fivethirtyeight--2020-01-10--Americans Don’t Know What To Think About Trump’s Iran Strategy

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
On Wednesday , I wrote about what political science and polls about foreign policy can tell us about the impact of the current situation in Iran on both the primary and general election .
But conspicuously missing from that analysis were any polls about how the American public feels about Iran .
That ’ s largely because polling on Iran paints a fairly confusing picture , and surveys about this specific incident ( which is also still evolving quickly ) are still in the field .
But in the first 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk you through the polls we do have on Iran and military intervention there .
First , a HuffPost/YouGov survey conducted over the weekend found that Americans narrowly approved of the decision to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani ( 43 percent to 38 percent ) — but they were skeptical of how the decision was made .
For example , they said 43 percent to 35 percent that President Trump did not plan the airstrike carefully enough and said 44 percent to 34 percent that he should have gotten congressional authorization before ordering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent said they thought Trump has a clear strategy for dealing with Iran , while 47 percent said he doesn ’ t .
A Jan. 5-7 poll from The Economist/YouGov found similar results : Americans approved of the Soleimani strike , 44 percent to 38 percent , but said 45 percent to 36 percent that it is more important to avoid war than to “ confront Iranian aggression.
” Reuters/Ipsos also fielded a survey Jan. 3-6 , finding that Americans disagreed with the idea that the U.S. should conduct a preemptive attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such an attack , while 41 percent were opposed ) .
However , that was a significantly more hawkish outlook than Americans took in the last Reuters/Ipsos poll that asked about a preemptive attack on Iran , back in May .
At that time , 60 percent of Americans said they opposed a preemptive attack and 12 percent supported one .
Finally , Ipsos paired with USA Today for a survey conducted Jan. 7-8 , making it the only poll we have so far that includes some interviews taken after Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq .
That poll found that Americans supported the killing of Soleimani 42 percent to 33 percent , but a whopping 55 percent said the strike made the U.S. less safe ( 24 percent thought it made the U.S. more safe ) .
It ’ s important to note , however , that plenty of people in all four polls didn ’ t express an opinion one way or the other on Iran .
This suggests that opinions on Iran are still in flux and could be swayed by politicians or the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political scientists have consistently found that public opinion on foreign policy is driven by elites .
But that ’ s not to say that the public didn ’ t have opinions on military action against Iran before this month ’ s events .
Several polls in recent months have asked Americans about the use of force against Iran before this latest scare , most of them framing the question around stopping Iran ’ s nuclear program .
And as you can see in the polls below , there wasn ’ t exactly a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News poll from July , 53 percent of Americans favored military action against Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons , compared with 30 percent who did not .
• But a Pew Research Center poll conducted the same month found that 49 percent of Americans felt it was more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran and 44 percent felt it was more important to take a “ firm stand ” against the nation ’ s nuclear efforts .
• Other polls have found far less support for military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Maryland survey from September that found that only 21 percent of Americans thought the U.S. should be prepared to go to war to achieve its foreign-policy goals vis-à-vis Iran , while 76 percent said that the U.S. goals in Iran did not warrant going to war .
• Similarly , a Gallup survey from July found that 18 percent of Americans said the U.S. should take military action against Iran to shut down its nuclear program ; 78 percent said the U.S. should rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reading beyond the topline numbers , we see that 42 percent of those who prefer economic and diplomatic efforts said the U.S. should resort to military action if those efforts fail .
In other words , about half of Gallup ’ s sample supported war in some circumstances .
• And at the opposite end of the spectrum is a survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs conducted in June : A full 70 percent said they would support using American troops to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whether they would support using American troops against a variety of countries ( e.g.
, China , Russia ) in a variety of situations , which may have made the use of troops in Iran look like a comparatively appealing proposition .
Take all this data together , and a fuzzy picture emerges : Americans may be supportive of military action against Iran under the right conditions , such as as a last-ditch effort to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons .
The killing of Soleimani also appears to be narrowly popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its possible repercussions .
But remember that plenty of Americans still don ’ t know what to think .
Missing variables like whether this month ’ s events foreshadow a longer conflict and the evolving postures taken by Trump and top Democrats likely mean that this isn ’ t the last word on public opinion on Iran either .
• Gallup has tracked how many Americans identify with each political party since 1991 .
In 2019 , the firm found that , on average , 47 percent of U.S. adults identified as Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those numbers are actually quite steady — the percent of adults identifying as Democratic has not changed in the last four years , and the percent of Republicans has hovered at either 41 or 42 since 2012 .
• My colleague Geoffrey Skelley wrote this week about the tough intraparty challenge that the newest U.S. senator , Kelly Loeffler of Georgia , could face from close Trump ally Rep. Doug Collins in this year ’ s special election .
A new poll of Georgia Republican primary voters from the Democratic firm Public Policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upper hand .
Republicans in the poll largely didn ’ t know enough about Loeffler to opine on her , with 20 percent viewing her favorably and 18 percent viewing her unfavorably .
The same voters viewed Collins much more positively , as 65 percent had a favorable opinion and 6 percent had an unfavorable one .
• According to Gonzales Research & Media Services , Maryland Gov .
Larry Hogan has a 75 percent approval rating and just a 17 percent disapproval rating .
What ’ s more , the Republican ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans ( 77 percent ) , Democrats ( 73 percent ) and independents ( 78 percent ) .
The poll was conducted before a Washington Monthly article alleged that Hogan has advanced transportation projects as governor that profited his real-estate holdings , but for now , at least , Hogan remains overwhelmingly popular in the Old Line State .
• Finally , some elusive Revolutionary War polling : A Monmouth poll released this week asked respondents which state first came to mind when they thought about America ’ s War of Independence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 percent each said Virginia and New Jersey and 15 percent said Pennsylvania .
( If New Jersey seems out of place on that list , consider that the poll was conducted among New Jersey residents , and Monmouth is based in the Garden State . )
• Sunday ’ s Golden Globes ceremony was purportedly the last that Ricky Gervais will host , but he might want to reconsider after seeing these Morning Consult polling numbers : 64 percent of those who watched part or all of the awards thought he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” job , while only 5 percent gave him “ poor ” marks .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 41.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 53.3 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -11.4 points ) .
At this time last week , 42.5 percent approved and 53.0 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -10.5 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 41.7 percent and a disapproval rating of 53.6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of -11.9 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 6.6 percentage points ( 47.5 percent to 40.9 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by the same amount .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 6.5 points ( 47.2 percent to 40.7 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
On Wednesday, I wrote about what political science and polls about foreign policy can tell us about the impact of the current situation in Iran on both the primary and general election. But conspicuously missing from that analysis were any polls about how the American public feels about Iran. That’s largely because polling on Iran paints a fairly confusing picture, and surveys about this specific incident (which is also still evolving quickly) are still in the field. But in the first 2020 edition of Pollapalooza, I want to walk you through the polls we do have on Iran and military intervention there.
First, a HuffPost/YouGov survey conducted over the weekend found that Americans narrowly approved of the decision to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani (43 percent to 38 percent) — but they were skeptical of how the decision was made. For example, they said 43 percent to 35 percent that President Trump did not plan the airstrike carefully enough and said 44 percent to 34 percent that he should have gotten congressional authorization before ordering the airstrike. Overall, just 32 percent said they thought Trump has a clear strategy for dealing with Iran, while 47 percent said he doesn’t. A Jan. 5-7 poll from The Economist/YouGov found similar results: Americans approved of the Soleimani strike, 44 percent to 38 percent, but said 45 percent to 36 percent that it is more important to avoid war than to “confront Iranian aggression.”
Reuters/Ipsos also fielded a survey Jan. 3-6, finding that Americans disagreed with the idea that the U.S. should conduct a preemptive attack on Iranian military interests (27 percent supported such an attack, while 41 percent were opposed). However, that was a significantly more hawkish outlook than Americans took in the last Reuters/Ipsos poll that asked about a preemptive attack on Iran, back in May. At that time, 60 percent of Americans said they opposed a preemptive attack and 12 percent supported one. Finally, Ipsos paired with USA Today for a survey conducted Jan. 7-8, making it the only poll we have so far that includes some interviews taken after Iran’s retaliatory bombing of U.S. military bases in Iraq. That poll found that Americans supported the killing of Soleimani 42 percent to 33 percent, but a whopping 55 percent said the strike made the U.S. less safe (24 percent thought it made the U.S. more safe).
It’s important to note, however, that plenty of people in all four polls didn’t express an opinion one way or the other on Iran. This suggests that opinions on Iran are still in flux and could be swayed by politicians or the media. As I wrote on Wednesday, political scientists have consistently found that public opinion on foreign policy is driven by elites.
But that’s not to say that the public didn’t have opinions on military action against Iran before this month’s events. Several polls in recent months have asked Americans about the use of force against Iran before this latest scare, most of them framing the question around stopping Iran’s nuclear program. And as you can see in the polls below, there wasn’t exactly a clear consensus:
According to a Fox News poll from July, 53 percent of Americans favored military action against Iran to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, compared with 30 percent who did not.
But a Pew Research Center poll conducted the same month found that 49 percent of Americans felt it was more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran and 44 percent felt it was more important to take a “firm stand” against the nation’s nuclear efforts.
Other polls have found far less support for military intervention in Iran, including a University of Maryland survey from September that found that only 21 percent of Americans thought the U.S. should be prepared to go to war to achieve its foreign-policy goals vis-à-vis Iran, while 76 percent said that the U.S. goals in Iran did not warrant going to war.
support for military intervention in Iran, including a University of Maryland survey from September that found that only 21 percent of Americans thought the U.S. should be prepared to go to war to achieve its foreign-policy goals vis-à-vis Iran, while 76 percent said that the U.S. goals in Iran did not warrant going to war. Similarly, a Gallup survey from July found that 18 percent of Americans said the U.S. should take military action against Iran to shut down its nuclear program; 78 percent said the U.S. should rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts. But there’s an important caveat: Reading beyond the topline numbers, we see that 42 percent of those who prefer economic and diplomatic efforts said the U.S. should resort to military action if those efforts fail. In other words, about half of Gallup’s sample supported war in some circumstances.
circumstances. And at the opposite end of the spectrum is a survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs conducted in June: A full 70 percent said they would support using American troops to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. However, the question was asked in the context of whether they would support using American troops against a variety of countries (e.g., China, Russia) in a variety of situations, which may have made the use of troops in Iran look like a comparatively appealing proposition.
Take all this data together, and a fuzzy picture emerges: Americans may be supportive of military action against Iran under the right conditions, such as as a last-ditch effort to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. The killing of Soleimani also appears to be narrowly popular, although the public seems leery of its possible repercussions. But remember that plenty of Americans still don’t know what to think. Missing variables like whether this month’s events foreshadow a longer conflict and the evolving postures taken by Trump and top Democrats likely mean that this isn’t the last word on public opinion on Iran either.
Other polling bites
Gallup has tracked how many Americans identify with each political party since 1991. In 2019, the firm found that, on average, 47 percent of U.S. adults identified as Democrats and 42 percent identified as Republicans. Those numbers are actually quite steady — the percent of adults identifying as Democratic has not changed in the last four years, and the percent of Republicans has hovered at either 41 or 42 since 2012.
My colleague Geoffrey Skelley wrote this week about the tough intraparty challenge that the newest U.S. senator, Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, could face from close Trump ally Rep. Doug Collins in this year’s special election. A new poll of Georgia Republican primary voters from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling suggests that Collins could have the upper hand. Republicans in the poll largely didn’t know enough about Loeffler to opine on her, with 20 percent viewing her favorably and 18 percent viewing her unfavorably. The same voters viewed Collins much more positively, as 65 percent had a favorable opinion and 6 percent had an unfavorable one.
According to Gonzales Research & Media Services, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has a 75 percent approval rating and just a 17 percent disapproval rating. What’s more, the Republican’s approval rating is practically identical among Republicans (77 percent), Democrats (73 percent) and independents (78 percent). The poll was conducted before a Washington Monthly article alleged that Hogan has advanced transportation projects as governor that profited his real-estate holdings, but for now, at least, Hogan remains overwhelmingly popular in the Old Line State.
Finally, some elusive Revolutionary War polling: A Monmouth poll released this week asked respondents which state first came to mind when they thought about America’s War of Independence. A 20 percent plurality said Massachusetts, 16 percent each said Virginia and New Jersey and 15 percent said Pennsylvania. (If New Jersey seems out of place on that list, consider that the poll was conducted among New Jersey residents, and Monmouth is based in the Garden State.)
Sunday’s Golden Globes ceremony was purportedly the last that Ricky Gervais will host, but he might want to reconsider after seeing these Morning Consult polling numbers: 64 percent of those who watched part or all of the awards thought he did an “excellent” or “good” job, while only 5 percent gave him “poor” marks.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 41.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 53.3 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -11.4 points). At this time last week, 42.5 percent approved and 53.0 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -10.5 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 41.7 percent and a disapproval rating of 53.6 percent, for a net approval rating of -11.9 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 6.6 percentage points (47.5 percent to 40.9 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by the same amount. At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 6.5 points (47.2 percent to 40.7 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-10--Who’s In — Steyer! — And Who’s Out Of The January Debate

