fivethirtyeight--2020-01-15--Did Tuesday Night’s Democratic Debate Do Anything To Break The Logjam In Iowa?

Welcome to a special , post-debate edition of FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : Just six candidates made the debate stage on Tuesday night , and with less than three weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses , this was the last time voters will see these candidates gathered on one stage before the voting begins .
And the race in Iowa is currently very tight — in fact , best described as a four-way tie in our forecast .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five post-debate questions … Did the debate change how you think about Iowa ?
danjhopkins ( Dan Hopkins , political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : To me — and definitely according to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast and recent Iowa polls — Iowa is very much up for grabs , and I don ’ t think that tonight was anything like the game changer needed to fundamentally reshape the race .
Basically , all the candidates seemed to have their moments , but if you are an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the logjam or convince you that someone is more or less competitive versus Trump , I don ’ t think you saw it .
julia_azari ( Julia Azari , political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : Maybe slightly .
One thing I was thinking about was that the ideological lanes are now clearer .
Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg are competing in Joe Biden ’ s moderate/establishment lane , although both are pretty far behind him ( Klobuchar even further behind than Buttigieg ) .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left ” lane of the party .
The other lanes I thought would emerge have mostly disappeared .
I ’ m not sure where this leaves Tom Steyer , but I ’ m not sure it matters .
I guess that ’ s not specifically about Iowa , per se , but one implication of what I ’ ve laid out is that those may be the stakes of the contest .
Or there may be two winners — one in the moderate lane and one in the liberal one — in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for grabs and vying for dominance .
geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : Man , it ’ s hard to say how much this might have changed things in Iowa .
On the one hand , the debate was pretty uneventful outside of a couple moments .
However , more people may have been watching than in many previous debates , particularly Iowa caucus-goers who have to vote in less than three weeks .
So it ’ s possible that someone had a good night and moved the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who I thought was generally strong , both when he was making the case that a health care plan doesn ’ t have to have a huge price tag to represent a big change or when he was openly referencing his faith .
Or maybe it was Warren , who had a potentially viral moment about sexism and the “ electability ” question that has dominated recent news cycles , whether a woman can win the presidency .
( Women face a bunch of gender-based hurdles in elections that men do not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately the research , and recent history , suggests that it is very , very possible for those hurdles to be overcome . )
sarahf : We ’ ll have results from our post-debate survey with Ipsos Wednesday afternoon to answer this next question more rigorously , but give me your first impressions … Who had the best night ?
julia_azari : I didn ’ t feel like anyone really stood out .
Warren and Klobuchar both seemed like they took up more space on the debate stage than in the past ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stature , she ’ s had relatively few truly memorable moments or confrontations .
But that started to change in December with her exchange over fundraising and wine caves with Buttigieg .
And as Geoffrey said , this time it was her exchange with Sanders over whether women can win the presidency .
danjhopkins : I don ’ t think Biden had a great night — there were again , times that I was confused as to precisely what he was talking about .
But at the same time , he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I think that at this point , anything short of a significant win for an opponent is probably good for him .
I could see an argument that Sanders , Buttigieg , Warren or Klobuchar did fine — but this isn ’ t a case where everyone can win .
julia_azari Klobuchar had some stumbles , but it ’ s hard to know if these will matter .
After all , she ’ s not really in the top tier , and still pretty far behind the top four .
geoffrey.skelley : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren as my picks , though I ’ m not sure anyone had a truly great or truly bad night .
Buttigieg , I thought , did a good job of incorporating his experiences into some of his answers .
For instance , when he talked about avoiding endless military campaigns in the Middle East , he referenced a time in his military service when he watched a fellow soldier leave behind a young child .
And I think among the more moderate candidates , Buttigieg did the best job in challenging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ huge ” on health care is small potatoes .
But I also think Warren ’ s exchange with Sanders over whether women can win the presidency will get talked about a lot , too , including when she pointed out that the men on the stage had lost a lot of elections , and the women hadn ’ t .
danjhopkins : To me , one of the fundamental challenges here is that Democrats , especially those still looking for a candidate , seem to really care about electability and beating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perform electability in a debate ?
Who failed to make an impression ?
sarahf : Ha !
They have to be on stage , Dan .
geoffrey.skelley : I think Steyer best fits this category , at least among those on stage .
I ’ m not sure he gave a particularly good answer to why he ’ d make a good commander-in-chief — “ I worked internationally around the world for decades ” in business .
That answer could be given by a lot of people .
He also seemed to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] ” more than the others on stage , so I ’ m not sure he was really adding all that much .
But then I immediately question those takes because I do think Steyer does a good job of mostly looking directly at the camera when responding , something I recall Trump doing a lot in the 2016 Republican primary .
It can be off-putting but may actually be pretty effective .
julia_azari : Steyer did have some good lines about climate change , though , and may have done some to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their remarks .
I also wanted to add a glib line about the lack of candidates of color on that stage , but I also didn ’ t want to annoy my editor after we ’ ve all been up too late covering the seventh debate of this primary season .
danjhopkins : But yes , to Julia ’ s point , I think the debate topics and tenor have shifted a bit as the candidates of color have dropped out , or not met the debate thresholds .
julia_azari : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , but tonight was a lot less about race .
The moderators did ask Buttigieg about his lack of support among African American voters , and many of the candidates talked about racism and racial justice .
In some ways , the fault lines of previous Democratic contests are what failed to make an impression — that is , they didn ’ t show up as much .
There was agreement about changing the approach to foreign policy , curbing executive power , tackling racism .
The health care divide remains the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , to zoom in on the front-runner … julia_azari : What about him ?
I mean , he kinda did what he always does .
Talked about his record .
Talked about Trump .
Talked about how he was Obama ’ s VP … geoffrey.skelley : He offered some nice platitudes about fighting to help middle class and working class Americans .
danjhopkins : As I hinted above , one of the issues with electability is that it ’ s something you show .
It can be hard ( or at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden was able to point to the breadth of his support as evidence of his electability when he outlined how he was really the only candidate up there who has a coalition that “ represent [ s ] all elements of the party.
” That said , he certainly doesn ’ t have the witticisms of Klobuchar , the memorable images of Buttigieg , the show-stopping zingers of Warren , or the righteous indignation of Sanders , and so maybe that limits his appeal .
julia_azari : One thing that ’ s kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates vying for his lane ( Buttigieg and Klobuchar ) weren ’ t really in a position to attack him .
He ’ s somewhat personally insulated because of his biography , particularly the unimaginable amount of personal loss he ’ s suffered .
But also no one trying to succeed in that lane wants to attack the Obama administration ( even Buttigieg when railing against Washington , for instance ) .
And that ’ s maybe because they ’ re trying to carve out the same policy area as Biden , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Yes , Julia , I noticed that too .
Neither Buttigieg nor Klobuchar really took shots at Biden .
I wondered about that pre-debate , as I was assigned to watch Klobuchar .
Her attacks on Buttigieg made sense , but she probably needs Biden to slide some , too !
But I don ’ t know .
Biden ’ s performance was probably the sort of thing where he did well enough to not lose much support , but also didn ’ t really gain much support , either .
danjhopkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this debate is that the candidates needed very different things from it .
Klobuchar likely needed a tremendous performance given where she stands in the race , whereas Biden and Sanders didn ’ t need to be much more than themselves .
How did the moderators do ?
julia_azari : I was pretty frustrated with questions in the vein of “ don ’ t the voters deserve to know , ” and it felt like a few of the moderators were putting words in the candidates mouths with some of the questions they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar ’ s record in the Senate with Buttigieg ’ s military service .
geoffrey.skelley : I ’ ve never moderated a debate , and I don ’ t imagine it ’ s an easy thing to do , but with fewer candidates on stage , maybe don ’ t interrupt them as much if a candidate has hit the time limit .
Give them another moment or two , then try to enforce the rules .
Also , there was a question about how the impeachment trial might affect the ability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in Iowa .
Asking about impeachment makes sense , but asking about how it ’ s going to affect their ability to campaign accomplishes nothing — voters do not care about that .
It tells us nothing except , well , they ’ re going to do their jobs .
danjhopkins : On the plus side , the moderators raised a range of substantive issues .
But I think that politicians make lousy pundits , and don ’ t like questions about electability .
I also wished that there were more questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s a key thing that presidents , you know , do .
Also , rather than asking the candidates to reiterate their health care talking points for the umpteenth time , try a new issue — the candidates ’ child care policies was a welcome departure , for instance .
sarahf : Thanks , everyone !
Get some sleep !
And readers , please check back with us Wednesday afternoon for the update to our “ Who Won The January Debate ?
” poll .
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; you can also see all the 2020 primary polls we ’ ve collected , including national polls , Iowa polls , New Hampshire polls , Nevada polls and South Carolina polls .
CORRECTION ( Jan. 15 , 2020 , 10:53 a.m. ) : A previous version of this story mischaracterized Pete Buttigieg ’ s military service .
He served in the Navy , not the Army .

