fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--Our Final Forecast For The New Hampshire Primary

Because very few national polls were released after Iowa , we ’ ve been eagerly awaiting Monmouth University ’ s latest national poll even as ballots are cast in New Hampshire .
That data has now been incorporated into the model , and with just a few hours until the first polling places close , we ’ ve frozen the forecast — candidates ’ odds won ’ t update and no new information will be added until after New Hampshire results are available .
First , here ’ s what our model says about candidates ’ overall chances of winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into tonight ’ s vote , Sen. Bernie Sanders is the candidate most likely to win a majority of pledged delegates overall , with a roughly a 1 in 2 ( 46 percent ) shot .
But after a Sanders majority , the next-most-likely outcome is that no single candidate will win a majority of pledged delegates , which has about a 1 in 4 ( 27 percent ) chance of happening .
Former Vice President Joe Biden is then the candidate with the next-best chance of winning a majority ( 14 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from where he stood before the Iowa caucuses ( 43 percent ) .
Meanwhile , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren both have a 1 in 20 ( 5 percent ) shot of getting a majority of pledged delegates in the primary , and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a 1 in 40 ( 3 percent ) chance .
As for New Hampshire , our forecast suggests Sanders is likely to win the most votes , with a 2 in 3 ( 67 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pull an upset in New Hampshire , as he has about a 3 in 10 ( 31 percent ) chance of winning the most votes .
The potential for the other candidates to finish first is low , with Warren having a 1 percent shot of winning the most votes , and Biden and Klobuchar each at less than 1 percent .
The polls heading into New Hampshire have been pretty clear : Sanders has a fairly comfortable lead .
Buttigieg has seen a bounce post-Iowa , but that has started to level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why our forecast thinks Sanders still has the best shot of winning the most votes in New Hampshire .
In fact , things look pretty good for Sanders more generally .
There haven ’ t been that many national polls since Iowa , but three more have come out since yesterday afternoon , and all of them show Sanders ahead of Biden to varying degrees : • On Monday evening , Reuters/Ipsos found Sanders leading Biden 20 percent to 17 percent , with Bloomberg close behind at 15 percent , Warren at 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This marked a reversal from their last survey before Iowa , which had Biden ahead of Sanders , 22 percent to 19 percent .
But once we adjusted the new post-Iowa survey for house effects — Ipsos hasn ’ t had great numbers for Biden this cycle , so our model adjusts him upward a little bit in these polls to compensate — our model treated this latest poll as a tie between him and Sanders .
• Morning Consult ’ s latest national poll also found Sanders up , 25 to 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meanwhile , came in third at 17 percent while Buttigieg and Warren were tied at 11 percent .
This was also a switch from Morning Consult ’ s last poll before Iowa , which had Biden ahead of Sanders , 28 percent to 24 percent .
• And lastly , that Monmouth poll had the best news for Sanders as it found him up 10 points over Biden , 26 percent to 16 percent .
Buttigieg and Warren were tied for third at 13 percent each , and Bloomberg was in fourth at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have much of a house effect for any of the candidates , our model took this new survey pretty much at face value , making it a very nice poll for Sanders .
As for the last three New Hampshire surveys we have , they largely echo what other late surveys of the Granite State — and our model — show : Sanders is leading , but Buttigieg is within striking distance , while the rest of the field lags several points behind .
• Elucd , a polling outfit started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found Sanders leading Buttigieg by 6 points , 26 percent to 20 percent , with Klobuchar back at 12 percent , Warren at 10 percent and Biden at just 8 percent .
( This is our first horse-race poll from this pollster , so we can ’ t compare it to previous polls . )
• Data for Progress also took a look at New Hampshire and found Sanders only slightly ahead of Buttigieg , 28 percent to 26 percent .
Meanwhile , Warren and Klobuchar were battling for third place at 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elucd ’ s poll , Biden was in the single digits ( 9 percent ) .
• AtlasIntel had maybe the most provocative final survey of the New Hampshire race as it found Buttigieg and Sanders tied for first at 24 percent .
The other main contenders were bunched together , with Klobuchar at 14 percent , Biden at 12 percent and Warren at 11 percent .
Adjusting this poll for house effects in our model gave Buttigieg a 2-point lead over Sanders .
Taken together , these polls show Sanders with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest Buttigieg could still overtake him .
It ’ s also possible that Klobuchar is inching toward a third-place finish , which , if it happens , could help her remain in the race for some time to come .
None of the surveys offered much good news for Warren or Biden , though you can never rule out surprises in New Hampshire .
Regardless , we ’ ll be following all the results tonight on our live blog , so please join us as we dig into the numbers and analyze what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contest .

Because very few national polls were released after Iowa, we’ve been eagerly awaiting Monmouth University’s latest national poll even as ballots are cast in New Hampshire. That data has now been incorporated into the model, and with just a few hours until the first polling places close, we’ve frozen the forecast — candidates’ odds won’t update and no new information will be added until after New Hampshire results are available.
First, here’s what our model says about candidates’ overall chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates. Coming into tonight’s vote, Sen. Bernie Sanders is the candidate most likely to win a majority of pledged delegates overall, with a roughly a 1 in 2 (46 percent) shot. But after a Sanders majority, the next-most-likely outcome is that no single candidate will win a majority of pledged delegates, which has about a 1 in 4 (27 percent) chance of happening. Former Vice President Joe Biden is then the candidate with the next-best chance of winning a majority (14 percent) though that represents quite a fall from where he stood before the Iowa caucuses (43 percent). Meanwhile, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren both have a 1 in 20 (5 percent) shot of getting a majority of pledged delegates in the primary, and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a 1 in 40 (3 percent) chance.
As for New Hampshire, our forecast suggests Sanders is likely to win the most votes, with a 2 in 3 (67 percent) shot. But Buttigieg could still pull an upset in New Hampshire, as he has about a 3 in 10 (31 percent) chance of winning the most votes. The potential for the other candidates to finish first is low, with Warren having a 1 percent shot of winning the most votes, and Biden and Klobuchar each at less than 1 percent.
The polls heading into New Hampshire have been pretty clear: Sanders has a fairly comfortable lead. Buttigieg has seen a bounce post-Iowa, but that has started to level off in recent days, which is why our forecast thinks Sanders still has the best shot of winning the most votes in New Hampshire.
In fact, things look pretty good for Sanders more generally. There haven’t been that many national polls since Iowa, but three more have come out since yesterday afternoon, and all of them show Sanders ahead of Biden to varying degrees:
On Monday evening, Reuters/Ipsos found Sanders leading Biden 20 percent to 17 percent, with Bloomberg close behind at 15 percent, Warren at 11 percent and Buttigieg at 8 percent. This marked a reversal from their last survey before Iowa, which had Biden ahead of Sanders, 22 percent to 19 percent. But once we adjusted the new post-Iowa survey for house effects — Ipsos hasn’t had great numbers for Biden this cycle, so our model adjusts him upward a little bit in these polls to compensate — our model treated this latest poll as a tie between him and Sanders.
Morning Consult’s latest national poll also found Sanders up, 25 to 22 percent, over Biden. Bloomberg, meanwhile, came in third at 17 percent while Buttigieg and Warren were tied at 11 percent. This was also a switch from Morning Consult’s last poll before Iowa, which had Biden ahead of Sanders, 28 percent to 24 percent.
And lastly, that Monmouth poll had the best news for Sanders as it found him up 10 points over Biden, 26 percent to 16 percent. Buttigieg and Warren were tied for third at 13 percent each, and Bloomberg was in fourth at 11 percent. And because Monmouth doesn’t have much of a house effect for any of the candidates, our model took this new survey pretty much at face value, making it a very nice poll for Sanders.
As for the last three New Hampshire surveys we have, they largely echo what other late surveys of the Granite State — and our model — show: Sanders is leading, but Buttigieg is within striking distance, while the rest of the field lags several points behind.
Elucd, a polling outfit started by a former Obama campaign staffer, found Sanders leading Buttigieg by 6 points, 26 percent to 20 percent, with Klobuchar back at 12 percent, Warren at 10 percent and Biden at just 8 percent. (This is our first horse-race poll from this pollster, so we can’t compare it to previous polls.)
Data for Progress also took a look at New Hampshire and found Sanders only slightly ahead of Buttigieg, 28 percent to 26 percent. Meanwhile, Warren and Klobuchar were battling for third place at 14 percent and 13 percent. Similar to Elucd’s poll, Biden was in the single digits (9 percent).
AtlasIntel had maybe the most provocative final survey of the New Hampshire race as it found Buttigieg and Sanders tied for first at 24 percent. The other main contenders were bunched together, with Klobuchar at 14 percent, Biden at 12 percent and Warren at 11 percent. Adjusting this poll for house effects in our model gave Buttigieg a 2-point lead over Sanders.
Taken together, these polls show Sanders with an edge in New Hampshire, but they suggest Buttigieg could still overtake him. It’s also possible that Klobuchar is inching toward a third-place finish, which, if it happens, could help her remain in the race for some time to come. None of the surveys offered much good news for Warren or Biden, though you can never rule out surprises in New Hampshire. Regardless, we’ll be following all the results tonight on our live blog, so please join us as we dig into the numbers and analyze what New Hampshire means for the Democratic nomination contest.
Visiting Bernie Sandersâs biggest rally in New Hampshire


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--Americans Were Already Primed To Distrust Elections. Then Came Iowa.