Although there have been six debates in the 2020 Democratic primary already , next Tuesday ’ s clash in Iowa is the first to actually take place in 2020 .
And , barring any wild , last-minute changes ( we ’ ll get to Thursday ’ s flurry of polls in a second ) , it will be the most exclusive event yet — with only six candidates making the cut ( the deadline for qualifying polls to drop is midnight tonight , so a couple more polls may still drop today ) .
We ’ re fairly confident in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , because no one else is close to qualifying .
Although , never say die — maybe Bloomberg surprises us with a donor announcement — as two polls from Fox News dropped late Thursday , putting billionaire activist Tom Steyer on the debate stage .
In the end , he qualified for the debate via the early-state polling method ( at least 7 percent in two early-state polls ) , picking up a startling 15 percent in South Carolina ( he ’ d hit 4 percent previously in October ) and 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November ) .
So far , he ’ s the only candidate to have qualified solely via the early-state method .
As for the five other candidates who have made it , four of them sit above 5 percent in the national polls : former Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg .
As for Sen. Amy Klobuchar , she , like Steyer , is polling below 5 percent nationally ( she ’ s at 3 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 2 percent ) , but she ’ s still managed to crack 5 percent in six polls ( a mix of early-state and national surveys ) to qualify .
Just to refresh , the Democratic National Committee ’ s qualification rules require candidates to earn 5 percent support in at least four national or early-state polls , or 7 percent support in at least two early-state polls , from qualifying polling organizations released between Nov. 14 and Jan. 10 .
Candidates must also have at least 225,000 unique donors , including at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states or territories .
As for the other major candidates still in the race , only billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reached the polling threshold .
But because he isn ’ t seeking donations , he ’ s unlikely to attract enough individual contributors to qualify for the debate .
But that probably doesn ’ t faze Bloomberg much , as he ’ s said making the debates isn ’ t really part of his strategy .
Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sen. Cory Booker have enough donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also close to the donor threshold ) , but have likely come up short on the polling front .
Yang was the only other candidate to pick up a qualifying poll , but he needs three more to make it ( or to hit at least 7 percent in two early-state polls ) .
Meanwhile , the rest of the field didn ’ t pick up a single qualifying survey , including Booker and Gabbard .
Until Thursday , there had been a pronounced dearth in polling since late December , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec. 19 debate .
The lack of polling prompted Yang to ask the DNC to sponsor some surveys , but the DNC declined to do so , telling the New York Times that the organizations on the DNC ’ s polling list “ should conduct more independent polling.
” Of course , many pollsters avoid polling during holiday periods because of depressed response rates , which is one reason there are fewer qualifying polls this time around .
But another culprit for the lack of polls may be the ongoing impeachment of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expensive , and some pollsters may have prioritized surveys on that question over horse-race polls of the Democratic primary , as impeachment — not Iowa — was the political story of December .
But then it started raining polls on Thursday , when three new surveys came out .
At least one more poll is expected Friday , though that wouldn ’ t be enough to change things for any of the candidates on the outside looking in .
The Iowa caucuses are now only roughly three weeks away , and Tuesday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iowa — is the last debate before the voting starts .
A lot is at stake in this debate , too , especially considering a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that a majority of potential caucus-goers still haven ’ t “ definitely ” decided on their candidate choice ( although 57 percent said they “ probably ” had ) .
But next week , they and the rest of the country will get one more look at these six candidates before the voting starts , and with more voters likely paying attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate could shake things up headed into Iowa .