Welcome to a special, post-debate edition of FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Just six candidates made the debate stage on Tuesday night, and with less than three weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, this was the last time voters will see these candidates gathered on one stage before the voting begins. And the race in Iowa is currently very tight — in fact, best described as a four-way tie in our forecast. So, here’s the first of our five post-debate questions …
Did the debate change how you think about Iowa?
danjhopkins (Dan Hopkins, political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and FiveThirtyEight contributor): To me — and definitely according to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast and recent Iowa polls — Iowa is very much up for grabs, and I don’t think that tonight was anything like the game changer needed to fundamentally reshape the race. Basically, all the candidates seemed to have their moments, but if you are an Iowa caucusgoer waiting for something to break the logjam or convince you that someone is more or less competitive versus Trump, I don’t think you saw it.
julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): Maybe slightly. One thing I was thinking about was that the ideological lanes are now clearer. Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg are competing in Joe Biden’s moderate/establishment lane, although both are pretty far behind him (Klobuchar even further behind than Buttigieg). Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are still competing for the “left” lane of the party. The other lanes I thought would emerge have mostly disappeared.
I’m not sure where this leaves Tom Steyer, but I’m not sure it matters.
I guess that’s not specifically about Iowa, per se, but one implication of what I’ve laid out is that those may be the stakes of the contest. Or there may be two winners — one in the moderate lane and one in the liberal one — in the sense that those lanes are still both up for grabs and vying for dominance.
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Man, it’s hard to say how much this might have changed things in Iowa. On the one hand, the debate was pretty uneventful outside of a couple moments. However, more people may have been watching than in many previous debates, particularly Iowa caucus-goers who have to vote in less than three weeks. So it’s possible that someone had a good night and moved the numbers.
That might have been Buttigieg, who I thought was generally strong, both when he was making the case that a health care plan doesn’t have to have a huge price tag to represent a big change or when he was openly referencing his faith. Or maybe it was Warren, who had a potentially viral moment about sexism and the “electability” question that has dominated recent news cycles, whether a woman can win the presidency. (Women face a bunch of gender-based hurdles in elections that men do not, including in the 2020 primary. But ultimately the research, and recent history, suggests that it is very, very possible for those hurdles to be overcome.)
sarahf: We’ll have results from our post-debate survey with Ipsos Wednesday afternoon to answer this next question more rigorously, but give me your first impressions …
Biden, Sanders neck and neck In Iowa
Who had the best night?
julia_azari: I didn’t feel like anyone really stood out. Warren and Klobuchar both seemed like they took up more space on the debate stage than in the past; for a candidate of Warren’s stature, she’s had relatively few truly memorable moments or confrontations. But that started to change in December with her exchange over fundraising and wine caves with Buttigieg. And as Geoffrey said, this time it was her exchange with Sanders over whether women can win the presidency.
danjhopkins: I don’t think Biden had a great night — there were again, times that I was confused as to precisely what he was talking about. But at the same time, he’s not the most formidable front-runner, and so I think that at this point, anything short of a significant win for an opponent is probably good for him. I could see an argument that Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren or Klobuchar did fine — but this isn’t a case where everyone can win.
julia_azari Klobuchar had some stumbles, but it’s hard to know if these will matter. After all, she’s not really in the top tier, and still pretty far behind the top four.
geoffrey.skelley: I’ll go with Buttigieg and Warren as my picks, though I’m not sure anyone had a truly great or truly bad night.
Buttigieg, I thought, did a good job of incorporating his experiences into some of his answers. For instance, when he talked about avoiding endless military campaigns in the Middle East, he referenced a time in his military service when he watched a fellow soldier leave behind a young child. And I think among the more moderate candidates, Buttigieg did the best job in challenging the progressive premise that something that’s not “huge” on health care is small potatoes. But I also think Warren’s exchange with Sanders over whether women can win the presidency will get talked about a lot, too, including when she pointed out that the men on the stage had lost a lot of elections, and the women hadn’t.
danjhopkins: To me, one of the fundamental challenges here is that Democrats, especially those still looking for a candidate, seem to really care about electability and beating Trump. But how exactly do you perform electability in a debate?
Who failed to make an impression?
danjhopkins: Deval Patrick?
sarahf: Ha! They have to be on stage, Dan.
geoffrey.skelley: I think Steyer best fits this category, at least among those on stage. I’m not sure he gave a particularly good answer to why he’d make a good commander-in-chief — “I worked internationally around the world for decades” in business. That answer could be given by a lot of people.
He also seemed to say “I agree with [insert candidate]” more than the others on stage, so I’m not sure he was really adding all that much.
But then I immediately question those takes because I do think Steyer does a good job of mostly looking directly at the camera when responding, something I recall Trump doing a lot in the 2016 Republican primary. It can be off-putting but may actually be pretty effective.
julia_azari: Steyer did have some good lines about climate change, though, and may have done some to push the other candidates to address it in their remarks.
I also wanted to add a glib line about the lack of candidates of color on that stage, but I also didn’t want to annoy my editor after we’ve all been up too late covering the seventh debate of this primary season.
danjhopkins: But yes, to Julia’s point, I think the debate topics and tenor have shifted a bit as the candidates of color have dropped out, or not met the debate thresholds.
julia_azari: I mean, not to be super-obvious about it, but tonight was a lot less about race.
The moderators did ask Buttigieg about his lack of support among African American voters, and many of the candidates talked about racism and racial justice. In some ways, the fault lines of previous Democratic contests are what failed to make an impression — that is, they didn’t show up as much. There was agreement about changing the approach to foreign policy, curbing executive power, tackling racism. The health care divide remains the most significant policy one.
sarahf: And, to zoom in on the front-runner …
What about Biden?
julia_azari: What about him? I mean, he kinda did what he always does. Talked about his record. Talked about Trump. Talked about how he was Obama’s VP …
geoffrey.skelley: He offered some nice platitudes about fighting to help middle class and working class Americans.
danjhopkins: As I hinted above, one of the issues with electability is that it’s something you show. It can be hard (or at least awkward) to talk about, but Biden was able to point to the breadth of his support as evidence of his electability when he outlined how he was really the only candidate up there who has a coalition that “represent[s] all elements of the party.”
That said, he certainly doesn’t have the witticisms of Klobuchar, the memorable images of Buttigieg, the show-stopping zingers of Warren, or the righteous indignation of Sanders, and so maybe that limits his appeal.
julia_azari: One thing that’s kind of interesting is that the other two candidates vying for his lane (Buttigieg and Klobuchar) weren’t really in a position to attack him. He’s somewhat personally insulated because of his biography, particularly the unimaginable amount of personal loss he’s suffered. But also no one trying to succeed in that lane wants to attack the Obama administration (even Buttigieg when railing against Washington, for instance). And that’s maybe because they’re trying to carve out the same policy area as Biden, or at least a similar one.
geoffrey.skelley: Yes, Julia, I noticed that too. Neither Buttigieg nor Klobuchar really took shots at Biden. I wondered about that pre-debate, as I was assigned to watch Klobuchar. Her attacks on Buttigieg made sense, but she probably needs Biden to slide some, too!
But I don’t know. Biden’s performance was probably the sort of thing where he did well enough to not lose much support, but also didn’t really gain much support, either.
danjhopkins: What’s challenging about handicapping this debate is that the candidates needed very different things from it. Klobuchar likely needed a tremendous performance given where she stands in the race, whereas Biden and Sanders didn’t need to be much more than themselves.
sarahf: OK, and finally …
How did the moderators do?
julia_azari: I was pretty frustrated with questions in the vein of “don’t the voters deserve to know,” and it felt like a few of the moderators were putting words in the candidates mouths with some of the questions they asked, like when Wolf Blitzer compared Klobuchar’s record in the Senate with Buttigieg’s military service.
geoffrey.skelley: I’ve never moderated a debate, and I don’t imagine it’s an easy thing to do, but with fewer candidates on stage, maybe don’t interrupt them as much if a candidate has hit the time limit. Give them another moment or two, then try to enforce the rules.
Also, there was a question about how the impeachment trial might affect the ability of the three U.S. senators on stage to campaign in Iowa. Asking about impeachment makes sense, but asking about how it’s going to affect their ability to campaign accomplishes nothing — voters do not care about that. It tells us nothing except, well, they’re going to do their jobs.
danjhopkins: On the plus side, the moderators raised a range of substantive issues. But I think that politicians make lousy pundits, and don’t like questions about electability. I also wished that there were more questions about actually managing large organizations, as that’s a key thing that presidents, you know, do. Also, rather than asking the candidates to reiterate their health care talking points for the umpteenth time, try a new issue — the candidates’ child care policies was a welcome departure, for instance.
sarahf: Thanks, everyone! Get some sleep! And readers, please check back with us Wednesday afternoon for the update to our “Who Won The January Debate?” poll.
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight’s Democratic primary forecast in full; you can also see all the 2020 primary polls we’ve collected, including national polls, Iowa polls, New Hampshire polls, Nevada polls and South Carolina polls.
CORRECTION (Jan. 15, 2020, 10:53 a.m.): A previous version of this story mischaracterized Pete Buttigieg’s military service. He served in the Navy, not the Army.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-16--How The Modern Primary System Has Shaped Our Politics

The way we choose our presidential candidates in the United States is unique among the world ’ s democracies .
In other countries , party leadership often plays a much bigger role in choosing candidates .
As we discussed in the first installment of The Primaries Project , the parties initially held a lot of power in nominating processes , but everything changed after the disastrous 1968 Democratic national convention in Chicago .
Although somewhat unintended , the reforms following that convention created a candidate selection system more open to public input than ever before .
At first blush , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the most democratic thing to do — but there is more to a well-functioning democracy than whether people have the opportunity to vote .
The quality of the system also depends on its design .
How does the voting process seek to find a consensus across the many interests in a party or a nation ?