When the Iowa caucuses went to hell in a handbasket last week , they probably took some of Americans ’ last morsels of trust in the political system down too .
But when I asked political scientists and psychologists about the impact of the bungled caucuses on overall political cynicism , they , by and large , weren ’ t particularly concerned .
The vast majority of voters probably won ’ t care all that much , they said ; instead , these experts are more worried about the indirect effects .
Long after the shoddy apps have been forgotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trickling down from political elites to everyone else .
We ’ re already primed to think something ’ s wrong with our voting system .
Even before the caucuses , more than 40 percent of Americans felt the country wasn ’ t prepared to keep the November elections secure , and 45 percent thought it was likely that not all votes were going to be counted .
Partisans of a losing candidate are less likely to believe their vote was counted correctly , while winners get a boost in electoral confidence that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debacle is important because it caused political elites to be as openly distrustful as some voters already are .
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez tweeted an exasperated-sounding call for a recanvass of the results .
Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard railed against the lack of transparency and integrity in the caucuses .
Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign has also questioned the integrity of the process .
And President Trump ’ s two eldest sons both claimed that the caucuses had been rigged .
( There is no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — just that the reporting process was run incompetently . )
These are all people at the top of the political influence pyramid , who have fans who share their political ideology and who have the media attention necessary to make their opinions widely known .
The public doesn ’ t just thoughtlessly follow what these political elites say , of course , but study after study has shown that what they say does matter .
For example , one 2018 paper used Trump ’ s campaign rhetoric about Mexican immigrants to conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public opinion .
The study compared the results of a fortuitously timed Gallup poll that asked about immigrants and immigration .
Some of the poll was conducted before Trump ’ s June 16 , 2015 , speech where he called immigrants “ rapists ” and criminals , and some of the poll was conducted afterwards .
The study found that public opinion against immigration hardened after the speech — the share of Americans who wanted to see less immigration jumped from 25 percent the day of the speech to 39 percent 10 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
It works when losers believe there ’ s been a fair election , ” said Rick Hasen , a professor of law and political science at the University of California , Irvine .
“ And that ’ s something that we ’ ve taken for granted in this country for a long time.
” But it ’ s becoming more acceptable for political elites to challenge the outcomes of elections and make claims of fraud or outright electoral theft .
Trump , after all , spent most of his 2016 campaign alleging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be stolen from him .
That ’ s a problem for the future of democracy , said Eitan Hersch , a professor of political science at Tufts University and past FiveThirtyEight contributor , and unlike a lot of other political problems this country faces , it ’ s one that both parties are engaging in .
“ Both parties have an incentive to rile their base with discussion of elections being stolen , ” he told me .
“ And that ’ s probably bad for the system if people increasingly believe elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be what is happening .
What ’ s more , researchers are starting to suspect that the way outrage and accusations of stolen elections trickle down might do more than indirectly reduce trust — it could also lead the most level-headed voters to disengage from politics .
This is a fairly new idea , rooted in attempts to better understand a particular demographic of American voters — people who call themselves independents but really aren ’ t .
Although the Pew Research Center has found that 38 percent of Americans say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent in 1994 ) , the vast majority of them are actually “ leaners ” — people who cop to having at least some level of party affiliation .
Only 7 percent of independents are actually independent .
The rest behave pretty similarly to partisans : Their beliefs and votes mostly track with those of their sorta favored party .
Yanna Krupnikov , a professor of political science at Stony Brook University , has been studying this demographic , trying to figure out what its deal is .
She ’ s come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much noncommittal as annoyed and disaffected .
For example , while leaners mostly act like partisans , they do report lower rates of voting than partisans .
They ’ re also more likely to have negative opinions about both parties and dislike the candidates they have to choose from at all levels of government .
Leaners may vote the same as partisans ( when they do vote ) , but they aren ’ t happy about it .
And Krupnikov thinks that unhappiness stems from being sick and tired of hearing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of partisans who are heavily emotionally invested in the minutiae of politics .
These partisans matter , said Krupnikov and others , because they ’ re the ones listening to political elites and helping relay elites ’ ideas to the masses .
But often times , the masses don ’ t want to hear about it .
When leaners hear about what happened in Iowa from news-obsessed partisans , “ it might persuade you that politics is about being angry and that politics isn ’ t for you , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves independents when they are reminded that partisans are constantly bickering with each other.
” Krupnikov ’ s fear is that the outrage coming from elites and rank-and-file partisans could lead to more disaffected Americans who vote less and are less engaged in the political system .
That concerns Hasen , too .
There are studies that suggest the people most emotionally invested in politics — the ones who are seeking out the most information about it — are the ones most likely to be misled by inaccurate information .
America needs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excitable , he told me .
The risk of Iowa is that the partisans shouting about it will drive them away .

When the Iowa caucuses went to hell in a handbasket last week, they probably took some of Americans’ last morsels of trust in the political system down too. But when I asked political scientists and psychologists about the impact of the bungled caucuses on overall political cynicism, they, by and large, weren’t particularly concerned. The vast majority of voters probably won’t care all that much, they said; instead, these experts are more worried about the indirect effects. Long after the shoddy apps have been forgotten, mistrust and bitterness could still be trickling down from political elites to everyone else.
We’re already primed to think something’s wrong with our voting system. Even before the caucuses, more than 40 percent of Americans felt the country wasn’t prepared to keep the November elections secure, and 45 percent thought it was likely that not all votes were going to be counted. Partisans of a losing candidate are less likely to believe their vote was counted correctly, while winners get a boost in electoral confidence that can last for months.
But the Iowa debacle is important because it caused political elites to be as openly distrustful as some voters already are. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez tweeted an exasperated-sounding call for a recanvass of the results. Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard railed against the lack of transparency and integrity in the caucuses. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign has also questioned the integrity of the process. And President Trump’s two eldest sons both claimed that the caucuses had been rigged. (There is no evidence to suggest the caucus results were altered — just that the reporting process was run incompetently.)
These are all people at the top of the political influence pyramid, who have fans who share their political ideology and who have the media attention necessary to make their opinions widely known. The public doesn’t just thoughtlessly follow what these political elites say, of course, but study after study has shown that what they say does matter.
For example, one 2018 paper used Trump’s campaign rhetoric about Mexican immigrants to conduct a natural experiment in how elites shape public opinion. The study compared the results of a fortuitously timed Gallup poll that asked about immigrants and immigration. Some of the poll was conducted before Trump’s June 16, 2015, speech where he called immigrants “rapists” and criminals, and some of the poll was conducted afterwards. The study found that public opinion against immigration hardened after the speech — the share of Americans who wanted to see less immigration jumped from 25 percent the day of the speech to 39 percent 10 days later.
“How does democracy work? It works when losers believe there’s been a fair election,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. “And that’s something that we’ve taken for granted in this country for a long time.”
But it’s becoming more acceptable for political elites to challenge the outcomes of elections and make claims of fraud or outright electoral theft. Trump, after all, spent most of his 2016 campaign alleging that the election he eventually won would be stolen from him.
That’s a problem for the future of democracy, said Eitan Hersch, a professor of political science at Tufts University and past FiveThirtyEight contributor, and unlike a lot of other political problems this country faces, it’s one that both parties are engaging in. “Both parties have an incentive to rile their base with discussion of elections being stolen,” he told me. “And that’s probably bad for the system if people increasingly believe elections aren’t fair.” That seems to be what is happening.
What’s more, researchers are starting to suspect that the way outrage and accusations of stolen elections trickle down might do more than indirectly reduce trust — it could also lead the most level-headed voters to disengage from politics.
This is a fairly new idea, rooted in attempts to better understand a particular demographic of American voters — people who call themselves independents but really aren’t. Although the Pew Research Center has found that 38 percent of Americans say they’re independents (up from 33 percent in 1994), the vast majority of them are actually “leaners” — people who cop to having at least some level of party affiliation. Only 7 percent of independents are actually independent. The rest behave pretty similarly to partisans: Their beliefs and votes mostly track with those of their sorta favored party.
Yanna Krupnikov, a professor of political science at Stony Brook University, has been studying this demographic, trying to figure out what its deal is. She’s come to the conclusion that these folks are not so much noncommittal as annoyed and disaffected. For example, while leaners mostly act like partisans, they do report lower rates of voting than partisans. They’re also more likely to have negative opinions about both parties and dislike the candidates they have to choose from at all levels of government. Leaners may vote the same as partisans (when they do vote), but they aren’t happy about it.
And Krupnikov thinks that unhappiness stems from being sick and tired of hearing the complaints of partisans — particularly the minority of partisans who are heavily emotionally invested in the minutiae of politics. These partisans matter, said Krupnikov and others, because they’re the ones listening to political elites and helping relay elites’ ideas to the masses. But often times, the masses don’t want to hear about it.
When leaners hear about what happened in Iowa from news-obsessed partisans, “it might persuade you that politics is about being angry and that politics isn’t for you,” she said. “People become more likely to call themselves independents when they are reminded that partisans are constantly bickering with each other.”
Krupnikov’s fear is that the outrage coming from elites and rank-and-file partisans could lead to more disaffected Americans who vote less and are less engaged in the political system. That concerns Hasen, too. There are studies that suggest the people most emotionally invested in politics — the ones who are seeking out the most information about it — are the ones most likely to be misled by inaccurate information. America needs the influence of the people who are less excitable, he told me.
The risk of Iowa is that the partisans shouting about it will drive them away.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--Who Are These New Hampshire Voters Deciding Who Should Run Against Trump?