Although there have been six debates in the 2020 Democratic primary already, next Tuesday’s clash in Iowa is the first to actually take place in 2020. And, barring any wild, last-minute changes (we’ll get to Thursday’s flurry of polls in a second), it will be the most exclusive event yet — with only six candidates making the cut (the deadline for qualifying polls to drop is midnight tonight, so a couple more polls may still drop today).
We’re fairly confident in the debate roster at this point, though, because no one else is close to qualifying. Although, never say die — maybe Bloomberg surprises us with a donor announcement — as two polls from Fox News dropped late Thursday, putting billionaire activist Tom Steyer on the debate stage. In the end, he qualified for the debate via the early-state polling method (at least 7 percent in two early-state polls), picking up a startling 15 percent in South Carolina (he’d hit 4 percent previously in October) and 12 percent in Nevada (5 percent previously in November). So far, he’s the only candidate to have qualified solely via the early-state method.
As for the five other candidates who have made it, four of them sit above 5 percent in the national polls: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. As for Sen. Amy Klobuchar, she, like Steyer, is polling below 5 percent nationally (she’s at 3 percent, on average; Steyer’s at 2 percent), but she’s still managed to crack 5 percent in six polls (a mix of early-state and national surveys) to qualify.
Six candidates made the January debate Democratic presidential candidates* by whether and how they have qualified for the January debate, as of Jan. 10 at 6 a.m. NO. OF QUALIFYING POLLS MET THRESHOLD FOR … CANDIDATE All ≥ 5% EARLY STATE ≥7% POLLS 225K+ DONORS QUALIFIED Joe Biden 16 12 ✓ ✓ ✓ Bernie Sanders 16 12 ✓ ✓ ✓ Elizabeth Warren 16 12 ✓ ✓ ✓ Pete Buttigieg 15 9 ✓ ✓ ✓ Amy Klobuchar 6 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ Tom Steyer 3 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ Michael Bloomberg 5 0 ✓ Andrew Yang 1 0 ✓ Cory Booker 0 0 ✓ Michael Bennet 0 0 John Delaney 0 0 Tulsi Gabbard 0 0 Deval Patrick 0 0 Marianne Williamson 0 0 *For candidates considered “major” by FiveThirtyEight. To qualify for the seventh debate, a candidate must reach 5 percent support in at least four national or early-state polls, or 7 percent support in at least two early-state polls from qualifying polling organizations. Candidates must also have at least 225,000 unique donors, including at least 1,000 donors in at least 20 states or territories. Information released by campaigns is used to determine whether a candidate has hit the donor threshold. If a campaign announced it had reached 225,000 donors but did not say whether it had at least 1,000 donors in 20 states or territories, we assumed that it had met the latter requirement as well. Sources: POLLS, CAMPAIGNS, MEDIA REPORTS
Just to refresh, the Democratic National Committee’s qualification rules require candidates to earn 5 percent support in at least four national or early-state polls, or 7 percent support in at least two early-state polls, from qualifying polling organizations released between Nov. 14 and Jan. 10. Candidates must also have at least 225,000 unique donors, including at least 1,000 donors in at least 20 states or territories.
As for the other major candidates still in the race, only billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reached the polling threshold. But because he isn’t seeking donations, he’s unlikely to attract enough individual contributors to qualify for the debate. But that probably doesn’t faze Bloomberg much, as he’s said making the debates isn’t really part of his strategy. Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sen. Cory Booker have enough donors to qualify (though Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is also close to the donor threshold), but have likely come up short on the polling front. Yang was the only other candidate to pick up a qualifying poll, but he needs three more to make it (or to hit at least 7 percent in two early-state polls). Meanwhile, the rest of the field didn’t pick up a single qualifying survey, including Booker and Gabbard.
Until Thursday, there had been a pronounced dearth in polling since late December, with only two qualifying polls released since the Dec. 19 debate. The lack of polling prompted Yang to ask the DNC to sponsor some surveys, but the DNC declined to do so, telling the New York Times that the organizations on the DNC’s polling list “should conduct more independent polling.” Of course, many pollsters avoid polling during holiday periods because of depressed response rates, which is one reason there are fewer qualifying polls this time around. But another culprit for the lack of polls may be the ongoing impeachment of President Trump. Conducting high quality polls is expensive, and some pollsters may have prioritized surveys on that question over horse-race polls of the Democratic primary, as impeachment — not Iowa — was the political story of December. But then it started raining polls on Thursday, when three new surveys came out. At least one more poll is expected Friday, though that wouldn’t be enough to change things for any of the candidates on the outside looking in.
The Iowa caucuses are now only roughly three weeks away, and Tuesday’s debate — held in Des Moines, Iowa — is the last debate before the voting starts. A lot is at stake in this debate, too, especially considering a recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that a majority of potential caucus-goers still haven’t “definitely” decided on their candidate choice (although 57 percent said they “probably” had). But next week, they and the rest of the country will get one more look at these six candidates before the voting starts, and with more voters likely paying attention, it’s possible that this debate could shake things up headed into Iowa.
How a raucous convention revolutionized our primary system


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-10--Politics Podcast: The Primary Forecast Is Live, And ‘Model Talk’ Returns

Our 2020 Democratic primary forecast is live !
In a new installment of “ Model Talk , ” FiveThirtyEight Politics @ @ @ @ @ our forecast , Nate Silver discusses the state of the race according to the forecast @ @ @ @ @ it .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button @ @ @ @ @ or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform @ @ @ @ @ to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and @ @ @ @ @ discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a @ @ @ @ @ for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , @ @ @ @ @ comments .

Our 2020 Democratic primary forecast is live! In a new installment of “Model Talk,” FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast’s check-in with our forecast, Nate Silver discusses the state of the race according to the forecast and what went into creating it.
Model Talk: The Primary Forecast Is Live
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--2020-01-10--Why Marianne Williamson’s Unconventional Presidential Bid Didn’t Catch On

Marianne Williamson ’ s run is over .
On Friday — just over a week after laying off her entire campaign staff — the self-help author and motivational speaker announced she was dropping out of the presidential race .
We can ’ t say this result was a shock .
Williamson started her campaign with both an unconventional résumé for a would-be president and an unconventional message of healing the country ’ s divisions with spiritualism and love .
Her large following ( her books have sold more than 3 million copies , and she is close with several celebrities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pack of literally hundreds of other non-politicians waging quixotic presidential campaigns , as she and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang became the only two non-elected-officials to qualify for the first two debates .
But those debates required a polling threshold of only 1 percent and a donor threshold of only 65,000 unique contributors — relatively achievable goals .
As the thresholds increased , Williamson was unable to keep pace and didn ’ t appear in any more debates .
She has languished with a FiveThirtyEight national polling average of less than 1 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate-qualifying pollster ( Monmouth University ) ever found her above 1 percent .
Maybe one reason why Williamson didn ’ t fare better in the polls is that the more voters got to know her , the less they liked her .
According to an average of polls conducted in May , Democrats were not very familiar with Williamson ; 13 percent of them had a favorable impression of her , 10 percent had an unfavorable one and the remainder didn ’ t have an opinion .
And even though Williamson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first two debates ( according to an average of polls conducted Aug. 1-25 ) , her unfavorable rating increased more — by 16 points .
This made her one of the few Democratic candidates who was more unpopular than popular among members of her own party — generally speaking , not a good place to be .
Williamson may have hoped that her New Age rhetoric ( “ I ’ m going to harness love for political purposes ” ) would help her appeal to the spiritual side of the Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned voters off .
As my colleague Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux wrote in September , although “ spiritual but not religious ” people make up around one-third of the Democratic Party , they are not a cohesive group , do not vote as a monolith and tend to prioritize shared values and policy positions over a shared spiritual identity .
They also tend to be more highly educated than the broader public , which might disabuse them of a candidate who has heterodox views on vaccines and antidepressants or who ridiculed the idea that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country.
” Ultimately , it was harder than Williamson probably expected to get , as she once quipped , “ everyone who has a yoga mat ” to vote for her .
But there is a long tradition of quirky presidential candidates staying in the race throughout the primaries and keeping the flame of their contrarian gospel alive — think former Rep. Dennis Kucinich in 2004 or former Rep. Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 .
Why couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and at least keep running as a protest candidate ?
In a word , money .
From November 2018 through September 2019 , she raised just $ 6.1 million and spent $ 5.4 million , for a pretty high burn rate of 88 percent .
( Every non-self-funding candidate with a burn rate above 80 percent has now dropped out . )
It was this lack of cash that forced Williamson to lay off her staff — which reportedly once numbered around 45 — on Jan. 2 .
From there , the writing @ @ @ @ @