In the second installment of The Primaries Project on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , we examine the consequences of the post-1968 reforms : To understand how our modern system shapes our presidential candidates , we look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the 1970s , when the reforms were relatively new and the parties and candidates were still figuring them out .
Next , the ’ 80s and ’ 90s , when the parties got a handle on the rules and used them to promote their preferred candidates .
And last , the modern era , when for a variety of reasons , the parties have begun to lose their grip again .
Click play above to hear that story or subscribe to the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast .
Check back throughout the month of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential candidates in America .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or in the comments .

The way we choose our presidential candidates in the United States is unique among the world’s democracies. In other countries, party leadership often plays a much bigger role in choosing candidates. As we discussed in the first installment of The Primaries Project, the parties initially held a lot of power in nominating processes, but everything changed after the disastrous 1968 Democratic national convention in Chicago. Although somewhat unintended, the reforms following that convention created a candidate selection system more open to public input than ever before.
At first blush, allowing for greater public input may seem like the most democratic thing to do — but there is more to a well-functioning democracy than whether people have the opportunity to vote. The quality of the system also depends on its design. How does the voting process seek to find a consensus across the many interests in a party or a nation? In the second installment of The Primaries Project on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, we examine the consequences of the post-1968 reforms:
To understand how our modern system shapes our presidential candidates, we look at elections from three periods: first, the 1970s, when the reforms were relatively new and the parties and candidates were still figuring them out. Next, the ’80s and ’90s, when the parties got a handle on the rules and used them to promote their preferred candidates. And last, the modern era, when for a variety of reasons, the parties have begun to lose their grip again.
Click play above to hear that story or subscribe to the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast. Check back throughout the month of January as we explore how we choose presidential candidates in America.
Do Parties Or Voters Choose Presidential Nominees?
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--2020-01-16--Do Parties Or Voters Choose Presidential Nominees?

Who really picks our presidential nominees ?
Sure , most Americans have a chance to go to the polls and @ @ @ @ @ in a primary or caucus .
But when it comes down to it , are @ @ @ @ @ strings ?
In this episode of The Primaries Project , we look at historical elections @ @ @ @ @ ultimately in control of our primary system : the parties or the people .
Want @ @ @ @ @ Subscribe to FiveThirtyEight on YouTube .
And subscribe to FiveThirtyEight ’ s Politics Podcast feed @ @ @ @ @ .

Who really picks our presidential nominees? Sure, most Americans have a chance to go to the polls and vote for their favorite candidate in a primary or caucus. But when it comes down to it, are party elites really pulling the strings?
In this episode of The Primaries Project, we look at historical elections to see who’s ultimately in control of our primary system: the parties or the people.
Want more videos like this? Subscribe to FiveThirtyEight on YouTube. And subscribe to FiveThirtyEight’s Politics Podcast feed for an even deeper dive.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-17--The Iowa Caucuses Are In 17 Days. What’s Going On In The Early States?

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
Throughout the primary , we ’ ve been tracking polls in the four early states to better understand how the race differs in each of them , as each state tells its own story about how the 2020 Democratic primary could shake out .
For instance , Iowa is a very tight race between former Vice President Joe Biden , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg .
And New Hampshire is really competitive , too , with less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our forecast .
( Warren and Buttigieg aren ’ t too far off either . )
Nevada , on the other hand , appears to be more of a two-way race between Sanders and Biden , while South Carolina remains — at least at this point — in Biden ’ s column , as our forecast gives him a 3 in 5 shot at winning the most votes there .
Of course , things could once again shift before the voting starts in Iowa , but here ’ s a deep dive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning in each of these states .
Iowa and New Hampshire are really competitive Remarkably , Biden , Sanders , Warren and Buttigieg are all in the hunt in both Iowa and New Hampshire : No one has more than a 35 percent chance of winning either state , according to our forecast .
And our state polling averages illustrate just how close things are .
Sanders and Biden are essentially tied in Iowa , with Buttigieg and Warren trailing , but within about 5 points of the lead .
And Sanders holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire , although one might expect the Vermont senator to have an advantage there — New Hampshire tends to favor politicians from neighboring states .
In New Hampshire , too , Warren and Buttigieg aren ’ t too far behind the leaders .
But the dearth of state-level polls in December means that some of the polls feeding our averages may no longer reflect the current state of the race , so let ’ s take a closer look at some of the bigger polls released in the last 10 days .
Monmouth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how important voters ’ ideological leanings could be in that state , as many caucus-goers will end up backing their second-choice candidate — not their first — in the realignment process .
( If a candidate does not have enough support , usually at least 15 percent of voters at a caucus site , their supporters are asked to align themselves with another candidate . )
Overall , Biden was first in that poll with 24 percent support , but he also had the most support ( 35 percent ) among voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that group made up a majority of the poll ’ s respondents .
Buttigieg came in second among these voters at 15 percent , followed by Sanders at 13 percent .
By contrast , among very liberal voters , Sanders led with 29 percent support with Warren in second at 25 percent , while Buttigieg had 14 percent and Biden had just 11 percent .
But among the “ somewhat ” liberal voters in between , Buttigieg actually led with 22 percent , followed by Sanders at 20 percent .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each ideological “ lane , ” with a ton of overlap — in particular , Sanders and Warren — which could play to either Sanders ’ s or Warren ’ s detriment .
Similarly , a new poll from RKM Research and Communications on behalf of Franklin Pierce University , the Boston Herald and NBC 10 Boston showed New Hampshire has some of the same ideological divides .
Overall , the survey found Biden in first with 26 percent , but once again Biden did best among more moderate ( and conservative ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 percent for both Sanders and Warren .
Meanwhile , Sanders led among liberal voters with 29 percent , followed by Biden at 26 percent and Warren at 20 percent .
( The pollster didn ’ t separate “ somewhat liberal ” and “ very liberal ” like Monmouth did . )
So as some progressives have feared , it ’ s possible that Sanders and Warren are hindering each other because of the ideological overlap among their supporters .
After all , a new Quinnipiac University national poll found that more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren ’ s supporters picked the other progressive as their second choice .
And in New Hampshire , there ’ s another way they might be holding one another back : Since they both represent neighboring states , they could be limiting each other ’ s home-field edge .
Nevada and South Carolina look a bit different from the first two states in that their polls are less top-heavy , with fewer contenders in the mix .
However , Nevada is still very much up for grabs — Biden and Sanders are separated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average , and our forecast gives them both about a 1 in 3 chance of winning .
But Biden still has a notable advantage in South Carolina , where he leads the polls by more than 20 points and has nearly a 60 percent chance of winning , per our forecast .
Part of the reason the dynamics of these two states are so different is that Iowa and New Hampshire still haven ’ t voted , which could dramatically shift the race , and that Nevada and South Carolina ’ s electorates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the first two states to vote — and Biden has made the most significant inroads with voters of color , followed by Sanders and Warren .
Nevada is a particularly interesting case because even though Biden tends to lead among nonwhite voters nationally because of his strong support from black voters , nonwhite voters in Nevada are more likely to be Hispanic , and two recent Nevada surveys found Sanders narrowly ahead of or tied with Biden among Hispanics .
First , a Nevada survey from Fox News found Biden in first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second at 17 percent , but both attracted the same share of Hispanic voters ( 24 percent ) ; Biden ’ s edge among white voters ( 22 percent ) might have been what tipped him over the edge , as Sanders attracted only 13 percent of that group .
Meanwhile , another Nevada poll by Suffolk University , conducted for USA Today and the Reno Gazette-Journal , found Biden and Sanders essentially tied for first with around 20 percent support and neck and neck at about 20 percent among nonwhite voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ among white voters ( 19 percent to 16 percent ) .
As for South Carolina , Biden has consistently led there due to his strong support among black voters , who made up about 60 percent of the Democratic primary electorate in 2016 .
A Fox News poll released late last week found Biden ’ s edge in South Carolina mostly holding as he led the field with 36 percent overall , including 43 percent of black voters .
Billionaire Tom Steyer did make noise by coming in second with 15 percent overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result of him flooding the airwaves in South Carolina .
Still , Steyer got support from 16 percent of African American voters , which could be evidence that some black voters are open to alternatives other than Biden .
For now , the Biden firewall in the Palmetto State is holding up , though that could , of course , change if he performs poorly in earlier contests .
With just over two weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses , there ’ s definitely a traffic jam at the top of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes those states fairly unpredictable at this point .
And whatever happens in those initial contests will likely affect Nevada and South Carolina , too , so stay tuned as we keep a close watch on how the polls move once the voting starts .
• Speaking of Biden ’ s base , a new national poll from The Washington Post and Ipsos found 48 percent of black Democratic registered voters supported Biden .
Sanders was second with 20 percent support , and no other candidate reached double-digit support .
There was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s supporters : Among registered voters 50 years and older , Biden captured more than 50 percent support .
He also led Sanders , 41 percent to 16 percent , among voters 35 to 49 years old .
Yet among those under the age of 35 , Sanders attracted 42 percent support versus Biden ’ s 30 percent .
• An LX/Morning Consult poll asked Americans about Iowa and New Hampshire ’ s role in the nominating process and found that only 41 percent felt that these states represented their views in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or “ somewhat well ” while 59 percent said “ not very well ” or “ not at all.
” Still , 59 percent said they were “ very ” or “ somewhat ” satisfied with the tradition of Iowa and New Hampshire kicking things off , compared to 41 percent who were dissatisfied .