Every four years , the media descends on New Hampshire to cover the state ’ s primary .
Who are @ @ @ @ @ the media cares so much about — and who can have such a big effect @ @ @ @ @ the nomination ?

Every four years, the media descends on New Hampshire to cover the state’s primary. Who are these New Hampshire voters that the media cares so much about — and who can have such a big effect on which candidate ultimately wins the nomination?


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-12--Sanders Is The Front-Runner After New Hampshire, And A Contested Convention Has Become More Likely

The Democratic primary is in a confusing state at the moment .
And our forecast model is a little confused , also .
There are a couple of assumptions it ’ s making about how the polls may react to New Hampshire that may not be entirely right .
The model is also limited by the lack of polling in states after New Hampshire , most notably Nevada and South Carolina .
So we ’ d encourage you to take the model with a large grain of salt until some of that post-New Hampshire polling comes in .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confident about are two things that I ’ m happy to vouch for : • Model takeaway No .
1 : Bernie Sanders is the most likely person to win the Democratic nomination .
• Model takeaway No .
2 : The chance of there being no pledged delegate majority — which could potentially lead to a contested convention — is high and increasing .
I ’ m going to be relatively brief here as I ’ m writing this at 2 a.m. in the morning .
But let ’ s take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s contention that he ’ s the closest thing to a frontrunner in this race seems inescapable to me .
Sanders won the popular vote in each of the first two states ( and he may eventually win the state delegate equivalent vote in Iowa ) .
He leads in national polls ( having recently overtaken Joe Biden ) .
He ’ s raised a ton of money .
He polls fairly well in Nevada ( or at least he did back when people bothered to poll it ) .
And he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him at least some delegates in almost every state and congressional district .
There are also some negatives for Sanders .
While he won New Hampshire — although pledged delegates were split evenly between Sanders and Buttigieg , which the model gives Buttigieg a tiny bit of credit for — his 25.7 percent of the vote there underperformed our projections by 2 to 3 percentage points .
New Hampshire is a state that by all rights ought to have been fairly strong for him ( as Iowa should also have been ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he averages only 22 percent of the vote in them , unusually low for the national leader at this stage of the race .
Between the slight underperformance in New Hampshire and a couple of mediocre polls coming in for Sanders while our model was frozen awaiting New Hampshire results , he actually fell slightly in the forecast from where he had been 24 hours earlier .
Still , Sanders ’ s 38 percent chance of a pledged delegate majority is far better than any other Democrat .
He also has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plurality .
Even if this isn ’ t the strongest possible version of Sanders , he ’ s come far closer to actualizing his potential than anyone else in the field .
Furthermore , the tactical considerations of the race are setting up well for Sanders : The moderate “ lane ” still very crowded and perhaps even getting more crowded ( no longer just Biden and Buttigieg but also Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bloombeg ! )
, and Sanders has pulled well ahead of Elizabeth Warren in the progressive lane .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re rooting for chaos .
Our forecast has the chance of no pledged delegate majority up to 33 percent , its highest figure yet , and roughly double what it was before Iowa .
Almost everything went well from the standpoint of a contested convention .
Sanders won , but with a smaller share of the vote than the model expected .
Moreover , the second and third place candidates , Buttigieg and Klobuchar , may or may not be poised to take advantage of any post-New Hampshire surge they get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 percent and 4 percent respectively in national polls , and not having any obvious strength in Nevada or South Carolina .
Meanwhile , the two candidates apart from Sanders who had seemed to have built the broadest national coalitions , Warren and Biden , did terribly in New Hampshire .
( Although the race is so wide-open that they can ’ t entirely be counted out either — especially not Biden — at least not until we see some Nevada and South Carolina polling . )
Meanwhile , Bloomberg continues to rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling lead of the campaign in any state in an Arkansas poll that came in while the model was frozen .
Now then , what about potential shortcomings of the model ?
First , as I mentioned , the lack of polling data in post-New Hampshire states is a problem .
That data should begin to trickle in over the next couple of weeks ( although note that Nevada is never a state that gets much polling ) .
Also , the model may not be guessing right about the bounces that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar .
It does give Klobuchar some credit for substantially beating expectations ( which it defines as national polls adjusted for regional factors ) in New Hampshire .
But media coverage on election night practically treated Klobuchar — not Sanders — as the winner in New Hampshire ( to an extent that probably deserves a little mockery ) .
Klobuchar needs a huge bounce given that she ’ s at only 4 percent in national polls .
But there ’ s the possibility of a virtuous circle for Klobuchar , where she rises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the polls , that rise begets more media coverage , which begets more endorsements and money raised , which begets more media coverage , which begets a further polling rise , and so forth .
I don ’ t know how high that possibility is .
It probably isn ’ t that high , and even if it is , there are lots of scenarios where Klobuchar rises to , say , 15 or 20 percent in polls and never gets much further than that .
Still , because her media coverage will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the model is assuming , the chances of New Hampshire serving as an initial spark for her to rise into contending status are higher than it probably assumes .
More thoughts on all of this — and hopefully more polls — coming later this week .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast reacts to the New Hampshire results