Marianne Williamson’s run is over. On Friday — just over a week after laying off her entire campaign staff — the self-help author and motivational speaker announced she was dropping out of the presidential race.
We can’t say this result was a shock. Williamson started her campaign with both an unconventional résumé for a would-be president and an unconventional message of healing the country’s divisions with spiritualism and love. Her large following (her books have sold more than 3 million copies, and she is close with several celebrities) was enough to separate her from a pack of literally hundreds of other non-politicians waging quixotic presidential campaigns, as she and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang became the only two non-elected-officials to qualify for the first two debates.
But those debates required a polling threshold of only 1 percent and a donor threshold of only 65,000 unique contributors — relatively achievable goals. As the thresholds increased, Williamson was unable to keep pace and didn’t appear in any more debates. She has languished with a FiveThirtyEight national polling average of less than 1 percent all cycle long, and only one debate-qualifying pollster (Monmouth University) ever found her above 1 percent.
Maybe one reason why Williamson didn’t fare better in the polls is that the more voters got to know her, the less they liked her. According to an average of polls conducted in May, Democrats were not very familiar with Williamson; 13 percent of them had a favorable impression of her, 10 percent had an unfavorable one and the remainder didn’t have an opinion. And even though Williamson’s favorable rating increased by 9 points after the first two debates (according to an average of polls conducted Aug. 1-25), her unfavorable rating increased more — by 16 points. This made her one of the few Democratic candidates who was more unpopular than popular among members of her own party — generally speaking, not a good place to be.
Williamson may have hoped that her New Age rhetoric (“I’m going to harness love for political purposes”) would help her appeal to the spiritual side of the Democratic Party, but it looks like it just turned voters off. As my colleague Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux wrote in September, although “spiritual but not religious” people make up around one-third of the Democratic Party, they are not a cohesive group, do not vote as a monolith and tend to prioritize shared values and policy positions over a shared spiritual identity. They also tend to be more highly educated than the broader public, which might disabuse them of a candidate who has heterodox views on vaccines and antidepressants or who ridiculed the idea that “wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country.” Ultimately, it was harder than Williamson probably expected to get, as she once quipped, “everyone who has a yoga mat” to vote for her.
But there is a long tradition of quirky presidential candidates staying in the race throughout the primaries and keeping the flame of their contrarian gospel alive — think former Rep. Dennis Kucinich in 2004 or former Rep. Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. Why couldn’t Williamson pick up their mantle and at least keep running as a protest candidate? In a word, money. From November 2018 through September 2019, she raised just $6.1 million and spent $5.4 million, for a pretty high burn rate of 88 percent. (Every non-self-funding candidate with a burn rate above 80 percent has now dropped out.) It was this lack of cash that forced Williamson to lay off her staff — which reportedly once numbered around 45 — on Jan. 2. From there, the writing was on the wall.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-10--Biden Is The Front-Runner, But There’s No Clear Favorite

Joe Biden is the most likely person to win a majority of pledged Democratic delegates , according to the FiveThirtyEight primary model , which we launched on Thursday morning .
This is our first-ever full-fledged model of the primaries and we ’ re pretty excited about it — to read more about how the model works , see here .
But saying the former vice president is the front-runner doesn ’ t really tell the whole story .
He may be the most likely nominee , but he ’ s still a slight underdog relative to the field , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of pledged delegates by the time of the last scheduled Democratic contest — the Virgin Islands caucus on June 6 .
If one lowers the threshold to a plurality of delegates , rather than a majority , then Biden ’ s chances are almost 50-50 , but not quite — he has a 45 percent chance of a delegate plurality , per our forecast .
I want to emphasize that there ’ s still a lot of room for another candidate to surge because nobody has voted yet , the primaries are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at FiveThirtyEight , we ’ re a little self-conscious about how people interpret — or sometimes misinterpret — our probabilistic forecasts .
The Democratic primary still features 14 candidates , and while most of them have little to no shot , there are still several fairly realistic possibilities : So while Biden ’ s in a reasonably strong and perhaps even slightly underrated position , it ’ s slightly more likely than not that Biden won ’ t be the nominee .
Sen. Bernie Sanders has the next-best shot , with a 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 12 percent and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 10 percent .
There ’ s also a 14 percent chance — about 1 in 7 — that no one will win a majority of pledged delegates by June 6 , which could lead to a contested convention .
The model works by simulating the nomination race thousands of times , accounting for the bounces that candidates may receive by winning or losing states , along with other contingencies — such as candidates dropping out and polls moving in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of our models , it ’ s empirically driven , built using data from the 15 competitive nomination races since 1980 .
Since the primaries themselves are fairly complex process , the model is fairly complex also — which we mean as a warning as much as a brag .
Models with more complexity are easier to screw up and can be more sensitive to initial assumptions — so we ’ d encourage you to read more about how our model works .
As an illustration of how one race can affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here are each of the leading candidates ’ chances of winning a plurality or majority of delegates conditional on winning or losing Iowa : Biden , for instance , would be a heavy favorite if he wins Iowa , with an 80 percent chance of a delegate majority and an 84 percent chance of a plurality .
His majority chances would fall to 20 percent following an Iowa loss , however .
Sanders would be a slight favorite to win a majority after an Iowa win , with a 61 percent chance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8 percent with a loss there .
Warren would also be a slight favorite to win a delegate majority after an Iowa win , but Buttigieg would not be ( although his position would be substantially strengthened ) .
These scenarios account for Iowa wins of all shapes and sizes — big , emphatic wins and narrow , perhaps even disputed ones .
With a landslide win in Iowa , Sanders might be a fairly heavy overall favorite for the nomination .
If Iowa were a four-way pileup instead — with Sanders narrowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place , for instance — Sanders ’ s projected bounce might not be enough to help him overtake Biden in national polls and the nomination could remain fairly open-ended .
Speaking of open-ended , the first three states all have highly uncertain outcomes .
Biden is the nominal favorite to win Iowa , but has just a 33 percent chance of doing so .
In New Hampshire , Sanders has a 31 percent chance and Biden is at 27 percent .
And in Nevada , Biden has a 35 chance , with Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearer front-runner in South Carolina — although even that lead might not be safe if he performed poorly in the first three states .
The model also plays out the rest of the primaries on Super Tuesday and beyond — although they ’ re subject to more uncertainty , both because they come later in the process and because they have less polling .
In states with little or no polling , our model infers odds based on demographic and geographic factors — see the methodology primer for more .
For a flavor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the states and territories that the model thinks each of the four leading candidates is the most likely to win .
Biden ’ s strengths are concentrated in the South , among states with large numbers of black voters .
Sanders and Warren are expected to perform well in New England and in western states such as Colorado and California , where the Democratic electorate tends to be pretty liberal .
Buttigieg ’ s strongest states figure to be largely white states in the Midwest and otherwise in the northern part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more to say about the forecast in the weeks and months ahead .
But let me conclude by briefly considering the forecast from each of the major candidates ’ perspectives , tackling each one in 100 words or less .
Biden .
The optimistic case for Biden is fairly simple .
He ’ s ahead in national polls .
He ’ s also ahead in our “ fundamentals ” calculation .
( Although Biden hasn ’ t raised all that much money , he has by far the most endorsements . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in the South , where none of the other candidates look particularly strong .
So a win in Iowa would put Biden in a commanding position .
And a loss there could be more survivable than it would be for another candidate .
Still , Iowa is more likely to hurt him than help him , according to our model .
Sanders .
Sanders ’ s early-state polling is fairly robust .
He probably wouldn ’ t have any problem parlaying an Iowa win into a sequel in New Hampshire , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Nevada also .
California is another potential strength for Sanders on Super Tuesday , as a source of both delegates and momentum .
All that said , perhaps the biggest question about Sanders — namely , how would the establishment and voters react if he appeared to be on the verge of winning the nomination — remains unanswered , and it ’ s not necessarily something our model can answer by itself .
Warren .
The conventional wisdom about Sanders is fairly bullish , while being fairly bearish on Warren .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are only a few points separating them in the polls , nationally and in the early states .
They ’ re an important few points — in part because they coincide with the 15 percent threshold that Democratic rules require candidates clear to win delegates .
That ’ s part of why our model gives Sanders roughly double Warren ’ s chances of securing a delegate majority .
But even a small-ish burst of momentum for Warren could restore her to a highly competitive position .
Buttigieg .
Buttigieg can win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of stalling out afterward .
The problem isn ’ t in New Hampshire , where his position is nearly as strong .
But Buttigieg is weak among nonwhite voters , especially black voters , which makes Nevada and South Carolina uphill battles for him .
With that said , Buttigieg is the sort of candidate who the model figures could get a relatively large bounce from wins in Iowa and New Hampshire .
In general , the lower a candidate ’ s standing in national polls , the bigger the bounce they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … Klobuchar ?
Sen. Amy Klobuchar has picked up a percentage point or two in the polls since the December debate .
But if that ’ s all she gets , it ’ s probably a case of too little , too late .
Her position is not hopeless — the model does have her as the fifth most likely winner .
But the model simply thinks it will take a lot to leapfrog four other candidates .
With that said , there ’ s been little polling recently , and a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equation for Klobuchar .
What about … Bloomberg ?
If you ’ re a Michael Bloomberg optimist , you could point toward the 14 percent chance that no candidate wins a delegate majority as a bullish sign .
The former New York mayor ’ s plan clearly involves hoping for a murky outcome in the early states and playing the long game .
But there are many , many questions here .
The first four states probably will produce a clear front-runner or two , and even if they don ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would emerge as the alternative .
Still , his unconventional strategy is difficult to model .
What about … Steyer ?
Billionaire Tom Steyer has risen in recent polls of Nevada and South Carolina after a monthslong advertising barrage there .
It ’ s not quite clear what that gets him , though .
On the one hand , his position will be weaker in those states by the time they get around to voting if he hasn ’ t also performed well in Iowa and New Hampshire .
On the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday states ( as Bloomberg has ) to follow up on any potential success in Nevada and South Carolina .
He ’ s worth watching , but the model doesn ’ t see a clear path for him .
Enjoy the weekend — and the CNN/Selzer/Des Moines Register poll that is scheduled to come out on Friday night — and we ’ ll be back at you with more updates soon .