• In the wake of reports that Sanders told Warren in 2018 that he believed a woman couldn ’ t beat President Trump , YouGov asked Americans about their views on this issue .
Fifty-three percent of respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could defeat Trump , while 11 percent said that a man could beat Trump but not a woman .
Another 20 percent said that neither a man nor a woman could defeat Trump , including 60 percent of Republicans .
• In a new poll from Pew Research Center , 48 percent of Americans said that the airstrike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani was the right decision while 43 percent said it wasn ’ t .
However , 54 percent felt that the Trump administration ’ s approach to Iran has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the U.S. and Iran and a plurality — 44 percent — said it has made the country less safe .
• A HuffPost/YouGov survey asked Americans their views on trade and the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement , finding that many Americans are relatively unaware of the trade deal , which the Senate passed on Thursday .
Forty-four percent said they favored the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico , another 44 percent said they weren ’ t sure what they thought of it and 11 percent opposed it .
Two explanations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t sure ?
Four out of five respondents said they had heard little or nothing at all about the trade deal .
And Americans are also generally somewhat uncertain about trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries — 43 percent said such deals are a good thing , while 20 percent said they were a bad thing and 37 percent said they weren ’ t sure .
• In a survey of American attitudes toward vaccines , Gallup found that there is still uncertainty about the debunked claim that vaccines can cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that certain vaccinations can cause autism and 45 percent said they do not , a plurality — 46 percent — said they weren ’ t sure .
However , 86 percent said that the diseases vaccines prevent are more dangerous than the vaccines themselves .
• In a new poll from YouGov measuring attitudes toward the Confederate flag among Americans , a plurality of respondents in two former Confederate states — Arkansas and Louisiana — said that the flag represented heritage more than racism .
Of the other nine states that were part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that the flag represented racism more than heritage , while respondents in Alabama and Florida were split evenly .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 42.4 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.9 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -10.5 points ) .
At this time last week , 41.9 percent approved and 53.3 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -11.4 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 43.2 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for a net approval rating of -9.3 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 5.9 percentage points ( 47.0 percent to 41.1 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 6.6 points ( 47.5 percent to 40.9 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 6.6 points ( 47.2 percent to 40.6 percent ) .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
Throughout the primary, we’ve been tracking polls in the four early states to better understand how the race differs in each of them, as each state tells its own story about how the 2020 Democratic primary could shake out.
For instance, Iowa is a very tight race between former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. And New Hampshire is really competitive, too, with less than 10 percentage points separating Sanders and Biden in our forecast. (Warren and Buttigieg aren’t too far off either.) Nevada, on the other hand, appears to be more of a two-way race between Sanders and Biden, while South Carolina remains — at least at this point — in Biden’s column, as our forecast gives him a 3 in 5 shot at winning the most votes there.
Of course, things could once again shift before the voting starts in Iowa, but here’s a deep dive on where things stand as of Friday morning in each of these states.
Biden, Sanders neck and neck In Iowa
Iowa and New Hampshire are really competitive
Remarkably, Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg are all in the hunt in both Iowa and New Hampshire: No one has more than a 35 percent chance of winning either state, according to our forecast.
And our state polling averages illustrate just how close things are. Sanders and Biden are essentially tied in Iowa, with Buttigieg and Warren trailing, but within about 5 points of the lead. And Sanders holds a slim lead over Biden in New Hampshire, although one might expect the Vermont senator to have an advantage there — New Hampshire tends to favor politicians from neighboring states. In New Hampshire, too, Warren and Buttigieg aren’t too far behind the leaders.
Iowa and New Hampshire are wide-open contests Democratic presidential candidates’ polling averages in Iowa and New Hampshire, as of Jan. 17 at 9 a.m. Iowa New Hampshire Candidate Average Candidate Average Bernie Sanders 20.1% Bernie Sanders 19.6% Joe Biden 19.5 Joe Biden 18.5 Pete Buttigieg 16.8 Elizabeth Warren 15.1 Elizabeth Warren 15.2 Pete Buttigieg 13.9 Amy Klobuchar 6.7 Amy Klobuchar 6.7 Andrew Yang 3.5 Tom Steyer 3.8 Tom Steyer 3.1 Tulsi Gabbard 3.7 Michael Bloomberg 2.2 Andrew Yang 3.7 Tulsi Gabbard 1.7 Michael Bloomberg* 2.9 Michael Bennet 0.1 Michael Bennet 0.4 John Delaney 0.1 Deval Patrick 0.3 Deval Patrick 0.0 John Delaney 0.2 *Michael Bloomberg didn’t file to run in New Hampshire, but some pollsters have included him when surveying the state. Source: Polls
But the dearth of state-level polls in December means that some of the polls feeding our averages may no longer reflect the current state of the race, so let’s take a closer look at some of the bigger polls released in the last 10 days. Monmouth University’s latest Iowa poll underscored how important voters’ ideological leanings could be in that state, as many caucus-goers will end up backing their second-choice candidate — not their first — in the realignment process. (If a candidate does not have enough support, usually at least 15 percent of voters at a caucus site, their supporters are asked to align themselves with another candidate.) Overall, Biden was first in that poll with 24 percent support, but he also had the most support (35 percent) among voters who said they were moderate or conservative — and that group made up a majority of the poll’s respondents. Buttigieg came in second among these voters at 15 percent, followed by Sanders at 13 percent. By contrast, among very liberal voters, Sanders led with 29 percent support with Warren in second at 25 percent, while Buttigieg had 14 percent and Biden had just 11 percent. But among the “somewhat” liberal voters in between, Buttigieg actually led with 22 percent, followed by Sanders at 20 percent. In other words, a different candidate led in each ideological “lane,” with a ton of overlap — in particular, Sanders and Warren — which could play to either Sanders’s or Warren’s detriment.
Similarly, a new poll from RKM Research and Communications on behalf of Franklin Pierce University, the Boston Herald and NBC 10 Boston showed New Hampshire has some of the same ideological divides. Overall, the survey found Biden in first with 26 percent, but once again Biden did best among more moderate (and conservative) voters with 27 percent, compared to 16 percent for both Sanders and Warren. Meanwhile, Sanders led among liberal voters with 29 percent, followed by Biden at 26 percent and Warren at 20 percent. (The pollster didn’t separate “somewhat liberal” and “very liberal” like Monmouth did.)
So as some progressives have feared, it’s possible that Sanders and Warren are hindering each other because of the ideological overlap among their supporters. After all, a new Quinnipiac University national poll found that more than 50 percent of Sanders’s and Warren’s supporters picked the other progressive as their second choice. And in New Hampshire, there’s another way they might be holding one another back: Since they both represent neighboring states, they could be limiting each other’s home-field edge.
Nevada’s close, Biden dominates South Carolina
Nevada and South Carolina look a bit different from the first two states in that their polls are less top-heavy, with fewer contenders in the mix. However, Nevada is still very much up for grabs — Biden and Sanders are separated by about 3 points in our polling average, and our forecast gives them both about a 1 in 3 chance of winning. But Biden still has a notable advantage in South Carolina, where he leads the polls by more than 20 points and has nearly a 60 percent chance of winning, per our forecast.
Nevada is competitive, but South Carolina is Biden’s to lose Democratic presidential candidates’ polling averages in Nevada and South Carolina, as of Jan. 17 at 9 a.m. Nevada South Carolina Candidate Average Candidate Average Joe Biden 22.7% Joe Biden 35.2% Bernie Sanders 19.6 Bernie Sanders 14.5 Elizabeth Warren 14.4 Elizabeth Warren 11.0 Tom Steyer 8.2 Tom Steyer 9.8 Pete Buttigieg 6.4 Pete Buttigieg 4.2 Andrew Yang 3.9 Michael Bloomberg* 3.8 Amy Klobuchar 2.8 Andrew Yang 2.3 Michael Bloomberg* 2.2 Amy Klobuchar 1.7 Tulsi Gabbard 1.4 Tulsi Gabbard 1.4 John Delaney 0.4 John Delaney 0.3 Deval Patrick 0.2 Deval Patrick 0.2 Michael Bennet 0.1 Michael Bennet 0.1 *Michael Bloomberg didn’t file to run in Nevada or South Carolina, but some pollsters have included him when surveying those states. Source: Polls
Part of the reason the dynamics of these two states are so different is that Iowa and New Hampshire still haven’t voted, which could dramatically shift the race, and that Nevada and South Carolina’s electorates are just much more diverse than those of the first two states to vote — and Biden has made the most significant inroads with voters of color, followed by Sanders and Warren.
Nevada is a particularly interesting case because even though Biden tends to lead among nonwhite voters nationally because of his strong support from black voters, nonwhite voters in Nevada are more likely to be Hispanic, and two recent Nevada surveys found Sanders narrowly ahead of or tied with Biden among Hispanics.
First, a Nevada survey from Fox News found Biden in first overall with 23 percent and Sanders in second at 17 percent, but both attracted the same share of Hispanic voters (24 percent); Biden’s edge among white voters (22 percent) might have been what tipped him over the edge, as Sanders attracted only 13 percent of that group. Meanwhile, another Nevada poll by Suffolk University, conducted for USA Today and the Reno Gazette-Journal, found Biden and Sanders essentially tied for first with around 20 percent support and neck and neck at about 20 percent among nonwhite voters. Biden had an ever-so-slight edge over Sanders among white voters (19 percent to 16 percent).