The Democratic primary is in a confusing state at the moment. And our forecast model is a little confused, also. It’s making a couple of assumptions about how the polls may react to New Hampshire that may not be entirely right. The model is also limited by the lack of polling in states that vote after New Hampshire, most notably Nevada and South Carolina. So we’d encourage you to take the model with a large grain of salt until some of that post-New Hampshire polling comes in.
But the two takeaways that the model feels most confident about are two things that I’m happy to vouch for:
Model takeaway No. 1: Sen. Bernie Sanders is the most likely person to win the Democratic nomination.
Model takeaway No. 2: The chance of there being no pledged delegate majority — which could potentially lead to a contested convention — is high and increasing.
I’m going to be relatively brief here as I’m writing this at 2 a.m. But let’s take the Sanders conclusion first. The model’s contention that he’s the closest thing to a front-runner we have in this race seems inescapable to me. Sanders won the popular vote in each of the first two states (and he may eventually win the state delegate equivalent vote in Iowa). He leads in national polls (having recently overtaken former Vice President Joe Biden). He has raised a ton of money. He polls fairly well in Nevada (or at least he did back when people bothered to poll it). And he has a reasonably diverse coalition that should net him at least some delegates in almost every state and congressional district.
There are also some negatives for Sanders. While he won New Hampshire — although pledged delegates were split evenly between him and and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, which the model gives Buttigieg a tiny bit of credit for — his 25.7 percent of the vote there underperformed our projections by 2 to 3 percentage points. By all rights, New Hampshire ought to have been a fairly strong state for him (as Iowa should also have been). And although Sanders leads in national polls, he averages only 22 percent of the vote in them, unusually low for the national leader at this stage of the race. Between the slight underperformance in New Hampshire and a couple of mediocre polls coming in for Sanders while our model was frozen awaiting New Hampshire results, he actually fell slightly in the forecast from where he had been 24 hours earlier.
Still, Sanders’s 38 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates is far better than that of any other Democrat. He also has a 52 percent chance of winning a plurality of pledged delegates. Even if this isn’t the strongest possible version of Sanders, he’s come far closer to actualizing his potential than anyone else in the field. Furthermore, the tactical considerations of the race are setting up well for Sanders: The moderate “lane” is still very crowded and perhaps getting even more crowded (it’s no longer just Biden and Buttigieg, but also Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg!), and Sanders has pulled well ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the progressive lane.
But New Hampshire is also good news if you’re hoping for chaos. Our forecast has the chances that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates up to 33 percent, its highest figure yet, and roughly double what it was before Iowa.
Almost everything went well if you’re rooting for a contested convention. Sanders won, but with a smaller share of the vote than the model expected. Moreover, the second- and third-place candidates, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, may or may not be poised to take advantage of any post-New Hampshire surge they get, having begun the evening at just 10 percent and 4 percent, respectively, in national polls, and not having any obvious strength in Nevada or South Carolina. Meanwhile, the two candidates apart from Sanders who had seemed to have built the broadest national coalitions, Warren and Biden, did terribly in New Hampshire. (Although the race is so wide-open that they can’t entirely be counted out either — especially not Biden — at least not until we see some Nevada and South Carolina polling.) Meanwhile, Bloomberg continues to rise in polls, including having his first polling lead of the campaign in any state, in an Arkansas poll that came in while the model was frozen.
Now then, what about potential shortcomings of the model? First, as I mentioned, the lack of polling data in post-New Hampshire states is a problem. That data should begin to trickle in over the next couple of weeks (although note that Nevada never gets much polling).
Also, the model may not be guessing right about the bounces that will emerge from New Hampshire, especially for Klobuchar. It does give Klobuchar some credit for substantially beating expectations (which it defines as national polls adjusted for regional factors) in New Hampshire. But media coverage on election night practically treated Klobuchar — not Sanders — as the winner in New Hampshire (to an extent that probably deserves a little mockery).
Klobuchar needs a huge bounce given that she’s at only 4 percent in national polls. But there’s the possibility of a virtuous circle for Klobuchar, where she rises (perhaps slightly at first) in the polls, that rise begets more media coverage, which begets more endorsements and money raised, which begets more media coverage, which begets a further polling rise, and so forth. I don’t know how high that possibility is. It probably isn’t that high, and even if it is, there are lots of scenarios where Klobuchar rises to, say, 15 or 20 percent in polls and never gets much further than that. Still, because her media coverage will probably wind up being more favorable than the model is assuming, the chances of New Hampshire serving as an initial spark for her to rise into contending status are higher than it probably assumes. More thoughts on all of this — and hopefully more polls — coming later this week.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Bernie Sanders wins New Hampshire


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-11--What Went Down In The New Hampshire Primary

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-12--Politics Podcast: Sanders Won The New Hampshire Vote. So How Did ‘Klobucharge’ Win The Narrative?

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacted to Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s win @ @ @ @ @ .
They also looked at the parts of the electorate that powered former South Bend @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar to strong second and third-place finishes , respectively , and @ @ @ @ @ the various campaigns .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play @ @ @ @ @ player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite @ @ @ @ @ are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes @ @ @ @ @ new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
@ @ @ @ @ or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by @ @ @ @ @ in the comments .

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacted to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s win in the New Hampshire primary. They also looked at the parts of the electorate that powered former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar to strong second and third-place finishes, respectively, and asked what comes next for the various campaigns.
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 Politics Podcast: Bernie Sanders wins New Hampshire


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-12--What’s Behind Amy Klobuchar’s Surge — And Can It Go National?

It ’ s not often that a third-place finish grabs more headlines than first place , but there ’ s nothing the media loves more than an underdog , and they got one in spades with Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Tuesday night .
While there was evidence that Klobuchar was on the uptick going into election night ( she gained a little more than 2 points in our polling average after the debate on Friday ) , she still handily outperformed her polls in New Hampshire .
Klobuchar had been at about 10 percent , but she doubled her support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the vote — just 6 points behind Sen. Bernie Sanders ( the winner ) and 4 points behind former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , who came in second .
It ’ s unclear what this will mean for Klobuchar moving forward , as like Buttigieg , the next two states — Nevada and South Carolina — could be tough for her .
But here ’ s a look at what we know about her last-minute surge in New Hampshire , and what that might mean for Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong showing .
Klobuchar won voters who were still deciding According to exit polls , Klobuchar did particularly well with voters who didn ’ t pick a candidate until the last minute .
A whopping 75 percent of her supporters said they made up their mind about who they would support in the last few days , as opposed to earlier than that .
Relatedly , the Minnesota senator also did well among those who said that Friday ’ s debate was important to their vote .
She won 27 percent support among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ipsos had also found that voters gave her high marks for her performance in the debate . )
This could be a relatively bullish sign for Klobuchar , as the Democratic race remains incredibly fluid and plenty of voters are still deciding whom to support .
The question is : Do the factors that swayed New Hampshire voters to Klobuchar in the last week translate nationally ?
She did best with college-educated voters In addition to winning over many undecided voters in the final stretch , Klobuchar also did extremely well among college-educated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made up 56 percent of New Hampshire ’ s Democratic primary electorate on Tuesday , and Klobuchar won 25 percent support among this group , putting her 2 percentage points ahead of both Sanders and Buttigieg , who won 23 percent support .
In particular , Klobuchar did particularly well with white college-educated women — with 30 percent support , she led that group by 5 points .
( There were not enough voters of color to break that group out by gender and education . )
In fact , the exit polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 45 percent of her voter base .
This had ramifications for other leading candidates , like Sen. Elizabeth Warren , whose performance in New Hampshire probably suffered because of Klobuchar ’ s strong showing among college-educated voters and women — among women , Klobuchar won 23 percent to Warren ’ s 11 percent .
The Democratic electorates in Nevada and South Carolina have relatively low levels of education , compared to other states , so Klobuchar might find it hard to leverage her support among college-educated white voters in those states in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But plenty of Super Tuesday states rank highly by share of college-educated white voters — in particular , Massachusetts , Colorado and Minnesota ( Klobuchar ’ s home state ) .
Older and moderate voters also backed her Two other groups that also lined up behind Klobuchar were older voters and those who identified as more ideologically moderate .
( These two traits tend to be related — older Democrats are more likely to say they ’ re moderate than younger ones . )
Among voters 65 and older , Klobuchar led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She also did well with voters between the ages of 45 to 64 , but Buttigieg edged her out for support among these voters , 27 to 24 percent .
Sanders continued to lead among young voters , receiving 51 percent support among those between the ages of 18 and 29 as well as 36 percent support among those 30 to 44 .
But among voters who said they were moderate or conservative , both Klobuchar and Buttigieg did well .
In fact , 48 percent of Klobuchar ’ s support came from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from those who describe themselves as somewhat liberal .
Moderate and conservative primary voters only made up 39 percent of New Hampshire ’ s primary electorate , so the fact that Klobuchar also did well among liberal voters — she won 19 percent of somewhat liberal voters , and convinced 9 percent of very liberal voters to support her — helped her remain competitive overall .
Klobuchar ’ s message that she could defeat Trump by appealing to voters across the political spectrum may have been pivotal to her performance , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for first with Buttigieg — among those who said the most important quality was a candidate ’ s ability to “ unite the country.
” Additionally , she got a fair bit of support — 21 percent — from those who said they wanted a candidate who “ cares about people like me , ” only finishing behind Sanders among those respondents .
Again , looking ahead , the question now is whether Klobuchar can use this New Hampshire result to truly get into contention for the Democratic nomination .
After yesterday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeptical — it gives her only a 0.2 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates .
And the New Hampshire exit polls suggests she ’ s going to have to get around Buttigieg to win moving forward , since they both performed well among many of the same groups of voters .
For instance , both posted strong numbers with moderate voters , older voters , and those who thought Sanders ’ s and Warren ’ s positions were too liberal .
Buttigieg is also in a better position than Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he raised more than twice as much money as her in the last quarter of 2019 , giving him an edge in building a larger campaign infrastructure beyond the early states .
Plus , while Buttigieg doesn ’ t have particularly strong numbers in the next states to vote — Nevada and South Carolina — he has stronger numbers than Klobuchar .
He also leads her in national polls .
Still , Klobuchar ’ s surge in New Hampshire could give her campaign a boost that could carry it into March and beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representative , but if Klobuchar can appeal to more moderate voters of color in the more racially and ethnically diverse states coming up later this month and perform decently well — a big if — she might be able to position herself as a strong center-left alternative to Sanders heading into Super Tuesday .