Joe Biden is the most likely person to win a majority of pledged Democratic delegates, according to the FiveThirtyEight primary model, which we launched on Thursday morning. This is our first-ever full-fledged model of the primaries and we’re pretty excited about it — to read more about how the model works, see here.
But saying the former vice president is the front-runner doesn’t really tell the whole story. He may be the most likely nominee, but he’s still a slight underdog relative to the field, with a 40 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates by the time of the last scheduled Democratic contest — the Virgin Islands caucus on June 6. If one lowers the threshold to a plurality of delegates, rather than a majority, then Biden’s chances are almost 50-50, but not quite — he has a 45 percent chance of a delegate plurality, per our forecast.
I want to emphasize that there’s still a lot of room for another candidate to surge because nobody has voted yet, the primaries are a complex process, and frankly here at FiveThirtyEight, we’re a little self-conscious about how people interpret — or sometimes misinterpret — our probabilistic forecasts. The Democratic primary still features 14 candidates, and while most of them have little to no shot, there are still several fairly realistic possibilities:
So while Biden’s in a reasonably strong and perhaps even slightly underrated position, it’s slightly more likely than not that Biden won’t be the nominee. Sen. Bernie Sanders has the next-best shot, with a 22 percent chance at a majority, followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 12 percent and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 10 percent. There’s also a 14 percent chance — about 1 in 7 — that no one will win a majority of pledged delegates by June 6, which could lead to a contested convention.
The model works by simulating the nomination race thousands of times, accounting for the bounces that candidates may receive by winning or losing states, along with other contingencies — such as candidates dropping out and polls moving in response to debates and news events. Like all of our models, it’s empirically driven, built using data from the 15 competitive nomination races since 1980.
Since the primaries themselves are fairly complex process, the model is fairly complex also — which we mean as a warning as much as a brag. Models with more complexity are easier to screw up and can be more sensitive to initial assumptions — so we’d encourage you to read more about how our model works.
As an illustration of how one race can affect the following ones in our model, here are each of the leading candidates’ chances of winning a plurality or majority of delegates conditional on winning or losing Iowa:
Iowa matters … a lot How candidates’ chances of winning a majority or plurality of delegates changes if they win Iowa, according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast With an Iowa win With an Iowa loss Candidate Majority Chance Plurality Chance Majority Chance Plurality Chance Biden 80% 84% 20% 26% Buttigieg 37 42 2 3 Sanders 61 67 8 10 Warren 55 60 5 7 As of 8 a.m., Jan. 10, 2020
Biden, for instance, would be a heavy favorite if he wins Iowa, with an 80 percent chance of a delegate majority and an 84 percent chance of a plurality. His majority chances would fall to 20 percent following an Iowa loss, however. Sanders would be a slight favorite to win a majority after an Iowa win, with a 61 percent chance, but his majority chances would fall to 8 percent with a loss there. Warren would also be a slight favorite to win a delegate majority after an Iowa win, but Buttigieg would not be (although his position would be substantially strengthened).
These scenarios account for Iowa wins of all shapes and sizes — big, emphatic wins and narrow, perhaps even disputed ones. With a landslide win in Iowa, Sanders might be a fairly heavy overall favorite for the nomination. If Iowa were a four-way pileup instead — with Sanders narrowly winning and Biden in a strong second place, for instance — Sanders’s projected bounce might not be enough to help him overtake Biden in national polls and the nomination could remain fairly open-ended.
Speaking of open-ended, the first three states all have highly uncertain outcomes. Biden is the nominal favorite to win Iowa, but has just a 33 percent chance of doing so. In New Hampshire, Sanders has a 31 percent chance and Biden is at 27 percent. And in Nevada, Biden has a 35 chance, with Sanders at 31 percent. Biden is a clearer front-runner in South Carolina — although even that lead might not be safe if he performed poorly in the first three states.
Who’s favored in the first four states? Candidates’ chances of winning the early states, according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast State Biden Sanders Warren Buttigieg Other Iowa 33% 27% 14% 22% 4% New Hampshire 27 31 15 23 3 Nevada 35 31 16 13 4 South Carolina 54 20 10 9 7 As of 8 a.m., Jan. 10, 2020.
The model also plays out the rest of the primaries on Super Tuesday and beyond — although they’re subject to more uncertainty, both because they come later in the process and because they have less polling. In states with little or no polling, our model infers odds based on demographic and geographic factors — see the methodology primer for more.
For a flavor of how this works, here are the states and territories that the model thinks each of the four leading candidates is the most likely to win.
Where each front-runner is most likely to win, in one table The top four candidates’ chances of winning the primaries or caucuses where their position is strongest, per FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast Biden Sanders Primary/caucus chances Primary/caucus chances Alabama 61% Vermont 62% Mississippi 58 Utah 33 Delaware 55 Washington 32 South Carolina 54 California 32 North Carolina 53 Colorado 32 Louisiana 51 New Hampshire 31 Warren Buttigieg Primary/caucus chances Primary/caucus chances Massachusetts 28% New Hampshire 23% Maine 20 Iowa 22 Colorado 19 Indiana 20 Democrats Abroad 19 Democrats Abroad 16 Oklahoma 18 North Dakota 15 Minnesota 18 Minnesota 15 As of 8 a.m., Jan. 10, 2020.
Biden’s strengths are concentrated in the South, among states with large numbers of black voters. Sanders and Warren are expected to perform well in New England and in western states such as Colorado and California, where the Democratic electorate tends to be pretty liberal. Buttigieg’s strongest states figure to be largely white states in the Midwest and otherwise in the northern part of the country.
We’ll have a lot more to say about the forecast in the weeks and months ahead. But let me conclude by briefly considering the forecast from each of the major candidates’ perspectives, tackling each one in 100 words or less.
Biden. The optimistic case for Biden is fairly simple. He’s ahead in national polls. He’s also ahead in our “fundamentals” calculation. (Although Biden hasn’t raised all that much money, he has by far the most endorsements.) His strength among black voters will help him in the South, where none of the other candidates look particularly strong. So a win in Iowa would put Biden in a commanding position. And a loss there could be more survivable than it would be for another candidate. Still, Iowa is more likely to hurt him than help him, according to our model.
Sanders. Sanders’s early-state polling is fairly robust. He probably wouldn’t have any problem parlaying an Iowa win into a sequel in New Hampshire, and our model likes his position reasonably well in Nevada also. California is another potential strength for Sanders on Super Tuesday, as a source of both delegates and momentum. All that said, perhaps the biggest question about Sanders — namely, how would the establishment and voters react if he appeared to be on the verge of winning the nomination — remains unanswered, and it’s not necessarily something our model can answer by itself.
Warren. The conventional wisdom about Sanders is fairly bullish, while being fairly bearish on Warren. But it’s worth keeping in mind that there are only a few points separating them in the polls, nationally and in the early states. They’re an important few points — in part because they coincide with the 15 percent threshold that Democratic rules require candidates clear to win delegates. That’s part of why our model gives Sanders roughly double Warren’s chances of securing a delegate majority. But even a small-ish burst of momentum for Warren could restore her to a highly competitive position.
Buttigieg. Buttigieg can win Iowa — but he also runs the risk of stalling out afterward. The problem isn’t in New Hampshire, where his position is nearly as strong. But Buttigieg is weak among nonwhite voters, especially black voters, which makes Nevada and South Carolina uphill battles for him. With that said, Buttigieg is the sort of candidate who the model figures could get a relatively large bounce from wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. In general, the lower a candidate’s standing in national polls, the bigger the bounce they get from early-state success.
What about … Klobuchar? Sen. Amy Klobuchar has picked up a percentage point or two in the polls since the December debate. But if that’s all she gets, it’s probably a case of too little, too late. Her position is not hopeless — the model does have her as the fifth most likely winner. But the model simply thinks it will take a lot to leapfrog four other candidates. With that said, there’s been little polling recently, and a single strong poll in Iowa could change the equation for Klobuchar.
What about … Bloomberg? If you’re a Michael Bloomberg optimist, you could point toward the 14 percent chance that no candidate wins a delegate majority as a bullish sign. The former New York mayor’s plan clearly involves hoping for a murky outcome in the early states and playing the long game. But there are many, many questions here. The first four states probably will produce a clear front-runner or two, and even if they don’t, it’s not clear why Bloomberg would emerge as the alternative. Still, his unconventional strategy is difficult to model.
What about … Steyer? Billionaire Tom Steyer has risen in recent polls of Nevada and South Carolina after a monthslong advertising barrage there. It’s not quite clear what that gets him, though. On the one hand, his position will be weaker in those states by the time they get around to voting if he hasn’t also performed well in Iowa and New Hampshire. On the other hand, he hasn’t invested in Super Tuesday states (as Bloomberg has) to follow up on any potential success in Nevada and South Carolina. He’s worth watching, but the model doesn’t see a clear path for him.
Enjoy the weekend — and the CNN/Selzer/Des Moines Register poll that is scheduled to come out on Friday night — and we’ll be back at you with more updates soon.
How a raucous convention revolutionized our primary system