As for South Carolina, Biden has consistently led there due to his strong support among black voters, who made up about 60 percent of the Democratic primary electorate in 2016. A Fox News poll released late last week found Biden’s edge in South Carolina mostly holding as he led the field with 36 percent overall, including 43 percent of black voters. Billionaire Tom Steyer did make noise by coming in second with 15 percent overall, though that may partly be the result of him flooding the airwaves in South Carolina. Still, Steyer got support from 16 percent of African American voters, which could be evidence that some black voters are open to alternatives other than Biden. For now, the Biden firewall in the Palmetto State is holding up, though that could, of course, change if he performs poorly in earlier contests.
With just over two weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, there’s definitely a traffic jam at the top of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire that makes those states fairly unpredictable at this point. And whatever happens in those initial contests will likely affect Nevada and South Carolina, too, so stay tuned as we keep a close watch on how the polls move once the voting starts.
Other polling bites
Speaking of Biden’s base, a new national poll from The Washington Post and Ipsos found 48 percent of black Democratic registered voters supported Biden. Sanders was second with 20 percent support, and no other candidate reached double-digit support. There was a noticeable age difference in Biden and Sanders’s supporters: Among registered voters 50 years and older, Biden captured more than 50 percent support. He also led Sanders, 41 percent to 16 percent, among voters 35 to 49 years old. Yet among those under the age of 35, Sanders attracted 42 percent support versus Biden’s 30 percent.
An LX/Morning Consult poll asked Americans about Iowa and New Hampshire’s role in the nominating process and found that only 41 percent felt that these states represented their views in the presidential primary “very well” or “somewhat well” while 59 percent said “not very well” or “not at all.” Still, 59 percent said they were “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with the tradition of Iowa and New Hampshire kicking things off, compared to 41 percent who were dissatisfied.
In the wake of reports that Sanders told Warren in 2018 that he believed a woman couldn’t beat President Trump, YouGov asked Americans about their views on this issue. Fifty-three percent of respondents said that either a man or woman could defeat Trump, while 11 percent said that a man could beat Trump but not a woman. Another 20 percent said that neither a man nor a woman could defeat Trump, including 60 percent of Republicans.
In a new poll from Pew Research Center, 48 percent of Americans said that the airstrike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani was the right decision while 43 percent said it wasn’t. However, 54 percent felt that the Trump administration’s approach to Iran has increased the chances of a military conflict between the U.S. and Iran and a plurality — 44 percent — said it has made the country less safe.
A HuffPost/YouGov survey asked Americans their views on trade and the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, finding that many Americans are relatively unaware of the trade deal, which the Senate passed on Thursday. Forty-four percent said they favored the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, another 44 percent said they weren’t sure what they thought of it and 11 percent opposed it. Two explanations for why so many Americans weren’t sure? Four out of five respondents said they had heard little or nothing at all about the trade deal. And Americans are also generally somewhat uncertain about trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries — 43 percent said such deals are a good thing, while 20 percent said they were a bad thing and 37 percent said they weren’t sure.
In a survey of American attitudes toward vaccines, Gallup found that there is still uncertainty about the debunked claim that vaccines can cause autism. Although only 10 percent said that certain vaccinations can cause autism and 45 percent said they do not, a plurality — 46 percent — said they weren’t sure. However, 86 percent said that the diseases vaccines prevent are more dangerous than the vaccines themselves.
In a new poll from YouGov measuring attitudes toward the Confederate flag among Americans, a plurality of respondents in two former Confederate states — Arkansas and Louisiana — said that the flag represented heritage more than racism. Of the other nine states that were part of the Confederacy, pluralities in seven said that the flag represented racism more than heritage, while respondents in Alabama and Florida were split evenly.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 42.4 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.9 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -10.5 points). At this time last week, 41.9 percent approved and 53.3 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -11.4 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 43.2 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.5 percent, for a net approval rating of -9.3 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 5.9 percentage points (47.0 percent to 41.1 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 6.6 points (47.5 percent to 40.9 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 6.6 points (47.2 percent to 40.6 percent).


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-17--Trump May Be Even More Unpopular Than His Approval Rating Shows

Polls have consistently shown that President Trump is pretty unpopular , with only about 42 percent of the American public approving of the job he is doing as president .
These numbers are much lower than what one might expect given the bustling economy .
But does the standard presidential approval question actually capture what voters think of Trump ’ s job performance ?
There are several reasons it might not tell the full story .
For one , in this hyper-partisan era , presidential approval numbers have become increasingly polarized and don ’ t move around all that much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about which “ side ” people are on ( pro-Trump or anti-Trump , Republican or Democrat ) than voters ’ actual evaluation of how the president is doing .
So we ( Enns and Schuldt ) have worked to develop a hopefully more nuanced approach to measuring presidential approval , where we ask respondents how favorably they feel toward Trump relative to other notable Republicans .
By not explicitly asking respondents whether they approve or disapprove of the president , we avoid forcing respondents to take sides , as they do in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents from both parties evaluate Trump in comparison to other Republicans , like former President George W. Bush , the late Sen. John McCain , McCain ’ s former running mate Sarah Palin , Vice President Mike Pence , and former President Ronald Reagan .
( We selected these specific Republicans because they range from the highly regarded Reagan , who is often viewed as the voice of modern conservatism , to Palin , the former Alaska governor whose time in national politics was much shorter and less influential . )
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views Trump when they aren ’ t asked about the president in isolation .
Do respondents rate him as highly as other Republicans ?
Less highly ?
And does this help clarify whether partisan cheerleading is masking respondents ’ actual assessments of Trump in the traditional presidential approval question ?
This is now our second survey where we ’ ve measured Trump ’ s favorability among likely voters , and in both surveys , we found that the standard presidential approval question may be overestimating Trump ’ s popularity .
Our first survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( July 3 to July 12 ) and our second survey was conducted soon after the Dec. 18 House vote that formally impeached the president ( Dec. 20 to Dec. 22 ) , but in both instances , likely voters rated Trump toward the bottom of our list of Republicans .
Before the midterms , Trump ’ s favorability rating was statistically indistinguishable from Pence ’ s , and only Palin was rated less favorably .
Following impeachment , Trump was even lower relative to the other Republicans we asked about .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run for reelection since Gerald Ford according to polls asking the standard presidential approval question , but in our measure , he is now also rated less favorably than his vice president .
He ’ s also essentially tied with Palin for the least favorable Republican on our list , which is notable because when respondents are asked the traditional favorability question , Palin ’ s numbers are even lower than Trump ’ s — in 2016 , an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that just 30 percent of the public had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In terms of how Trump ’ s support breaks down along party lines , we also broke out our favorability rankings by Democrats , Republicans and independents .
There we saw some pretty stark divisions , like the ones you see in the standard presidential approval question .
For instance , Democrats , not surprisingly , ranked Trump last and ranked McCain the highest .
Likewise , Republicans ranked Trump highly , behind only Reagan in our December poll .
But among independents , Trump ’ s position was perhaps more telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewed as potential swing voters , ranked Trump at the bottom of the list — statistically tied with both Palin and Pence .
As with all survey data , there is uncertainty around these estimates .
For example , although it appears that independents rate Trump slightly lower than Palin and Pence , their uncertainty bands overlap enough that we can ’ t say for sure that Trump rates the lowest of those three .
But the bottom line is that the president appears even more unpopular than previously thought , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is able to reveal .
Although the electoral implications of Trump ’ s unpopularity and impeachment remain to be seen , the data we do have isn ’ t promising for Trump .
Methodology : Both surveys were fielded for us by NORC at the University of Chicago with funding from Cornell ’ s Center for the Study of Inequality .
The July 2018 sample included 1,379 likely voters and the December 2019 sample included 818 likely voters .

Polls have consistently shown that President Trump is pretty unpopular, with only about 42 percent of the American public approving of the job he is doing as president. These numbers are much lower than what one might expect given the bustling economy.
But does the standard presidential approval question actually capture what voters think of Trump’s job performance? There are several reasons it might not tell the full story. For one, in this hyper-partisan era, presidential approval numbers have become increasingly polarized and don’t move around all that much, so they may now say more about which “side” people are on (pro-Trump or anti-Trump, Republican or Democrat) than voters’ actual evaluation of how the president is doing.
So we (Enns and Schuldt) have worked to develop a hopefully more nuanced approach to measuring presidential approval, where we ask respondents how favorably they feel toward Trump relative to other notable Republicans. By not explicitly asking respondents whether they approve or disapprove of the president, we avoid forcing respondents to take sides, as they do in the standard presidential approval question. Instead, respondents from both parties evaluate Trump in comparison to other Republicans, like former President George W. Bush, the late Sen. John McCain, McCain’s former running mate Sarah Palin, Vice President Mike Pence, and former President Ronald Reagan. (We selected these specific Republicans because they range from the highly regarded Reagan, who is often viewed as the voice of modern conservatism, to Palin, the former Alaska governor whose time in national politics was much shorter and less influential.) We’re most interested in how the public views Trump when they aren’t asked about the president in isolation. Do respondents rate him as highly as other Republicans? Less highly? And does this help clarify whether partisan cheerleading is masking respondents’ actual assessments of Trump in the traditional presidential approval question?
This is now our second survey where we’ve measured Trump’s favorability among likely voters, and in both surveys, we found that the standard presidential approval question may be overestimating Trump’s popularity. Our first survey was conducted before the 2018 midterm elections (July 3 to July 12) and our second survey was conducted soon after the Dec. 18 House vote that formally impeached the president (Dec. 20 to Dec. 22), but in both instances, likely voters rated Trump toward the bottom of our list of Republicans.