It’s not often that a third-place finish grabs more headlines than first place, but there’s nothing the media loves more than an underdog, and they got one in spades with Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Tuesday night.
While there was evidence that Klobuchar was on the uptick going into election night (she gained a little more than 2 points in our polling average after the debate on Friday), she still handily outperformed her polls in New Hampshire. Klobuchar had been at about 10 percent, but she doubled her support on Tuesday, finishing third with 20 percent of the vote — just 6 points behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (the winner) and 4 points behind former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who came in second.
It’s unclear what this will mean for Klobuchar moving forward, as like Buttigieg, the next two states — Nevada and South Carolina — could be tough for her. But here’s a look at what we know about her last-minute surge in New Hampshire, and what that might mean for Klobuchar’s chances of capitalizing on her strong showing.
Klobuchar won voters who were still deciding
According to exit polls, Klobuchar did particularly well with voters who didn’t pick a candidate until the last minute. A whopping 75 percent of her supporters said they made up their mind about who they would support in the last few days, as opposed to earlier than that. Relatedly, the Minnesota senator also did well among those who said that Friday’s debate was important to their vote. She won 27 percent support among this group. (Our polling with Ipsos had also found that voters gave her high marks for her performance in the debate.)
This could be a relatively bullish sign for Klobuchar, as the Democratic race remains incredibly fluid and plenty of voters are still deciding whom to support. The question is: Do the factors that swayed New Hampshire voters to Klobuchar in the last week translate nationally?
She did best with college-educated voters
In addition to winning over many undecided voters in the final stretch, Klobuchar also did extremely well among college-educated voters. Voters with a college degree made up 56 percent of New Hampshire’s Democratic primary electorate on Tuesday, and Klobuchar won 25 percent support among this group, putting her 2 percentage points ahead of both Sanders and Buttigieg, who won 23 percent support. In particular, Klobuchar did particularly well with white college-educated women — with 30 percent support, she led that group by 5 points. (There were not enough voters of color to break that group out by gender and education.)
Klobuchar’s base relied on college-educated white women Chosen candidate in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary by race, gender and education, according to exit poll data White College graduates Non-college graduates Candidate Women (30%) Men (20%) Women (24%) Men (17%) Nonwhite (9%) Klobuchar 30% 21% 16% 11% 11% Buttigieg 25 24 31 21 16 Sanders 20 26 25 36 32 Warren 14 10 7 4 9 Biden 6 5 10 10 16 Yang 2 3 2 4 5 Steyer 1 5 5 5 2 Gabbard 0 5 2 7 7 Sample size for this question is 2,878. There were not enough voters of color to break them out by gender and education. Not all candidates were listed on the exit poll. Source: ABC news/Edison research
In fact, the exit polls showed that white college-educated women made up 45 percent of her voter base. This had ramifications for other leading candidates, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose performance in New Hampshire probably suffered because of Klobuchar’s strong showing among college-educated voters and women — among women, Klobuchar won 23 percent to Warren’s 11 percent.
The Democratic electorates in Nevada and South Carolina have relatively low levels of education, compared to other states, so Klobuchar might find it hard to leverage her support among college-educated white voters in those states in the same way she did in New Hampshire. But plenty of Super Tuesday states rank highly by share of college-educated white voters — in particular, Massachusetts, Colorado and Minnesota (Klobuchar’s home state).
Older and moderate voters also backed her
Two other groups that also lined up behind Klobuchar were older voters and those who identified as more ideologically moderate. (These two traits tend to be related — older Democrats are more likely to say they’re moderate than younger ones.) Among voters 65 and older, Klobuchar led the field with 32 percent support. She also did well with voters between the ages of 45 to 64, but Buttigieg edged her out for support among these voters, 27 to 24 percent. Sanders continued to lead among young voters, receiving 51 percent support among those between the ages of 18 and 29 as well as 36 percent support among those 30 to 44.
Klobuchar did well among older voters Chosen candidate in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary by age, according to exit poll data Candidate 18-29 (14%) 30-44 (23%) 45-64 (38%) 65+ (25%) Klobuchar 4% 9% 24% 32% Buttigieg 20 22 27 24 Sanders 51 36 19 14 Biden 4 6 10 12 Warren 6 13 8 9 Steyer 3 3 4 3 Gabbard 4 4 4 1 Yang 7 3 2 1 Sample size for this question is 2,932. Not all candidates were listed on the exit poll. Source: ABC news/Edison research
But among voters who said they were moderate or conservative, both Klobuchar and Buttigieg did well.
Klobuchar’s supporters nearly span the ideological spectrum Chosen candidate in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary by ideology, according to preliminary exit poll data Candidate Very liberal (21%) Somewhat liberal (40%) Moderate (36%) Conservative (3%) Buttigieg 15% 26% 28% 21% Sanders 48 26 16 11 Klobuchar 9 19 26 19 Warren 19 10 3 4 Biden 4 8 12 6 Steyer 1 5 4 4 Yang 3 3 3 4 Gabbard 1 1 5 18 Sample size is 2,728. Not all candidates were listed on the exit poll. Source: ABC news/Edison research
In fact, 48 percent of Klobuchar’s support came from moderate voters, while 39 percent came from those who describe themselves as somewhat liberal. Moderate and conservative primary voters only made up 39 percent of New Hampshire’s primary electorate, so the fact that Klobuchar also did well among liberal voters — she won 19 percent of somewhat liberal voters, and convinced 9 percent of very liberal voters to support her — helped her remain competitive overall.
Klobuchar’s message that she could defeat Trump by appealing to voters across the political spectrum may have been pivotal to her performance, too. She received 31 percent support — tied for first with Buttigieg — among those who said the most important quality was a candidate’s ability to “unite the country.” Additionally, she got a fair bit of support — 21 percent — from those who said they wanted a candidate who “cares about people like me,” only finishing behind Sanders among those respondents.
Klobuchar’s supporters think she’s a uniter Chosen candidate in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary by which quality was most important, according to exit poll data Candidate Cares about people like me (20%) Can bring needed change (38%) Can unite the country (32%) Klobuchar 21% 12% 31% Buttigieg 17 23 31 Biden 9 8 14 Sanders 31 35 9 Gabbard 2 1 3 Steyer 3 4 3 Warren 8 12 3 Yang 5 5 2 Sample size for this question is 952. Six percent of candidates said a candidate’s preferred quality is being a fighter; this group was too small to break out into cross tabs. Not all candidates were listed on the exit poll. Source: ABC news/Edison research
Again, looking ahead, the question now is whether Klobuchar can use this New Hampshire result to truly get into contention for the Democratic nomination. After yesterday’s vote, our forecast remains pretty skeptical — it gives her only a 0.2 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates. And the New Hampshire exit polls suggests she’s going to have to get around Buttigieg to win moving forward, since they both performed well among many of the same groups of voters. For instance, both posted strong numbers with moderate voters, older voters, and those who thought Sanders’s and Warren’s positions were too liberal.
Buttigieg is also in a better position than Klobuchar from a financial and organizational perspective — he raised more than twice as much money as her in the last quarter of 2019, giving him an edge in building a larger campaign infrastructure beyond the early states. Plus, while Buttigieg doesn’t have particularly strong numbers in the next states to vote — Nevada and South Carolina — he has stronger numbers than Klobuchar. He also leads her in national polls.
Still, Klobuchar’s surge in New Hampshire could give her campaign a boost that could carry it into March and beyond. The Granite State is far from representative, but if Klobuchar can appeal to more moderate voters of color in the more racially and ethnically diverse states coming up later this month and perform decently well — a big if — she might be able to position herself as a strong center-left alternative to Sanders heading into Super Tuesday.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-12--Fewer Americans Think Impeachment Will Hurt Trump’s Reelection Chances