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-11--Election Update: Sanders Now Leads A Wide-Open Iowa Race

Welcome to your first FiveThirtyEight Election Update of the 2020 primary cycle !
This is a column in which we ’ ll talk about the primary race through the lens of our forecast model , which we released earlier this week .
Sometimes it will be rather brief , and we ’ ll quickly run through the latest data — while other times , we ’ ll go into a deep dive on upcoming states or some aspect of how the model works .
We don ’ t necessarily plan to publish an Election Update as a result of each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Selzer & Co. poll of the Iowa caucuses , published by the Des Moines Register and CNN , warrants an exception and did have a somewhat material effect on the model .
Why is it worth focusing on this one individual poll — something that we ’ d usually advise against ?
• Selzer & Co. is a very good pollster , one of the best in the business .
• There haven ’ t been a lot of polls of Iowa recently .
• Iowa is pretty darn important , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks about the race , with the potential to produce fairly large bounces that will affect the rest of the calendar .
The poll showed Bernie Sanders ahead with 20 percent of the vote , followed by Elizabeth Warren at 17 percent , Pete Buttigieg at 16 percent and Joe Biden at 15 percent .
This is a reasonably big shift from the previous Selzer & Co. poll , in November , which had shown Buttigieg ahead with 25 percent of the vote .
( Although , for reasons I ’ ll get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views the latest poll as more neutral than negative for Buttigieg . )
Amy Klobuchar was next in the poll at 6 percent , but that was unchanged from November despite a couple of debate performances since November that voters rated strongly in our polling with Ipsos .
Andrew Yang was sixth at 5 percent .
So then , how did the new poll affect our model ?
Here ’ s what our current national numbers look like : Biden remains the most likely candidate to get a delegate majority , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 24 percent , Warren at 13 percent , and Buttigieg at 10 percent .
There ’ s also a 14 percent chance that no one wins a majority , which could potentially lead to a contested convention .
But those numbers do represent an improvement for Sanders and Warren and a decline for Biden .
Here ’ s a before-and-after comparison : Biden ’ s majority chances fell by 3 percentage points , from 41 percent to 38 percent , while those of Sanders and Warren each gained 2 percentage points .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I really like having a model at times like this because it allows for a fairly rigorous and objective answer to the question : How much should I update my priors as a result of this new piece of information ?
If you ’ re just winging it , it ’ s super easy to screw that up in either direction , either dismissing new data as being “ an outlier , ” etc .
— or claiming that the new data has massively inverted the trajectory of the race when it probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is usually the more common mistake in media coverage of the campaigns since it makes for more dramatic headlines . )
In FiveThirtyEight model terms , swings of this magnitude — Biden falling from 41 percent to 38 percent — are a relatively big deal .
They will likely be on the high end of the shifts you see as a result of a single state poll , with the possible exception of final polls conducted on the eve of a primary or caucus .
( Let me back up with a caveat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the high end of poll-induced swings based on what we ’ ve seen in our past general-election models , but since the primary model is a new product for us , I ’ m not quite sure . )
At the same time , if this poll has completely upended your view of the race , then — I ’ m trying to put this constructively — you need to go back and add a little more rigor to your mental model of the primaries .
Iowa still has four highly plausible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and after the poll .
Our model has Sanders ( with a 29 percent chance ) and Biden ( also with a 29 percent chance ) as being a bit more likely than the others to win , but it ’ s not really much of an edge .
( We have Buttigieg ’ s chances at 22 percent and Warren ’ s at 16 percent . )
Perhaps the candidate who had the most reason to be disappointed by the new poll was Klobuchar .
Making a very late surge to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question — Rick Santorum did it in 2012 — but we have her chances down to 2 percent .
Biden remains the most likely overall winner of the delegate race , meanwhile , with Sanders in the next-best position .
That ’ s because Biden , leading in national polls , would be awfully hard to catch if he won Iowa .
For the other three candidates , there would be the question of whether the Iowa bounce would be enough to propel them past Biden , with Sanders being in the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s second in national polls and because his polling is also relatively strong in both New Hampshire and Nevada .
It ’ s also worth keeping in mind that we do have some other recent information about Iowa apart from this poll .
A YouGov poll of Iowa released last weekend showed a three-way tie between Biden , Sanders and Buttigieg .
And our model also makes inferences about candidates ’ standing in Iowa based on trends in national polls .
That ’ s the reason the model didn ’ t have Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this poll ; it had already anticipated that his numbers would decline as a result of his slump in national polls .
Conversely , even though the numbers didn ’ t seem that terrific for Warren on the surface — her 17 percent in the new Selzer & Co. poll is only a 1-point improvement from her 16 percent in November — it comes during a period when she ’ d been declining in national polls .
So it ’ s a bullish sign for her campaign that she ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By the way , “ one of the front-runners ” is about as precise as it ’ s possible to realistically be in Iowa .
Our forecast will get a bit more accurate as more polls come in and as the Feb. 3 caucuses approach , but the model assumes that caucuses are awfully hard to poll , which means there are high margins of error .
That ’ s especially so in Iowa given some of the quirks of the caucus process , the most important of which is that in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have at least 15 percent of the vote must “ realign ” themselves to candidates who do .
Iowa will also release three different ways of counting its vote .
More about that stuff in future Election Updates .
And although I ’ m not going to get into it today , some of the data from the poll that the model doesn ’ t use — like favorability ratings and second-choice preferences and how many voters have firmly decided on a candidate ( not many , although Sanders supporters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contribute to the sense that the race is open-ended .
All of that is a long-winded way of saying there ’ s a lot of ambiguity about what will happen in Iowa .
Through that fog , our model picked up some good news for Sanders and Warren and some bad news for Biden in this poll .
But the fog is pretty dense .