Before the midterms, Trump’s favorability rating was statistically indistinguishable from Pence’s, and only Palin was rated less favorably. Following impeachment, Trump was even lower relative to the other Republicans we asked about. Not only is he the least popular president to run for reelection since Gerald Ford according to polls asking the standard presidential approval question, but in our measure, he is now also rated less favorably than his vice president. He’s also essentially tied with Palin for the least favorable Republican on our list, which is notable because when respondents are asked the traditional favorability question, Palin’s numbers are even lower than Trump’s — in 2016, an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that just 30 percent of the public had a favorable impression of the former governor.
In terms of how Trump’s support breaks down along party lines, we also broke out our favorability rankings by Democrats, Republicans and independents. There we saw some pretty stark divisions, like the ones you see in the standard presidential approval question. For instance, Democrats, not surprisingly, ranked Trump last and ranked McCain the highest. Likewise, Republicans ranked Trump highly, behind only Reagan in our December poll. But among independents, Trump’s position was perhaps more telling. This group, which is typically viewed as potential swing voters, ranked Trump at the bottom of the list — statistically tied with both Palin and Pence.
As with all survey data, there is uncertainty around these estimates. For example, although it appears that independents rate Trump slightly lower than Palin and Pence, their uncertainty bands overlap enough that we can’t say for sure that Trump rates the lowest of those three. But the bottom line is that the president appears even more unpopular than previously thought, and more disliked than the standard presidential approval question is able to reveal. Although the electoral implications of Trump’s unpopularity and impeachment remain to be seen, the data we do have isn’t promising for Trump.
Methodology: Both surveys were fielded for us by NORC at the University of Chicago with funding from Cornell’s Center for the Study of Inequality. The July 2018 sample included 1,379 likely voters and the December 2019 sample included 818 likely voters.
Additional contributions by Laura Bronner.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-16--What The Sanders vs. Warren Battle Is Really About

Sen. Elizabeth Warren played to a friendly crowd when she visited Brooklyn last week .
The rally at King ’ s Theatre on Flatbush Avenue — an ornate people ’ s palace kind of joint with fleur de lis in the molding and vaudeville ghosts in the rafters — was a 4,800-person shot in the arm for her campaign , which had been flatlining of late .
Julián Castro , young , Latino and recently out of the presidential race , had just endorsed Warren and there seemed to be a sense in the air — with a heavy hint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” signs circulating — that the campaign was looking for a little good news out of the evening .
The crowd scanned as largely young and professional , and a little girl sitting just in front of me waved another sign : “ I ’ m running for president because that ’ s what girls do.
” Just under a week later , the Warren campaign would be at war with Sen. Bernie Sanders over Warren ’ s claim that Sanders told her in a private 2018 meeting that he didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election .
This salvo from Warren ’ s camp was seen as a response to reports that talking points for Sanders volunteers characterized Warren as the choice of “ highly educated , more affluent people , ” a demographic both key to Democratic electoral success and associated with Hillary Clinton ’ s supposed out-of-touch elitism .
Within a few hours , what had been a cold-war battle to define the left wing of the Democratic Party had gone hot .
The handshake-that-wasn ’ t between Sanders and Warren at Tuesday night ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more .
What ’ s curious , though , is that the rift isn ’ t over policy particulars .
The Warren vs. Sanders progressivism fight seems to be more stylistic , an unexpectedly tense class war of sorts within the broader progressive class war .
Should progressive populism be wonky and detail-oriented and appeal to college-educated former Clinton voters ?
Or a more contentious outsider assault on the powers-that-be from the overlooked millions of the middle and lower-middle class ?
The groundwork for more open hostilities was perhaps laid at the start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As I boarded a plane for Des Moines , Iowa , on Friday night , I scanned the results of the just-released Des Moines Register poll .
The survey showed Sanders leading in the state with 20 percent of the vote , a notable shuffle in the race from the last poll from that pollster , which showed former Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the lead and Sanders scrapping for third place with former Vice President Joe Biden .
Saturday afternoon I found myself in Newton , Iowa , listening to Larry Hurto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the poll to me from memory as he waited for Sanders to arrive at a rally .
With Sanders , Hurto told me , “ What you see is what you get.
” Kim Life , 60 , told me she ’ d voted for Clinton in 2016 but felt that , this time around , Sanders was the man for our times .
“ Things in the world are so unstable , ” she said .
“ He hasn ’ t changed in 40 years.
” Warren , she told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than she let on .
Variations on this theme — Sanders as credible progressive curmudgeon and Warren as vaguely deceptive opportunist — popped up as I followed Sanders across the state .
America is a country whose politics are pheromonal ; voters are largely attracted to certain candidates not for their policy positions but for the cut of their jib or the familiarity of the story at the heart of their self-mythology .
And among the Sanders-committed , there seemed to be a sense that the candidate ’ s famous frankness was his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be with certain groups .
The other part of the controversial Sanders campaign talking points on Warren was that her supporters — the wealthy , well-educated ones — would already “ show up and vote Democratic no matter what … she ’ s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.
” At his rallies , Sanders was putting his electability foot forward — supporters waved “ Bernie beats Trump ” signs while he spoke .
In November , The New York Times polled battleground state voters and found that persuadable , white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some Sanders/Warren proposals , but “ by a margin of 84 percent to 9 percent , they say political correctness has gone too far .
They say academics and journalists look down on people like them.
” Nonwhite persuadable voters supported systemic change candidates and single-payer health care , but 50 percent approve of Trump , a man known for pushing the boundaries of correctness , political or otherwise .
The anti-political-correctness voters and Trump-approvers are perhaps the demographics where Sanders has the greatest chance to make inroads .
While his trademark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s of a sympatico strain , in a way : “ I don ’ t care what you think , I ’ m going to say and do what I please.
” The Sanders brand is based entirely on that slippery , overused quality that politics so prizes : authenticity .
He has believed in the same things for decades and advocated for them in the same polemical style .
Even his heavy Brooklyn brogue remains unchanged despite his having left the borough in the ’ 60s .
It speaks to being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cosmopolitan class .
Of course , Warren still has the flatness of the plains in her voice , but maybe that ’ s harder to pick out of the American pantheon of dialects and accents .
Plus , the patina of Harvard elitism might stick more to a woman , with voters being more apt to see her as overly liberal in a cultural sense rather than an economic one — ironic , in Warren ’ s case , given that the cornerstone of her candidacy is radical economic reform .
Her tightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooklyn — Warren likes to pump her fists while she talks and bend down as if she might jump across a stage — was adept at connecting her famous plans together as a bid for “ big , structural change.
” Whatever issue brought people to the rally , Warren said , “ I guarantee it ’ s been touched by money.
” It was a solutions-oriented 45-minute verbal march ; though , of course , both Warren and Sanders know that unless Democrats win the Senate in 2020 ( unlikely ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their potential agenda as president would be stymied from the get-go .
But each know that rhetoric wins the day .
While they share so many policy goals , it ’ s obvious their appeal is somewhat divergent .
There is certainly a gap between the demographics of Sanders and Warren supporters .
According to FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos polling , conducted using Ipsos ’ s KnowledgePanel , about 34 percent of people considering voting for Warren ’ s have household incomes of over $ 125,000 , compared to around 22 percent of potential Sanders supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are particularly skewed toward college-educated Democrats , while people considering Sanders and Biden are more evenly distributed across education levels .
Sanders is not wrong in pointing out that Warren ’ s populism — and make no mistake , it is that ; she does her fair share of billionaire-bashing — has resonated with a different audience than his .
In part , it ’ s because her packaging of populism is meant to extend an ideological hand to the establishment Democratic voters who cottoned to Clinton in 2016 but regretted , perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country was ravenous for system-busting talk .
She scratches the itch of big ’ ole change but understands that the Democratic Party is filled with people who are still comfortable within the system , even if they have intellectual critiques of it .
Sanders ’ s selling of populism is conscious of its place in the sweep of progressive history .
In Iowa , he talked about how not so long ago , public education was seen as a radical idea and cited the aphorism , “ It always seems impossible until it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mental block the country could overcome to accept Medicare for All .
On Saturday evening , Sanders held a rally in Davenport that opened with performances by a collegiate singer-songwriter — “ This one is about my babysitter and how as you get older your relationships change ” — and Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan .
Tlaib ’ s voice rose in emotional peaks and cracks as she spoke of her childhood in Detroit , which in her memory is perfumed with the rotten-egg smell of hydrogen sulfide .
She bemoaned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her city .
“ We need somebody that ’ s courageous , that won ’ t sell us out , ” she said .
“ I ’ m exhausted about the broken promises , these polished speeches — I don ’ t care if you said the same thing.
” With Sanders , she said , “ you see this person and he ’ s real.
” It was as succinct an endorsement as a 2020 Democratic candidate could ask for ; though , as we all well know by now , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mutable and very much according to one ’ s taste .
But of course , the crowd cheered ; there was no higher praise .
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight ’ s Democratic primary forecast in full ; you can also see all the 2020 primary polls we ’ ve collected , including national polls , Iowa polls , New Hampshire polls , Nevada polls and South Carolina polls .