The impeachment trial is over .
And with the exception of Republican Sen. Mitt Romney , who voted to convict President Trump on one charge , the president has been acquitted in a party-line vote .
The final wave of our poll with Ipsos , where we followed up with the same group of respondents every couple of weeks using Ipsos ’ s KnowledgePanel , found , however , that a majority ( 55 percent ) of Americans still think that Trump committed an impeachable offense .
And a majority ( 54 percent ) disapprove of the Senate ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial just doesn ’ t seem to have done much to convince people of Trump ’ s innocence .
Throughout the process , a majority of respondents in our survey consistently said that there was enough evidence to impeach Trump on both of the charges against him .
Now that the process is over , Americans are about evenly split on whether there was enough evidence to remove Trump from office : 49 percent said there was enough evidence to remove him over his actions on Ukraine and half said there was enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cooperate with Congress on impeachment .
( That ’ s slightly lower than what we found in previous surveys , but the change wasn ’ t statistically significant . )
The Senate trial also didn ’ t do much to erode the deep party divide on whether Trump should be removed from office .
Rank-and-file Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of the vote to acquit Trump , while Democrats are opposed .
The parties also remain split on whether there was enough evidence to remove Trump on either of the charges against him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him should have been dismissed .
There was one scrap of consensus regarding the Senate trial — majorities of both Republicans and Democrats think the senators were guided by their party in their vote , rather than being impartial jurors .
A majority ( 51 percent ) of Americans , including 42 percent of Republicans , think the Senate trial wasn ’ t fair .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , Democrats ( 61 percent ) are much likelier to think the trial was unfair , but views of the Senate trial are less polarized than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77 percent of Republicans think that process was unfair , compared to only 20 percent of Democrats .
Americans largely disapprove of the Senate ’ s decision not to call new witnesses , which may be at least partly responsible for their sense that the trial was unfair .
Trump ’ s former national security adviser John Bolton announced in January that he was willing to appear at the trial if subpoenaed .
It briefly seemed like Bolton ’ s testimony could change the trajectory of the trial , but the Senate ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with only two Republicans ( Romney and Maine Sen. Susan Collins ) voting with Democrats in support of calling new witnesses .
This wasn ’ t a popular move : A majority ( 58 percent ) of Americans disapprove of the Senate ’ s decision to not call new witnesses in Trump ’ s Senate trial , while 39 percent approve .
Our surveys did find that rank-and-file Republicans became more comfortable with the idea of a witness-free trial , with support for no new witnesses rising from 50 percent in late December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round of polling , conducted Feb. 5 though Feb. 9 .
Democrats , on the whole , became less supportive of the idea .
Thirty-one percent said they didn ’ t support a trial without new witnesses in late December , but that number fell to 16 percent in our most recent survey .
For the first time , a president who has been impeached is embarking on a general election campaign .
And Americans are increasingly convinced that impeachment will help Trump ’ s chances of winning reelection — 40 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will help him , compared with 18 percent who say it will hurt his chances .
( Another 40 percent say it won ’ t matter one way or the other . )
This is a substantial change from mid-January , when just 32 percent said it would help his bid and 29 percent said it would hurt him .
The biggest shift was among Democrats .
Only 27 percent of Democrats now say impeachment will hurt Trump ’ s reelection chances — a 20-point drop from just a few weeks ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him — while the share who said they thought it would help his chances roughly doubled , from 13 percent to 27 percent .
But regardless of how they feel about Trump ’ s reelection chances , very few Americans say the process has made them less motivated to vote in November .
Nearly half ( 49 percent ) say they are more motivated to vote in the presidential election because of impeachment , while 44 percent say it hasn ’ t made a difference and only 5 percent say it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare question where there ’ s also little partisan difference — 52 percent of Democrats say they ’ re more motivated to vote in the 2020 presidential election , compared with 47 percent of Republicans .
So while many Americans might be cynical about the fairness of the trial — and some Democrats may be newly anxious that impeachment will give Trump a boost as he campaigns for reelection — the process doesn ’ t seem to have made them lose confidence in the power of their vote .

The impeachment trial is over. And with the exception of Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted to convict President Trump on one charge, the president has been acquitted in a party-line vote.
The final wave of our poll with Ipsos, where we followed up with the same group of respondents every couple of weeks using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, found, however, that a majority (55 percent) of Americans still think that Trump committed an impeachable offense. And a majority (54 percent) disapprove of the Senate’s decision to acquit Trump.
The Senate trial just doesn’t seem to have done much to convince people of Trump’s innocence. Throughout the process, a majority of respondents in our survey consistently said that there was enough evidence to impeach Trump on both of the charges against him. Now that the process is over, Americans are about evenly split on whether there was enough evidence to remove Trump from office: 49 percent said there was enough evidence to remove him over his actions on Ukraine and half said there was enough evidence to remove him over his refusal to cooperate with Congress on impeachment. (That’s slightly lower than what we found in previous surveys, but the change wasn’t statistically significant.)
The Senate trial also didn’t do much to erode the deep party divide on whether Trump should be removed from office. Rank-and-file Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of the vote to acquit Trump, while Democrats are opposed. The parties also remain split on whether there was enough evidence to remove Trump on either of the charges against him, and on whether the charges against him should have been dismissed.
Republicans and Democrats are divided on acquittal Share of respondents in a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll who said they approved of Trump’s acquittal and who believed there was enough evidence to remove him for his actions regarding Ukraine or for obstructing Congress Enough evidence to remove for … Party Approve of acquittal Ukraine Obstruction All 43.4% – 48.5% – 50.0% – Democratic 14.4 – 79.5 – 81.1 – Republican 80.2 – 12.2 – 13.3 – The poll had 1,601 respondents, conducted Feb. 5 to Feb. 9, 2020.
A majority thinks the Senate trial was unfair
There was one scrap of consensus regarding the Senate trial — majorities of both Republicans and Democrats think the senators were guided by their party in their vote, rather than being impartial jurors. A majority (51 percent) of Americans, including 42 percent of Republicans, think the Senate trial wasn’t fair. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Democrats (61 percent) are much likelier to think the trial was unfair, but views of the Senate trial are less polarized than views of the House impeachment inquiry — 77 percent of Republicans think that process was unfair, compared to only 20 percent of Democrats.
Most Americans think the Senate trial was unfair Share of respondents in a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll who thought the House impeachment process or the Senate impeachment trial were unfair party House process Senate trial All 45.1% – 51.5% – Democratic 19.7 – 61.1 – Republican 77.1 – 41.6 – The poll had 1,601 respondents, conducted Feb. 5 to Feb. 9, 2020.
Americans largely disapprove of the Senate’s decision not to call new witnesses, which may be at least partly responsible for their sense that the trial was unfair. Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton announced in January that he was willing to appear at the trial if subpoenaed. It briefly seemed like Bolton’s testimony could change the trajectory of the trial, but the Senate ultimately opted not to introduce new evidence, with only two Republicans (Romney and Maine Sen. Susan Collins) voting with Democrats in support of calling new witnesses.
This wasn’t a popular move: A majority (58 percent) of Americans disapprove of the Senate’s decision to not call new witnesses in Trump’s Senate trial, while 39 percent approve. Our surveys did find that rank-and-file Republicans became more comfortable with the idea of a witness-free trial, with support for no new witnesses rising from 50 percent in late December to 69 percent in the most recent round of polling, conducted Feb. 5 though Feb. 9. Democrats, on the whole, became less supportive of the idea. Thirty-one percent said they didn’t support a trial without new witnesses in late December, but that number fell to 16 percent in our most recent survey.
More people say impeachment helps Trump win
For the first time, a president who has been impeached is embarking on a general election campaign. And Americans are increasingly convinced that impeachment will help Trump’s chances of winning reelection — 40 percent of Americans in our latest survey say it will help him, compared with 18 percent who say it will hurt his chances. (Another 40 percent say it won’t matter one way or the other.) This is a substantial change from mid-January, when just 32 percent said it would help his bid and 29 percent said it would hurt him. The biggest shift was among Democrats. Only 27 percent of Democrats now say impeachment will hurt Trump’s reelection chances — a 20-point drop from just a few weeks ago, when 47 percent said it would hurt him — while the share who said they thought it would help his chances roughly doubled, from 13 percent to 27 percent.
But regardless of how they feel about Trump’s reelection chances, very few Americans say the process has made them less motivated to vote in November. Nearly half (49 percent) say they are more motivated to vote in the presidential election because of impeachment, while 44 percent say it hasn’t made a difference and only 5 percent say it’s made them less motivated.
This is a rare question where there’s also little partisan difference — 52 percent of Democrats say they’re more motivated to vote in the 2020 presidential election, compared with 47 percent of Republicans. So while many Americans might be cynical about the fairness of the trial — and some Democrats may be newly anxious that impeachment will give Trump a boost as he campaigns for reelection — the process doesn’t seem to have made them lose confidence in the power of their vote.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-12--Goodbye To Andrew Yang, 2020’s Most Unexpectedly Successful Losing Candidate

