveal all that much. Here’s a table that accounts for the second-place finisher in the race in addition to the winner’s victory margin.
How New Hampshire could affect nomination odds, Part II Based on winner, margin of victory and second-place candidate, according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast chance of winning the majority of delegates overall winner ▲ ▼
NH margin ▲ ▼
2nd ▲ ▼
BID. ▲ ▼
SAN. ▲ ▼
WAR. ▲ ▼
BUT. ▲ ▼
Other ▲ ▼
None ▲ ▼
Sanders large Biden 13% 57% 4% 0% 3% 23% Sanders large Buttigieg 12 56 4 1 2 24 Sanders large Warren 11 59 4 3 2 22 Sanders medium Biden 16 47 4 3 2 28 Sanders medium Buttigieg 13 53 4 2 2 25 Sanders medium Klobuchar 13 55 2 3 3 24 Sanders medium Warren 11 53 6 1 3 26 Sanders narrow Buttigieg 14 49 5 2 2 27 Sanders narrow Warren 16 41 10 1 3 29 Buttigieg large Sanders 13 31 6 16 5 29 Buttigieg medium Sanders 16 34 4 11 3 32 Buttigieg narrow Sanders 15 34 5 10 4 33 Specifically, we’re defining a “narrow” win as anything less than 4 percentage points over the second-place candidate, a “medium” win as 4 to 12 percentage points, and a “large” win as more than 12 percentage points. Scenarios are only listed if they had at least a 1 percent chance of occurring.
Based on our research, the order of finish beyond first doesn’t actually matter very much — unless the race is so close that the outcome is ambiguous (as it is in Iowa). However, the share of the vote a candidate gets does matter, and candidates get a higher vote share on average when they finish in second place. So Warren could considerably help her chances by beating her polls and finishing second, for instance.
Finally, here’s a table showing the post-New Hampshire odds based on the order of the top three finishers. Again, you don’t see big differences here based on who finishes in second and third:
How New Hampshire could affect nomination odds, Part III Based on winner, second and third place candidate, according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast chance of winning the majority of delegates overall winner ▲ ▼
2nd ▲ ▼
3rd ▲ ▼
BID. ▲ ▼
SAN. ▲ ▼
WAR. ▲ ▼
BUT. ▲ ▼
Other ▲ ▼
None ▲ ▼
Sanders Buttigieg Biden 14% 52% 4% 2% 3% 25% Sanders Buttigieg Klobuchar 13 53 5 2 2 26 Sanders Buttigieg Warren 12 53 5 2 2 26 Sanders Biden Buttigieg 16 49 4 2 3 25 Sanders Klobuchar Buttigieg 12 55 4 4 3 21 Sanders Warren Buttigieg 11 53 6 2 2 26 Buttigieg Sanders Biden 19 33 4 11 3 31 Buttigieg Sanders Klobuchar 11 36 6 12 3 33 Buttigieg Sanders Warren 14 34 6 11 4 32 Buttigieg Warren Sanders 16 30 7 14 0 33 Specifically, we’re defining a “narrow” win as anything less than 4 percentage points over the second-place candidate, a “medium” win as 4 to 12 percentage points, and a “large” win as more than 12 percentage points. Scenarios are only listed if they had at least a 1 percent chance of occurring.
But here comes that big, gaping caveat that I mentioned before: The media often comes up with inconsistent and even arbitrary framings regardless of the results. It’s largely the media’s reaction that dictates the bounce in early states, where there are few actual delegates at stake. And the media seems to care quite a bit about who finishes third in New Hampshire. Does that mean the media doesn’t take Sanders and Buttigieg as seriously as it should? Well, probably, yeah!
Nonetheless, the buzz among media elites and campaign professionals regarding Biden, Warren and Klobuchar could vary a lot based on the exact order of their finish, and that could affect the outcome in a number of ways in subsequent states, more so than our model assumes. Keep in mind that our model is just making a fairly crude educated guess about these scenarios. The only way to know for sure about how big the bounce will be is to wait for the polls, and the model will rapidly adjust once post-New Hampshire polls are published.