fivethirtyeight--2020-03-04--How Biden Beat Expectations On Super Tuesday

Super Tuesday was very good to Joe Biden .
Roughly one-third of Democrats nationwide cast their ballots for president in the first big primary election of the year , although not all of those ballots have yet been counted .
Accordingly , we won ’ t be unfreezing our primary forecast until we have a clearer picture of the exact results .
But we can confidently say that , whenever it bleeps and bloops back to life , the forecast will show Biden on the rise .
Not only did he win the states he was expected to win on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal by notching a few wins on what was supposed to be Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s turf .
Heading into yesterday , it looked like Super Tuesday was going to break down along regional lines , with Biden winning the Southern states and Sanders winning those in the North and West .
Biden certainly held up his end of the bargain : Our model gave Biden a 2 in 3 chance or better of winning the six Southern states of Alabama , Arkansas , North Carolina , Oklahoma , Tennessee and Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double digits .
In fact , he exceeded our already-lofty expectations in these states .
For example , our average forecast in Virginia put Biden at 43 percent of the vote and Sanders at 23 percent ; Biden got 53 percent in real life and Sanders 23 percent .
And in Alabama , we forecasted that Biden would beat Sanders 44 percent to 21 percent , on average ; the final results were Biden 63 percent , Sanders 17 percent .
Crucially , Biden also won Texas in a close race ; ABC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a.m. Eastern as Biden held a 33-percent-to-29-percent lead over Sanders .
Texas was the most up-in-the-air state in our forecast , so it was always going to be a bellwether for who was having a good night on Tuesday .
Of course , the fact that it is worth the second-most delegates of any state doesn ’ t hurt either .
But Biden ’ s most impressive wins came in Massachusetts and Minnesota , where Sanders entered Super Tuesday as a slight favorite — and Biden wasn ’ t even the most likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecast , Biden had only a 1 in 5 chance of carrying each state , and yet he won Massachusetts by 7 points and Minnesota by a daunting 9 .
Both wins showed Biden ’ s ability to expand his coalition outside his usual comfort zone .
Minnesota is a state that has relatively few voters of color ( a key part of Biden ’ s base ) and that Sanders won by 23 points in 2016 .
But the last-minute endorsement of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who dropped out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very influential .
And in Massachusetts , Biden effectively kneecapped home-state Sen. Elizabeth Warren by usurping her former base of college-educated whites ; Biden carried the upper-class suburbs that ring Boston .
So far , the only states that Sanders is projected or likely to win are three Western states — California , Colorado and Utah — plus Vermont .
Sanders was never in danger of losing his home state ( he had a greater than 99 percent chance to win Vermont , according to our forecast ) , and he may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that all three states vote primarily by mail ( and therefore cast many of their ballots before this week , when Biden experienced a surge of endorsements and popular support ) .
According to exit polls , voters who made up their mind on whom to vote for within the last few days broke heavily for Biden .
And even in states like North Carolina , Biden did merely OK among early voters but cleaned up among Election Day voters .
Finally , there are a couple states where we still don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Wednesday morning , Maine was still too close to call , although that in and of itself is a win for Biden ; we gave him only a 1 in 4 chance of carrying the state entering the night .
And although some outlets ( though not our colleagues at ABC News ) have called California for Sanders , the results there are still very preliminary , since mail-in ballots can arrive as late as Friday and still be counted .
Given that California is worth 415 pledged delegates , the exact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big difference to each candidate ’ s delegate math .
Indeed , with plenty of votes still to be counted in Colorado , Maine and Utah as well , the final national delegate totals probably won ’ t be clear for several days .

Super Tuesday was very good to Joe Biden. Roughly one-third of Democrats nationwide cast their ballots for president in the first big primary election of the year, although not all of those ballots have yet been counted. Accordingly, we won’t be unfreezing our primary forecast until we have a clearer picture of the exact results. But we can confidently say that, whenever it bleeps and bloops back to life, the forecast will show Biden on the rise. Not only did he win the states he was expected to win on Tuesday, but he proved his cross-sectional appeal by notching a few wins on what was supposed to be Sen. Bernie Sanders’s turf.
Heading into yesterday, it looked like Super Tuesday was going to break down along regional lines, with Biden winning the Southern states and Sanders winning those in the North and West. Biden certainly held up his end of the bargain: Our model gave Biden a 2 in 3 chance or better of winning the six Southern states of Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia — and he carried all six by double digits. In fact, he exceeded our already-lofty expectations in these states. For example, our average forecast in Virginia put Biden at 43 percent of the vote and Sanders at 23 percent; Biden got 53 percent in real life and Sanders 23 percent. And in Alabama, we forecasted that Biden would beat Sanders 44 percent to 21 percent, on average; the final results were Biden 63 percent, Sanders 17 percent.
Crucially, Biden also won Texas in a close race; ABC News finally called the state at 2 a.m. Eastern as Biden held a 33-percent-to-29-percent lead over Sanders. Texas was the most up-in-the-air state in our forecast, so it was always going to be a bellwether for who was having a good night on Tuesday. Of course, the fact that it is worth the second-most delegates of any state doesn’t hurt either.
But Biden’s most impressive wins came in Massachusetts and Minnesota, where Sanders entered Super Tuesday as a slight favorite — and Biden wasn’t even the most likely candidate to upset him. Per our forecast, Biden had only a 1 in 5 chance of carrying each state, and yet he won Massachusetts by 7 points and Minnesota by a daunting 9. Both wins showed Biden’s ability to expand his coalition outside his usual comfort zone. Minnesota is a state that has relatively few voters of color (a key part of Biden’s base) and that Sanders won by 23 points in 2016. But the last-minute endorsement of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who dropped out of the race to support Biden, was apparently very influential. And in Massachusetts, Biden effectively kneecapped home-state Sen. Elizabeth Warren by usurping her former base of college-educated whites; Biden carried the upper-class suburbs that ring Boston.
So far, the only states that Sanders is projected or likely to win are three Western states — California, Colorado and Utah — plus Vermont. Sanders was never in danger of losing his home state (he had a greater than 99 percent chance to win Vermont, according to our forecast), and he may have been saved in the West by the fact that all three states vote primarily by mail (and therefore cast many of their ballots before this week, when Biden experienced a surge of endorsements and popular support). According to exit polls, voters who made up their mind on whom to vote for within the last few days broke heavily for Biden. And even in states like North Carolina, Biden did merely OK among early voters but cleaned up among Election Day voters.
Finally, there are a couple states where we still don’t have conclusive results. As of Wednesday morning, Maine was still too close to call, although that in and of itself is a win for Biden; we gave him only a 1 in 4 chance of carrying the state entering the night. And although some outlets (though not our colleagues at ABC News) have called California for Sanders, the results there are still very preliminary, since mail-in ballots can arrive as late as Friday and still be counted. Given that California is worth 415 pledged delegates, the exact, final results there could make a big difference to each candidate’s delegate math. Indeed, with plenty of votes still to be counted in Colorado, Maine and Utah as well, the final national delegate totals probably won’t be clear for several days.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Biden won Super Tuesday