Not a single Democratic candidate dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses — no doubt because of the messy result there .
But the early states have now started to do their traditional job of winnowing the field .
It just took the New Hampshire primary to get things going .
The first to go : Entrepreneur Andrew Yang announced the end of his campaign as it became clear he was way behind in the early returns from New Hampshire .
Yang probably never really had a chance to win the Democratic nomination : He had never served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run for one ) , and unlike President Trump , Yang wasn ’ t famous from his business career .
Voters ’ priorities at the moment didn ’ t really suit the Yang campaign either — Democrats are desperate to find an “ electable ” candidate , and an Asian American man who lives in New York City and campaigned on giving all Americans $ 12,000 a year as part of a universal basic income was probably not what they had in mind .
But it ’ s safe to say that Yang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noise than most political observers expected .
He campaigned on issues , such as rising levels of automation , that other candidates largely ignored .
He raised a decent amount of money , too .
And he garnered more support , according to national polls , than a lot of other candidates .
In December , for example , Yang qualified for a debate that Cory Booker failed to make — even though the New Jersey senator had been hyped as a potential presidential candidate for more than a decade .
Yang built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of supporters .
It ’ s hard to quantify , but it ’ s probably fair to say that Yang increased both the number of Americans who know what a universal basic income is and the number of those who support establishing one .
Still , it was clear that Yang didn ’ t have a path to victory .
He never really consistently earned above 5 percent in national polls .
He didn ’ t get many notable endorsements , either .
He got about 5 percent of the first-alignment popular vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contenders , and managed only 3 percent of the vote in New Hampshire .
His departure from the race continues the whitening of the Democratic field , which has included four black candidates , two Asian Americans and one Latino .
Of that group , Yang was the only person to have qualified for the last presidential debate .
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race , but she has little chance of winning and is a long shot to qualify for future debates .
The focus on electability has probably hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” has basically come to mean someone who can appeal to white , working-class voters in states like Wisconsin . )
And perhaps starting the campaign in overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire didn ’ t help them either .
But white or nonwhite , so many people ran for the Democratic nomination in 2020 that some of them were bound to fail .
Twelve white men have also dropped out after gaining little traction .
I doubt Yang is done with politics , though .
You could imagine him running for mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or you could imagine him being nominated to a Cabinet post , such as Commerce secretary .
“ We ’ ll be back , ” the 45-year-old said in a Twitter post after the announcement that his campaign was over .
The other person who dropped out Tuesday night , Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado , wasn ’ t as compelling a candidate as Yang .
Bennet ran as a center-left alternative to Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , emphasizing that Democrats needed to win over more swing voters — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have dropped out , he never managed to gain traction .
Indeed , Bennet never really made any gains in national polls : He qualified for the first two debates in the summer , when the polling and donor thresholds to get in were the most forgiving .
But he didn ’ t qualify for another debate all cycle , and he struggled to attract donors .
He essentially skipped Iowa to concentrate on New Hampshire , but he got less than 1 percent of the vote in the Granite State .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong — former Vice President Joe Biden , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar simply gained more traction as center-left candidates .
Finally , former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick quit the race Wednesday morning .
He , like Bennet , had made New Hampshire the focus of his campaign but got less than 1 percent of the vote .
Patrick ’ s biggest problem was that he entered the race in November — months after the campaign had started in earnest .
He never qualified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , who also started his campaign less than three months ago , Patrick isn ’ t a billionaire who can spend millions on television ads to raise his profile .
I assume he thought he could win despite a late start because of his unique profile — the former governor of a state neighboring New Hampshire ; a black man who might have special appeal to a core bloc of the party ; and a center-left candidate who was not as liberal as Sanders or Warren .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Booker and Warren ( among others ) in this race suggest that none of those characteristics — being from a neighboring state , being center-left or being black — individually guaranteed success .
And combining all those attributes in a single person apparently wasn ’ t that exciting to voters either .
UPDATE ( Feb. 12 , 2020 , 12:36 p.m. ) : This article has been updated with the news that Deval Patrick suspended his campaign .

Perry Bacon Jr. (perry.bacon@fivethirtyeight.com)

Not a single Democratic candidate dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses — no doubt because of the messy result there. But the early states have now started to do their traditional job of winnowing the field. It just took the New Hampshire primary to get things going.
The first to go: Entrepreneur Andrew Yang announced the end of his campaign as it became clear he was way behind in the early returns from New Hampshire. Yang probably never really had a chance to win the Democratic nomination: He had never served in an elected office (or even run for one), and unlike President Trump, Yang wasn’t famous from his business career. Voters’ priorities at the moment didn’t really suit the Yang campaign either — Democrats are desperate to find an “electable” candidate, and an Asian American man who lives in New York City and campaigned on giving all Americans $12,000 a year as part of a universal basic income was probably not what they had in mind.
But it’s safe to say that Yang and his campaign made a lot more noise than most political observers expected. He campaigned on issues, such as rising levels of automation, that other candidates largely ignored. He raised a decent amount of money, too. And he garnered more support, according to national polls, than a lot of other candidates. In December, for example, Yang qualified for a debate that Cory Booker failed to make — even though the New Jersey senator had been hyped as a potential presidential candidate for more than a decade.
Yang built an enthusiastic, if small, base of supporters. It’s hard to quantify, but it’s probably fair to say that Yang increased both the number of Americans who know what a universal basic income is and the number of those who support establishing one.
Still, it was clear that Yang didn’t have a path to victory. He never really consistently earned above 5 percent in national polls.
He didn’t get many notable endorsements, either. He got about 5 percent of the first-alignment popular vote in Iowa, well behind the leading contenders, and managed only 3 percent of the vote in New Hampshire.
His departure from the race continues the whitening of the Democratic field, which has included four black candidates, two Asian Americans and one Latino. Of that group, Yang was the only person to have qualified for the last presidential debate. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race, but she has little chance of winning and is a long shot to qualify for future debates. The focus on electability has probably hurt the minority candidates. (“Electability” has basically come to mean someone who can appeal to white, working-class voters in states like Wisconsin.) And perhaps starting the campaign in overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire didn’t help them either.
But white or nonwhite, so many people ran for the Democratic nomination in 2020 that some of them were bound to fail. Twelve white men have also dropped out after gaining little traction.
I doubt Yang is done with politics, though. You could imagine him running for mayor of New York, or perhaps governor. Or you could imagine him being nominated to a Cabinet post, such as Commerce secretary. “We’ll be back,” the 45-year-old said in a Twitter post after the announcement that his campaign was over.
The other person who dropped out Tuesday night, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, wasn’t as compelling a candidate as Yang. Bennet ran as a center-left alternative to Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, emphasizing that Democrats needed to win over more swing voters — like many of the other white men who have dropped out, he never managed to gain traction. Indeed, Bennet never really made any gains in national polls:
He qualified for the first two debates in the summer, when the polling and donor thresholds to get in were the most forgiving. But he didn’t qualify for another debate all cycle, and he struggled to attract donors. He essentially skipped Iowa to concentrate on New Hampshire, but he got less than 1 percent of the vote in the Granite State.
Bennet didn’t necessarily do anything wrong — former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar simply gained more traction as center-left candidates.
Finally, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick quit the race Wednesday morning. He, like Bennet, had made New Hampshire the focus of his campaign but got less than 1 percent of the vote.
Patrick’s biggest problem was that he entered the race in November — months after the campaign had started in earnest. He never qualified for a debate and, unlike former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also started his campaign less than three months ago, Patrick isn’t a billionaire who can spend millions on television ads to raise his profile. I assume he thought he could win despite a late start because of his unique profile — the former governor of a state neighboring New Hampshire; a black man who might have special appeal to a core bloc of the party; and a center-left candidate who was not as liberal as Sanders or Warren. The struggles of Sen. Kamala Harris, Bennet, Booker and Warren (among others) in this race suggest that none of those characteristics — being from a neighboring state, being center-left or being black — individually guaranteed success. And combining all those attributes in a single person apparently wasn’t that exciting to voters either.
UPDATE (Feb. 12, 2020, 12:36 p.m.): This article has been updated with the news that Deval Patrick suspended his campaign.
CORRECTION (Feb. 13, 2020, 5:45 p.m.): A previous version of this story incorrectly referred to Tulsi Gabbard as a former representative. She is still serving in Congress, though she says she is not planning to run for reelection.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-12--How Sanders Held Off Buttigieg And Klobuchar In New Hampshire