Sen. Elizabeth Warren played to a friendly crowd when she visited Brooklyn last week. The rally at King’s Theatre on Flatbush Avenue — an ornate people’s palace kind of joint with fleur de lis in the molding and vaudeville ghosts in the rafters — was a 4,800-person shot in the arm for her campaign, which had been flatlining of late. Julián Castro, young, Latino and recently out of the presidential race, had just endorsed Warren and there seemed to be a sense in the air — with a heavy hint from the mass-produced “We ❤ Julián” signs circulating — that the campaign was looking for a little good news out of the evening. The crowd scanned as largely young and professional, and a little girl sitting just in front of me waved another sign: “I’m running for president because that’s what girls do.”
Just under a week later, the Warren campaign would be at war with Sen. Bernie Sanders over Warren’s claim that Sanders told her in a private 2018 meeting that he didn’t think a woman could win the 2020 presidential election. This salvo from Warren’s camp was seen as a response to reports that talking points for Sanders volunteers characterized Warren as the choice of “highly educated, more affluent people,” a demographic both key to Democratic electoral success and associated with Hillary Clinton’s supposed out-of-touch elitism. Within a few hours, what had been a cold-war battle to define the left wing of the Democratic Party had gone hot. The handshake-that-wasn’t between Sanders and Warren at Tuesday night’s debate seemed to inflame tensions even more.
What’s curious, though, is that the rift isn’t over policy particulars. The Warren vs. Sanders progressivism fight seems to be more stylistic, an unexpectedly tense class war of sorts within the broader progressive class war. Should progressive populism be wonky and detail-oriented and appeal to college-educated former Clinton voters? Or a more contentious outsider assault on the powers-that-be from the overlooked millions of the middle and lower-middle class?
The groundwork for more open hostilities was perhaps laid at the start of last weekend with some numerical tinder. As I boarded a plane for Des Moines, Iowa, on Friday night, I scanned the results of the just-released Des Moines Register poll. The survey showed Sanders leading in the state with 20 percent of the vote, a notable shuffle in the race from the last poll from that pollster, which showed former Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the lead and Sanders scrapping for third place with former Vice President Joe Biden. Saturday afternoon I found myself in Newton, Iowa, listening to Larry Hurto, 68, reciting the full results of the poll to me from memory as he waited for Sanders to arrive at a rally. With Sanders, Hurto told me, “What you see is what you get.” Kim Life, 60, told me she’d voted for Clinton in 2016 but felt that, this time around, Sanders was the man for our times. “Things in the world are so unstable,” she said. “He hasn’t changed in 40 years.” Warren, she told me, was more influenced by corporate America than she let on.
Variations on this theme — Sanders as credible progressive curmudgeon and Warren as vaguely deceptive opportunist — popped up as I followed Sanders across the state. America is a country whose politics are pheromonal; voters are largely attracted to certain candidates not for their policy positions but for the cut of their jib or the familiarity of the story at the heart of their self-mythology. And among the Sanders-committed, there seemed to be a sense that the candidate’s famous frankness was his greatest asset — and it could well be with certain groups.
The other part of the controversial Sanders campaign talking points on Warren was that her supporters — the wealthy, well-educated ones — would already “show up and vote Democratic no matter what … she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” At his rallies, Sanders was putting his electability foot forward — supporters waved “Bernie beats Trump” signs while he spoke. In November, The New York Times polled battleground state voters and found that persuadable, white working-class voters had policy views that aligned with some Sanders/Warren proposals, but “by a margin of 84 percent to 9 percent, they say political correctness has gone too far. They say academics and journalists look down on people like them.” Nonwhite persuadable voters supported systemic change candidates and single-payer health care, but 50 percent approve of Trump, a man known for pushing the boundaries of correctness, political or otherwise.
The anti-political-correctness voters and Trump-approvers are perhaps the demographics where Sanders has the greatest chance to make inroads. While his trademark directness isn’t anti-PC, it’s of a sympatico strain, in a way: “I don’t care what you think, I’m going to say and do what I please.” The Sanders brand is based entirely on that slippery, overused quality that politics so prizes: authenticity. He has believed in the same things for decades and advocated for them in the same polemical style. Even his heavy Brooklyn brogue remains unchanged despite his having left the borough in the ’60s. It speaks to being from a place.
Of course, Warren still has the flatness of the plains in her voice, but maybe that’s harder to pick out of the American pantheon of dialects and accents. Plus, the patina of Harvard elitism might stick more to a woman, with voters being more apt to see her as overly liberal in a cultural sense rather than an economic one — ironic, in Warren’s case, given that the cornerstone of her candidacy is radical economic reform. Her tightly constructed, loosely delivered stump speech in Brooklyn — Warren likes to pump her fists while she talks and bend down as if she might jump across a stage — was adept at connecting her famous plans together as a bid for “big, structural change.” Whatever issue brought people to the rally, Warren said, “I guarantee it’s been touched by money.” It was a solutions-oriented 45-minute verbal march; though, of course, both Warren and Sanders know that unless Democrats win the Senate in 2020 (unlikely) and hold onto the House, much of their potential agenda as president would be stymied from the get-go.
But each know that rhetoric wins the day. While they share so many policy goals, it’s obvious their appeal is somewhat divergent. There is certainly a gap between the demographics of Sanders and Warren supporters. According to FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos polling, conducted using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, about 34 percent of people considering voting for Warren’s have household incomes of over $125,000, compared to around 22 percent of potential Sanders supporters. And Warren’s potential backers are particularly skewed toward college-educated Democrats, while people considering Sanders and Biden are more evenly distributed across education levels.
Sanders is not wrong in pointing out that Warren’s populism — and make no mistake, it is that; she does her fair share of billionaire-bashing — has resonated with a different audience than his. In part, it’s because her packaging of populism is meant to extend an ideological hand to the establishment Democratic voters who cottoned to Clinton in 2016 but regretted, perhaps, their inability to see that the country was ravenous for system-busting talk. She scratches the itch of big ’ole change but understands that the Democratic Party is filled with people who are still comfortable within the system, even if they have intellectual critiques of it.
Sanders’s selling of populism is conscious of its place in the sweep of progressive history. In Iowa, he talked about how not so long ago, public education was seen as a radical idea and cited the aphorism, “It always seems impossible until it’s done,” to explain the mental block the country could overcome to accept Medicare for All.
On Saturday evening, Sanders held a rally in Davenport that opened with performances by a collegiate singer-songwriter — “This one is about my babysitter and how as you get older your relationships change” — and Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Tlaib’s voice rose in emotional peaks and cracks as she spoke of her childhood in Detroit, which in her memory is perfumed with the rotten-egg smell of hydrogen sulfide. She bemoaned the building of “bougie” condos in her city. “We need somebody that’s courageous, that won’t sell us out,” she said. “I’m exhausted about the broken promises, these polished speeches — I don’t care if you said the same thing.” With Sanders, she said, “you see this person and he’s real.” It was as succinct an endorsement as a 2020 Democratic candidate could ask for; though, as we all well know by now, what’s “real” is ambiguous and mutable and very much according to one’s taste.
But of course, the crowd cheered; there was no higher praise.
Laura Bronner contributed analysis.
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight’s Democratic primary forecast in full; you can also see all the 2020 primary polls we’ve collected, including national polls, Iowa polls, New Hampshire polls, Nevada polls and South Carolina polls.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-16--Election Update: Why Warren Needs To Play To Win — And That Includes Beating Sanders

We ’ ve officially entered silly season in the Democratic primary , which means we ’ re at the point where you can get pretty far by just stating the obvious .
So here are a few rather obvious truths about the Democratic primary : • Only one candidate can be nominated .
• Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , two of the more likely people to be nominated , have heavily overlapping bases of support .
• But Warren narrowly trails Sanders in the national polls ( both candidates trail Joe Biden ) and Sanders is perceived as having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three weeks to go until Iowa .
What might you expect to happen under circumstances like these ?
Well , you ’ d probably expect the Warren campaign to become less risk-averse .
If , for example , it had a damaging piece of opposition research on Sanders , now might be the ideal time to drop it .
You ’ d disrupt the current , good-for-Sanders-and-not-so-great-for-you news cycle and shake things up a bit .
But there would also be just enough time to pivot to a more positive message in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course going negative can be risky , for any number of reasons .
But campaigns have to assess risk and reward — and campaigns in third place have to take more risks .
Virtually all campaigns show some ability to throw a few elbows when needed , combined with also driving an affirmative message .
In primaries , the positive messages mostly prevail — after all , everybody ’ s in the same party .
But primaries can also get really nasty , and this one has been relatively tame by comparison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren ’ s recent strategy toward Sanders have seemed off-kilter to me .
For instance , people on Twitter — where both candidates have lots of support — seem shocked that Warren would escalate conflict against Sanders , first over the relatively minor matter of a script that Sanders volunteers were using that described Warren as a candidate of the “ elite , ” and later , over the more serious accusation that Sanders allegedly told Warren that a woman couldn ’ t be elected president .
In fact , this is all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential campaign — especially for a candidate in Warren ’ s situation .
And there ’ s even some initial evidence that her strategy is working !
Voters in our post-debate poll with Ipsos gave Warren the highest grade of any candidate for her debate performance — which mostly featured a positive , policy-oriented message along with a couple of chilly moments between her and Sanders .
Meanwhile perceptions of Warren ’ s electability improved among voters in the poll after the debate , while Sanders ’ s favorability ratings worsened .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that maintaining a nonaggression pact would be mutually beneficial because otherwise Biden could run away with the nomination .
But the word “ mutually ” is debatable .