Welcome to your first FiveThirtyEight Election Update of the 2020 primary cycle! This is a column in which we’ll talk about the primary race through the lens of our forecast model, which we released earlier this week. Sometimes it will be rather brief, and we’ll quickly run through the latest data — while other times, we’ll go into a deep dive on upcoming states or some aspect of how the model works.
Biden, Sanders neck and neck In Iowa
We don’t necessarily plan to publish an Election Update as a result of each single new poll, but Friday’s Selzer & Co. poll of the Iowa caucuses, published by the Des Moines Register and CNN, warrants an exception and did have a somewhat material effect on the model.
Why is it worth focusing on this one individual poll — something that we’d usually advise against?
The poll showed Bernie Sanders ahead with 20 percent of the vote, followed by Elizabeth Warren at 17 percent, Pete Buttigieg at 16 percent and Joe Biden at 15 percent. This is a reasonably big shift from the previous Selzer & Co. poll, in November, which had shown Buttigieg ahead with 25 percent of the vote. (Although, for reasons I’ll get to in a moment, the model views the latest poll as more neutral than negative for Buttigieg.) Amy Klobuchar was next in the poll at 6 percent, but that was unchanged from November despite a couple of debate performances since November that voters rated strongly in our polling with Ipsos. Andrew Yang was sixth at 5 percent.
So then, how did the new poll affect our model? Here’s what our current national numbers look like:
Biden remains the most likely candidate to get a delegate majority, with a 38 percent chance, followed by Sanders at 24 percent, Warren at 13 percent, and Buttigieg at 10 percent. There’s also a 14 percent chance that no one wins a majority, which could potentially lead to a contested convention.
But those numbers do represent an improvement for Sanders and Warren and a decline for Biden. Here’s a before-and-after comparison:
How a new Iowa poll affected our numbers Candidates’ before-and-after chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates following the Selzer & Co. Iowa Poll on Jan. 10, according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast Candidate Last model run before Selzer & Co. poll Current forecast Biden 41% 38% Sanders 22 24 Warren 11 13 Buttigieg 10 10 No majority 14 14 Current forecast as of Jan. 11 at 12 p.m. ET
Biden’s majority chances fell by 3 percentage points, from 41 percent to 38 percent, while those of Sanders and Warren each gained 2 percentage points. Buttigieg’s chances were unchanged.
I really like having a model at times like this because it allows for a fairly rigorous and objective answer to the question: How much should I update my priors as a result of this new piece of information? If you’re just winging it, it’s super easy to screw that up in either direction, either dismissing new data as being “an outlier,” etc. — or claiming that the new data has massively inverted the trajectory of the race when it probably hasn’t. (The latter is usually the more common mistake in media coverage of the campaigns since it makes for more dramatic headlines.)
In FiveThirtyEight model terms, swings of this magnitude — Biden falling from 41 percent to 38 percent — are a relatively big deal. They will likely be on the high end of the shifts you see as a result of a single state poll, with the possible exception of final polls conducted on the eve of a primary or caucus. (Let me back up with a caveat: I think that this will be on the high end of poll-induced swings based on what we’ve seen in our past general-election models, but since the primary model is a new product for us, I’m not quite sure.)
At the same time, if this poll has completely upended your view of the race, then — I’m trying to put this constructively — you need to go back and add a little more rigor to your mental model of the primaries. Iowa still has four highly plausible winners; that was true both before and after the poll. Our model has Sanders (with a 29 percent chance) and Biden (also with a 29 percent chance) as being a bit more likely than the others to win, but it’s not really much of an edge. (We have Buttigieg’s chances at 22 percent and Warren’s at 16 percent.) Perhaps the candidate who had the most reason to be disappointed by the new poll was Klobuchar. Making a very late surge to win Iowa is not completely out of the question — Rick Santorum did it in 2012 — but we have her chances down to 2 percent.
Biden remains the most likely overall winner of the delegate race, meanwhile, with Sanders in the next-best position. That’s because Biden, leading in national polls, would be awfully hard to catch if he won Iowa. For the other three candidates, there would be the question of whether the Iowa bounce would be enough to propel them past Biden, with Sanders being in the best position to do so because he’s second in national polls and because his polling is also relatively strong in both New Hampshire and Nevada.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that we do have some other recent information about Iowa apart from this poll. A YouGov poll of Iowa released last weekend showed a three-way tie between Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg. And our model also makes inferences about candidates’ standing in Iowa based on trends in national polls. That’s the reason the model didn’t have Buttigieg’s chances falling as a result of this poll; it had already anticipated that his numbers would decline as a result of his slump in national polls. Conversely, even though the numbers didn’t seem that terrific for Warren on the surface — her 17 percent in the new Selzer & Co. poll is only a 1-point improvement from her 16 percent in November — it comes during a period when she’d been declining in national polls. So it’s a bullish sign for her campaign that she’s still one of the front-runners in Iowa.
By the way, “one of the front-runners” is about as precise as it’s possible to realistically be in Iowa. Our forecast will get a bit more accurate as more polls come in and as the Feb. 3 caucuses approach, but the model assumes that caucuses are awfully hard to poll, which means there are high margins of error.
That’s especially so in Iowa given some of the quirks of the caucus process, the most important of which is that in each precinct, voters for candidates who don’t have at least 15 percent of the vote must “realign” themselves to candidates who do. Iowa will also release three different ways of counting its vote. More about that stuff in future Election Updates. And although I’m not going to get into it today, some of the data from the poll that the model doesn’t use — like favorability ratings and second-choice preferences and how many voters have firmly decided on a candidate (not many, although Sanders supporters are something of an exception) — should contribute to the sense that the race is open-ended.
All of that is a long-winded way of saying there’s a lot of ambiguity about what will happen in Iowa. Through that fog, our model picked up some good news for Sanders and Warren and some bad news for Biden in this poll. But the fog is pretty dense.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-13--Democratic Party Leaders Are Mostly Sitting Out The Endorsement Race So Far