On Tuesday , as expected , Sen. Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary , cementing his position as the Democratic front-runner for president .
With 97 percent of the expected vote counted , Sanders had 26 percent of the vote , while former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg had 24 percent .
The big surprise of the night was Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who finished third with 20 percent .
After those three , there was a big drop-off : Sen. Elizabeth Warren finished fourth with 9 percent , and former Vice President Joe Biden ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how did Sanders win ?
According to the exit polls , he racked up big margins among demographic groups that make up a good chunk , but still a minority of , the Democratic electorate .
Crucially , though , he was still able to win because the rest of the electorate was split among his rivals .
For example , “ very liberal ” voters made up just 21 percent of the New Hampshire Democratic electorate on Tuesday , and Sanders easily beat out Warren to win that group .
He tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger “ somewhat liberal ” group , and Buttigieg and Klobuchar split the “ moderate ” vote .
Similarly , people between the ages of 18 and 44 made up just 37 percent of the electorate , and Sanders crushed Buttigieg among this group .
But the 63 percent of voters aged 45 or above split nearly evenly between Klobuchar and Buttigieg .
Continuing the pattern , a full 61 percent of voters said they made up their mind on whom to vote for this month ; 31 percent of this group went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates in Iowa ) , and 23 percent went for Klobuchar ( who had a good debate performance on Friday ) .
However , among the 38 percent who made up their mind before this month , Sanders won a whopping 43 percent to Buttigieg ’ s 18 percent and Klobuchar ’ s 6 percent .
Finally , Sanders won a clear victory over Buttigieg , 35 percent to 23 percent , among the 38 percent of voters who said the most important quality in a candidate was their ability to “ bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people who thought it was more important to unite the country ( 32 percent of the electorate ) gave 31 percent of the vote each to Buttigieg and Klobuchar .
( Sanders got just 9 percent of these voters . )
Geographically , Sanders won by racking up large vote margins in New Hampshire ’ s cities ( just as he did in Iowa en route to winning the final-alignment popular vote there — but luckily for Sanders , New Hampshire doesn ’ t have “ state delegate equivalents ” ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest municipalities — Manchester , Nashua , Concord , Derry , Dover and Rochester .
By contrast , a map of the results shows Buttigieg had pockets of support in the rural , conservative Lakes Region and especially in the far-flung Boston suburbs in the southeastern corner of the state .
These heavily white towns have high median incomes , high educational attainment and a strong Republican lean in general elections , making them good fits for Buttigieg and his message of reaching across the aisle .
But even in those spots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar .
According to the exit polls , Klobuchar and Buttigieg were the two top choices of college-educated white voters , at 26 percent and 24 percent support .
It seems likely that , if Klobuchar hadn ’ t been in the race , many of her votes in highly educated communities would have gone to Buttigieg ( or vice versa ) .
Given that Buttigieg lost to Sanders statewide by only about 4,000 votes , it ’ s quite possible that Sanders only won because the Buttigieg/Klobuchar vote was split .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to do with the candidates at all : It was the more than 283,000 people who cast a ballot in the Democratic primary .
Results are still coming in , but the number is close to the all-time turnout record for any one party in a New Hampshire primary ( 288,672 in the 2008 Democratic primary ) .
However , that number is less impressive once you factor in the fact that New Hampshire has roughly 89,000 more eligible voters in 2020 than it did in 2008 , according to estimates by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a percentage of eligible voters , turnout in the Democratic primary this year was around 26 percent , while it was 29 percent in the 2008 Democratic primary .

On Tuesday, as expected, Sen. Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, cementing his position as the Democratic front-runner for president. With 97 percent of the expected vote counted, Sanders had 26 percent of the vote, while former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg had 24 percent. The big surprise of the night was Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who finished third with 20 percent. After those three, there was a big drop-off: Sen. Elizabeth Warren finished fourth with 9 percent, and former Vice President Joe Biden ended up fifth with 8 percent.
So how did Sanders win? According to the exit polls, he racked up big margins among demographic groups that make up a good chunk, but still a minority of, the Democratic electorate. Crucially, though, he was still able to win because the rest of the electorate was split among his rivals. For example, “very liberal” voters made up just 21 percent of the New Hampshire Democratic electorate on Tuesday, and Sanders easily beat out Warren to win that group. He tied Buttigieg for the lead among the much larger “somewhat liberal” group, and Buttigieg and Klobuchar split the “moderate” vote.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar split moderate voters Share of respondents who voted for each candidate in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary by ideology, according to preliminary exit poll data Candidate Very liberal (21%) Somewhat liberal (40%) Moderate (36%) Conservative (3%) Buttigieg 15% 26% 28% 21 Sanders 48 26 16 11 Klobuchar 9 19 26 19 Warren 19 10 3 4 Biden 4 8 12 6 Steyer 1 5 4 4 Yang 3 3 3 4 Gabbard 1 1 5 18 Sample size is 2,935. Not all candidates are listed on the exit poll. Source: ABC news/Edison research
Similarly, people between the ages of 18 and 44 made up just 37 percent of the electorate, and Sanders crushed Buttigieg among this group. But the 63 percent of voters aged 45 or above split nearly evenly between Klobuchar and Buttigieg.
Sanders won with younger voters Share of respondents who voted for each candidate in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary by voter age, according to preliminary exit poll data Candidate 18-44 (37% of voters) 45+ (63%) Klobuchar 7% 27% Buttigieg 21 26 Sanders 42 17 Biden 5 10 Warren 11 9 Steyer 3 4 Gabbard 4 3 Yang 5 2 Sample size is 2,935. Not all candidates are listed on the exit poll. Source: ABC news/Edison research
Continuing the pattern, a full 61 percent of voters said they made up their mind on whom to vote for this month; 31 percent of this group went for Buttigieg (who won the most delegates in Iowa), and 23 percent went for Klobuchar (who had a good debate performance on Friday). However, among the 38 percent who made up their mind before this month, Sanders won a whopping 43 percent to Buttigieg’s 18 percent and Klobuchar’s 6 percent.
Finally, Sanders won a clear victory over Buttigieg, 35 percent to 23 percent, among the 38 percent of voters who said the most important quality in a candidate was their ability to “bring needed change.” However, the group of people who thought it was more important to unite the country (32 percent of the electorate) gave 31 percent of the vote each to Buttigieg and Klobuchar. (Sanders got just 9 percent of these voters.)
Geographically, Sanders won by racking up large vote margins in New Hampshire’s cities (just as he did in Iowa en route to winning the final-alignment popular vote there — but luckily for Sanders, New Hampshire doesn’t have “state delegate equivalents”). Sanders won New Hampshire’s six largest municipalities — Manchester, Nashua, Concord, Derry, Dover and Rochester.
By contrast, a map of the results shows Buttigieg had pockets of support in the rural, conservative Lakes Region and especially in the far-flung Boston suburbs in the southeastern corner of the state. These heavily white towns have high median incomes, high educational attainment and a strong Republican lean in general elections, making them good fits for Buttigieg and his message of reaching across the aisle.
But even in those spots, Buttigieg was likely again held back by Klobuchar. According to the exit polls, Klobuchar and Buttigieg were the two top choices of college-educated white voters, at 26 percent and 24 percent support. It seems likely that, if Klobuchar hadn’t been in the race, many of her votes in highly educated communities would have gone to Buttigieg (or vice versa). Given that Buttigieg lost to Sanders statewide by only about 4,000 votes, it’s quite possible that Sanders only won because the Buttigieg/Klobuchar vote was split.
The final notable result from New Hampshire had nothing to do with the candidates at all: It was the more than 283,000 people who cast a ballot in the Democratic primary. Results are still coming in, but the number is close to the all-time turnout record for any one party in a New Hampshire primary (288,672 in the 2008 Democratic primary). However, that number is less impressive once you factor in the fact that New Hampshire has roughly 89,000 more eligible voters in 2020 than it did in 2008, according to estimates by University of Florida professor Michael McDonald. As a percentage of eligible voters, turnout in the Democratic primary this year was around 26 percent, while it was 29 percent in the 2008 Democratic primary.
Laura Bronner contributed research.