I ’ d argue nonaggression toward Warren is pretty clearly in the best interest of Sanders , who was in the stronger position than Warren heading into the debate and who would probably prefer to focus on Biden .
But it ’ s probably not beneficial to Warren .
Any scenario that doesn ’ t involve Warren winning Iowa will leave her in a fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beating Sanders there .
Let ’ s take a look at the results of 10,000 simulations from Wednesday night ’ s run of our forecast model , which accounts for the effects that Iowa could have on subsequent states .
Below are the results of simulations showing all the possible ways the top four candidates in Iowa — Biden , Sanders , Warren , and Pete Buttigieg — could finish , and the subsequent effect this would have on Warren ’ s chances of eventually winning the majority or plurality of pledged delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the model works here ; we ’ ve put in a lot of thought about how to measure bounces , as well as how the various candidates ’ bases of support overlap with one another .
Note that for purposes of this article , I ignored candidates beyond the top four , although some of them — most notably Amy Klobuchar — have outside chances in Iowa . )
No surprise , but by far the most important consideration for Warren is that she wins Iowa herself .
Case in point : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the order of finish is Warren-Sanders-Biden-Buttigieg — is still about three times better for her in terms of her chances of eventually winning a delegate majority than the best losing scenario , which is Buttigieg-Warren-Biden-Sanders .
The next-most-important consideration for Warren — although it ’ s an order of magnitude less important than whether Warren herself wins — is whether Buttigieg wins Iowa if she doesn ’ t .
Because he ’ s the weakest of the four front-runners in polling in states beyond Iowa , a Buttigieg win would be easiest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to tolerate .
But if Warren had to choose between Biden and Sanders winning Iowa , it ’ s not clear which she ’ d prefer .
On the one hand , Biden is in a stronger position nationally than Sanders , so giving him any kind of running start in Iowa would make him harder to beat .
On the other hand , lanes do matter to some degree , and our model assumes ( with plenty of evidence in the polling data ) that a lot of the gains that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could come at Warren ’ s expense ; he ’ d essentially have won the progressive semifinal .
If you look at the scenarios in detail , a lot of fairly nuanced questions involving the exact order of the top four finishers come into play .
( To take a subtle example : While Warren might not mind Buttigieg winning Iowa , she also might not mind him doing really badly there , badly enough that he dropped out , since Buttigieg voters often have Warren ranked relatively highly as a second choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at the table , keep in mind that the sample sizes are fairly small for some of the scenarios , so in some instances , there ’ s a fair bit of noise in the data .
Bottom line : Warren ’ s job is to figure out how to win Iowa , or failing that , to finish second to Buttigieg there .
That inherently involves beating Sanders — and Biden .
Whether she ’ s pursuing the right strategy to achieve that goal is another question and beyond the scope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall forecast , it remains largely unchanged from previous days .
Biden is the most likely winner , with a 41 percent chance of a delegate majority , followed by Sanders at 23 percent , Warren at 13 percent and Buttigieg at 8 percent , with a 15 percent chance no one wins a majority .
The forecast doesn ’ t yet include any post-debate polling — the poll I mentioned earlier that we conducted with Ipsos did not include any horse-race questions and so does not factor into the model .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for post-debate polling once we get some , however , so stay tuned .

We’ve officially entered silly season in the Democratic primary, which means we’re at the point where you can get pretty far by just stating the obvious. So here are a few rather obvious truths about the Democratic primary:
What might you expect to happen under circumstances like these? Well, you’d probably expect the Warren campaign to become less risk-averse. If, for example, it had a damaging piece of opposition research on Sanders, now might be the ideal time to drop it. You’d disrupt the current, good-for-Sanders-and-not-so-great-for-you news cycle and shake things up a bit. But there would also be just enough time to pivot to a more positive message in the final week or so before Iowa.
Of course going negative can be risky, for any number of reasons. But campaigns have to assess risk and reward — and campaigns in third place have to take more risks. Virtually all campaigns show some ability to throw a few elbows when needed, combined with also driving an affirmative message. In primaries, the positive messages mostly prevail — after all, everybody’s in the same party. But primaries can also get really nasty, and this one has been relatively tame by comparison.
So some of the assessments of Warren’s recent strategy toward Sanders have seemed off-kilter to me. For instance, people on Twitter — where both candidates have lots of support — seem shocked that Warren would escalate conflict against Sanders, first over the relatively minor matter of a script that Sanders volunteers were using that described Warren as a candidate of the “elite,” and later, over the more serious accusation that Sanders allegedly told Warren that a woman couldn’t be elected president.
In fact, this is all pretty normal at this point in a presidential campaign — especially for a candidate in Warren’s situation. And there’s even some initial evidence that her strategy is working! Voters in our post-debate poll with Ipsos gave Warren the highest grade of any candidate for her debate performance — which mostly featured a positive, policy-oriented message along with a couple of chilly moments between her and Sanders. Meanwhile perceptions of Warren’s electability improved among voters in the poll after the debate, while Sanders’s favorability ratings worsened.
More nuanced analyses of the Sanders-Warren conflict suggest that maintaining a nonaggression pact would be mutually beneficial because otherwise Biden could run away with the nomination. But the word “mutually” is debatable. I’d argue nonaggression toward Warren is pretty clearly in the best interest of Sanders, who was in the stronger position than Warren heading into the debate and who would probably prefer to focus on Biden. But it’s probably not beneficial to Warren. Any scenario that doesn’t involve Warren winning Iowa will leave her in a fairly rough position — and winning Iowa means beating Sanders there.
Let’s take a look at the results of 10,000 simulations from Wednesday night’s run of our forecast model, which accounts for the effects that Iowa could have on subsequent states. Below are the results of simulations showing all the possible ways the top four candidates in Iowa — Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Pete Buttigieg — could finish, and the subsequent effect this would have on Warren’s chances of eventually winning the majority or plurality of pledged delegates. (You can read more about how the model works here; we’ve put in a lot of thought about how to measure bounces, as well as how the various candidates’ bases of support overlap with one another. Note that for purposes of this article, I ignored candidates beyond the top four, although some of them — most notably Amy Klobuchar — have outside chances in Iowa.)
Warren’s best- and worst-case Iowa scenarios How the top four national candidates could finish in Iowa, according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary forecast, as of Jan. 15, 2020 Order of finish* Warren’s chances of a delegate… Warren Sanders Biden Buttigieg Majority Plurality 1 3 4 2 63% 67% 1 4 2 3 55 59 1 3 2 4 54 59 1 4 3 2 52 58 1 2 4 3 50 61 1 2 3 4 50 56 2 4 3 1 17 21 2 3 4 1 16 20 3 2 4 1 8 12 2 1 3 4 8 11 3 4 2 1 8 11 2 4 1 3 8 10 2 3 1 4 6 8 3 1 4 2 6 7 2 1 4 3 5 10 3 2 1 4 4 5 3 1 2 4 3 5 4 3 2 1 3 5 4 1 3 2 3 5 3 4 1 2 2 3 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 4 2 1 3 <1 <1 * Does not consider other candidates, who may finish in the top 4 in some simulations.
No surprise, but by far the most important consideration for Warren is that she wins Iowa herself. Case in point: The worst winning scenario for Warren — where the order of finish is Warren-Sanders-Biden-Buttigieg — is still about three times better for her in terms of her chances of eventually winning a delegate majority than the best losing scenario, which is Buttigieg-Warren-Biden-Sanders.
The next-most-important consideration for Warren — although it’s an order of magnitude less important than whether Warren herself wins — is whether Buttigieg wins Iowa if she doesn’t. Because he’s the weakest of the four front-runners in polling in states beyond Iowa, a Buttigieg win would be easiest for Warren (or Sanders or Biden) to tolerate.
But if Warren had to choose between Biden and Sanders winning Iowa, it’s not clear which she’d prefer. On the one hand, Biden is in a stronger position nationally than Sanders, so giving him any kind of running start in Iowa would make him harder to beat. On the other hand, lanes do matter to some degree, and our model assumes (with plenty of evidence in the polling data) that a lot of the gains that Sanders might realize in his Iowa bounce could come at Warren’s expense; he’d essentially have won the progressive semifinal.
If you look at the scenarios in detail, a lot of fairly nuanced questions involving the exact order of the top four finishers come into play. (To take a subtle example: While Warren might not mind Buttigieg winning Iowa, she also might not mind him doing really badly there, badly enough that he dropped out, since Buttigieg voters often have Warren ranked relatively highly as a second choice option.) That said, when looking at the table, keep in mind that the sample sizes are fairly small for some of the scenarios, so in some instances, there’s a fair bit of noise in the data.
Bottom line: Warren’s job is to figure out how to win Iowa, or failing that, to finish second to Buttigieg there. That inherently involves beating Sanders — and Biden. Whether she’s pursuing the right strategy to achieve that goal is another question and beyond the scope of the model.
As for our overall forecast, it remains largely unchanged from previous days. Biden is the most likely winner, with a 41 percent chance of a delegate majority, followed by Sanders at 23 percent, Warren at 13 percent and Buttigieg at 8 percent, with a 15 percent chance no one wins a majority.
The forecast doesn’t yet include any post-debate polling — the poll I mentioned earlier that we conducted with Ipsos did not include any horse-race questions and so does not factor into the model. The model will be relatively aggressive about accounting for post-debate polling once we get some, however, so stay tuned.
Biden, Sanders neck and neck In Iowa