Back in August , we noted that Democrats might be slow to endorse in the 2020 presidential primary because of the uncertainty surrounding its historically large candidate field .
And so far , that ’ s exactly what ’ s happened — Democratic officeholders have now endorsed at about the same rate as their slow-moving Republican counterparts in 2016 .
Endorsements have historically been a predictive indicator of who will win their party ’ s nomination , which bolsters the theory that “ The Party Decides , ” but Democratic leaders may be choosing not to decide in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , former Vice President Joe Biden holds a clear lead .
As of Friday , only 104 of 303 Democratic governors , senators and representatives have endorsed a candidate .
At this point in the 2016 election cycle , slightly more Republicans had endorsed a candidate ( 117 ) , though there were a few more Republicans in Congress and governors mansions then ( 333 ) than there are Democrats in those positions now ( 303 ) .
Still , 35 percent of possible GOP endorsers had backed someone in 2016 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Democrats who ’ ve endorsed someone in 2020 .
Democrats started the 2020 cycle endorsing at a faster clip than 2016 Republicans , but their rate has slowed since March ( about 600 days before the general election ) .
In the last presidential election , 60 Republicans had endorsed someone between mid-August 2015 and the first weeks of 2016 — to be specific , between 450 and 300 days before the election , which is equivalent to the period from when we published our previous analysis of the endorsement rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 29 Democrats have done so during the same time span this cycle .
However , Hans Noel , a political scientist at Georgetown University and a coauthor of “ The Party Decides , ” told me we shouldn ’ t over-emphasize the pace of endorsements as compared to the overall volume and who ’ s getting them .
“ There are some years when no one gets involved very quickly at all , ” said Noel .
“ There ’ ve been some years when elites got involved after Iowa .
Once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they jumped in.
” And although the rate of endorsements has slowed , most of the ones made in recent weeks have gone to Biden .
He now has 35 from Democratic governors and members of Congress , and has received seven of the eight endorsements made since Dec. 1 , including some from junior House Democrats in competitive seats ( former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg received the other one ) .
The sort of geographical and racial diversity we see among Biden ’ s endorsers has historically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party members and a precursor of success in nomination contests , according to the authors of the “ The Party Decides.
” And if you look at support outside a candidate ’ s home state , Biden ’ s geographical lead is readily apparent .
Overall , 89 percent of Biden ’ s backers come from outside Delaware , which admittedly is a small state .
The next-closest contenders behind Biden are Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker , who each have 12 endorsers apiece , but only half of Warren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and none of Booker ’ s are from outside New Jersey .
And with Sen. Kamala Harris now out of the running , Biden easily has the most racially diverse set of endorsers , too , including nine members of the Congressional Black Caucus and five from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus .
Still , Biden doesn ’ t dominate among all Democratic officeholders with endorsements to give .
If we look at more left-leaning Democrats — those who belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus , the most influential liberal ideological caucus in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsements , Biden is in second with six and Sen. Bernie Sanders in third with five .
University of Maryland political scientist David Karol , another coauthor of “ The Party Decides , ” believes Biden still has work to do with winning over more liberal members of his party .
“ Biden has more breadth of support than other people running , when it comes to race and region , ” Karol said .
“ But he has not done as well with progressives , particularly white progressives.
” Biden may still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , but it ’ s important to remember that most potential Democratic endorsers ( 66 percent ) are still sitting on the sidelines .
What ’ s more , there are actually quite a few endorsers this cycle who endorsed a candidate who has since dropped out and have yet to throw their support behind another candidate .
Of the 104 Democrats who ’ ve endorsed someone , 27 have backed a candidate who is no longer running and have yet to switch to a new contender .
Of those endorsers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in December .
By contrast , in the 2016 cycle , only four of 117 Republican endorsers had backed GOP contenders who had dropped out by this point .
Harris ’ s exit is especially interesting in that she had more endorsements than anyone save Biden , yet she dropped out anyway , suggesting that endorsements weren ’ t enough to save her flagging campaign .
( Unlike Biden , who is at 28 percent in the national polls , Harris struggled to climb past 5 percent in recent months . )
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backers haven ’ t thrown their weight behind another candidate ( maybe Biden ? )
, Karol said that these endorsers had “ bet on the wrong horse , so they may be a little gun-shy after missing the first time around.
” More broadly speaking , though , part of the reason Democratic leaders may be hesitant to endorse anyone in 2020 is because they were so quick to back Hillary Clinton in 2016 , who went on to lose the general after a bitter primary , in which the party establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scale for her .
But also , when there ’ s a lack of clear consensus , as there has been here in 2020 , many party leaders wait to make a choice so that a primary can be more open .
“ If they aren ’ t very committed [ to a candidate ] , they don ’ t create a sense that people need to support someone or direct their resources to that candidate , ” said Noel .
He added that , “ If there ’ s lukewarm support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opening for someone else.
” Biden ’ s opponents in the Democratic race will certainly hope that ’ s the case , and the fact that most Democrats haven ’ t endorsed someone yet might leave the door ajar .

Back in August, we noted that Democrats might be slow to endorse in the 2020 presidential primary because of the uncertainty surrounding its historically large candidate field. And so far, that’s exactly what’s happened — Democratic officeholders have now endorsed at about the same rate as their slow-moving Republican counterparts in 2016.
Endorsements have historically been a predictive indicator of who will win their party’s nomination, which bolsters the theory that “The Party Decides,” but Democratic leaders may be choosing not to decide in 2020. Nonetheless, among those who have endorsed, former Vice President Joe Biden holds a clear lead.
As of Friday, only 104 of 303 Democratic governors, senators and representatives have endorsed a candidate. At this point in the 2016 election cycle, slightly more Republicans had endorsed a candidate (117), though there were a few more Republicans in Congress and governors mansions then (333) than there are Democrats in those positions now (303). Still, 35 percent of possible GOP endorsers had backed someone in 2016, which is practically the same as the 34 percent of Democrats who’ve endorsed someone in 2020.
Democrats started the 2020 cycle endorsing at a faster clip than 2016 Republicans, but their rate has slowed since March (about 600 days before the general election). In the last presidential election, 60 Republicans had endorsed someone between mid-August 2015 and the first weeks of 2016 — to be specific, between 450 and 300 days before the election, which is equivalent to the period from when we published our previous analysis of the endorsement rate last August to about now — but only 29 Democrats have done so during the same time span this cycle. However, Hans Noel, a political scientist at Georgetown University and a coauthor of “The Party Decides,” told me we shouldn’t over-emphasize the pace of endorsements as compared to the overall volume and who’s getting them. “There are some years when no one gets involved very quickly at all,” said Noel. “There’ve been some years when elites got involved after Iowa. Once they found out what happened in Iowa, they jumped in.”
And although the rate of endorsements has slowed, most of the ones made in recent weeks have gone to Biden. He now has 35 from Democratic governors and members of Congress, and has received seven of the eight endorsements made since Dec. 1, including some from junior House Democrats in competitive seats (former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg received the other one).
The sort of geographical and racial diversity we see among Biden’s endorsers has historically been an indication of broader acceptance by party members and a precursor of success in nomination contests, according to the authors of the “The Party Decides.” And if you look at support outside a candidate’s home state, Biden’s geographical lead is readily apparent. Overall, 89 percent of Biden’s backers come from outside Delaware, which admittedly is a small state. The next-closest contenders behind Biden are Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, who each have 12 endorsers apiece, but only half of Warren’s hail from somewhere other than Massachusetts and none of Booker’s are from outside New Jersey. And with Sen. Kamala Harris now out of the running, Biden easily has the most racially diverse set of endorsers, too, including nine members of the Congressional Black Caucus and five from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Still, Biden doesn’t dominate among all Democratic officeholders with endorsements to give. If we look at more left-leaning Democrats — those who belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the most influential liberal ideological caucus in Congress — Warren leads the way with 11 endorsements, Biden is in second with six and Sen. Bernie Sanders in third with five. University of Maryland political scientist David Karol, another coauthor of “The Party Decides,” believes Biden still has work to do with winning over more liberal members of his party. “Biden has more breadth of support than other people running, when it comes to race and region,” Karol said. “But he has not done as well with progressives, particularly white progressives.”
Biden may still lead handily in the endorsement primary for now, but it’s important to remember that most potential Democratic endorsers (66 percent) are still sitting on the sidelines. What’s more, there are actually quite a few endorsers this cycle who endorsed a candidate who has since dropped out and have yet to throw their support behind another candidate. Of the 104 Democrats who’ve endorsed someone, 27 have backed a candidate who is no longer running and have yet to switch to a new contender. Of those endorsers, 17 supported Harris, who dropped out in December. By contrast, in the 2016 cycle, only four of 117 Republican endorsers had backed GOP contenders who had dropped out by this point.
Harris’s exit is especially interesting in that she had more endorsements than anyone save Biden, yet she dropped out anyway, suggesting that endorsements weren’t enough to save her flagging campaign. (Unlike Biden, who is at 28 percent in the national polls, Harris struggled to climb past 5 percent in recent months.) As for why more of Harris’s backers haven’t thrown their weight behind another candidate (maybe Biden?), Karol said that these endorsers had “bet on the wrong horse, so they may be a little gun-shy after missing the first time around.” More broadly speaking, though, part of the reason Democratic leaders may be hesitant to endorse anyone in 2020 is because they were so quick to back Hillary Clinton in 2016, who went on to lose the general after a bitter primary, in which the party establishment was accused of putting its thumb on the scale for her.
But also, when there’s a lack of clear consensus, as there has been here in 2020, many party leaders wait to make a choice so that a primary can be more open. “If they aren’t very committed [to a candidate], they don’t create a sense that people need to support someone or direct their resources to that candidate,” said Noel. He added that, “If there’s lukewarm support from party leaders, that could create an opening for someone else.” Biden’s opponents in the Democratic race will certainly hope that’s the case, and the fact that most Democrats haven’t endorsed someone yet might leave the door ajar.