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-04--Politics Podcast: Biden Won Super Tuesday. What Now?

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to former Vice President Joe Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday states .
They also ask what comes next and whether Biden is running @ @ @ @ @ the answer is “ not quite ” ) .
You can listen to the episode @ @ @ @ @ ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the @ @ @ @ @ podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
@ @ @ @ @ Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating @ @ @ @ @ Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” @ @ @ @ @ email , on Twitter or in the comments .

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to former Vice President Joe Biden’s strong performance in the Super Tuesday states. They also ask what comes next and whether Biden is running away with the nomination (the answer is “not quite”).
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Biden won Super Tuesday


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-03--What Went Down On Super Tuesday

What Went Down On Super Tuesday

What Went Down On Super Tuesday

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-04--Bloomberg Lost, But He May Still Get What He Wanted

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $ 400 million on television commercials alone during his ultimately brief 2020 presidential campaign .
He blanketed the airwaves across the nation , running ads in almost every single state .
And in the end , which came on Wednesday when Bloomberg announced that he was exiting the race and endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden , all he had to show for it was a handful of delegates and a win in American Samoa .
So Bloomberg ’ s candidacy failed in getting him to the Oval Office — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered the race in late November .
At that point , Sen. Elizabeth Warren was ascendant , and fears about Biden ’ s weaknesses were rampant .
Bloomberg opposed many of Warren ’ s more liberal ideas , such as her wealth tax plan , and he viewed her as unlikely to defeat President Trump in a general election .
He reportedly saw both her and Sen. Bernie Sanders as unacceptable general election nominees and doubted Biden or any of the other more establishment , moderate candidates in the race could beat them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg opted for an unorthodox strategy to win the Democratic nomination , skipping the first four contests — Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada and South Carolina — while hoping his huge spending advantage would put him in a position to rack up delegates on Super Tuesday .
His strategy looked like it could work a few weeks ago .
Sanders had jumped to the front of the queue instead of Warren , but the same fears about nominating too liberal a candidate applied to him .
Bloomberg began amassing endorsements from more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Sanders nomination .
Black voters started to move from Biden to Bloomberg .
In short , Bloomberg looked like he could replace Biden as the candidate for older and more moderate Democratic voters and the party ’ s center-left elites .
National polls showed Bloomberg climbing into a tie with Biden for second : Then , Bloomberg ’ s plan fell apart .
In fact , it fell apart so fast that national polls really didn ’ t have enough time to capture it .
First , his surge in the polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other candidates , particularly Warren , hammering him in the debates and on the trail , particularly about accusations that he has made sexist comments in the past .
His performance in his first debate , in Las Vegas , was almost universally panned .
It ’ s not clear that Bloomberg could have recovered from any of that — we didn ’ t get a ton of polling between that Nevada debate and South Carolina .
But the real end of the former mayor ’ s candidacy came when Biden won overwhelmingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of endorsements and then did well on Super Tuesday .
The center-left , establishment wing of the party no longer needed a Biden replacement — they had Biden .
So with Biden now back as the most likely Democratic nominee , it did not make much sense for Bloomberg to keep running .
But I don ’ t think Bloomberg ’ s candidacy was a mistake or unwise .
He ’ s worth more than $ 50 billion — so it ’ s not clear the $ 400 million he spent on television @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his campaign matters much to him .
He got to go on stage in the debates and attack Sanders and Warren .
We don ’ t know if that boosted Biden , but it likely didn ’ t hurt him .
With Biden now in a much stronger position than when Bloomberg entered the race , you could argue that Bloomberg provided what he and other more center-left figures wanted — to steer the race towards a more moderate nominee .
The more extreme back-up plan — nominate Bloomberg — ended up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bloomberg would have preferred to be the candidate instead of Biden but knew that was a fairly unlikely outcome , since he is a one-time Republican who entered the race in late November .
So Bloomberg , who has flirted with running for president since 2008 , can now go back to his previous political role : pumping his billions into a variety of liberal causes .
He hired people in numerous states for his presidential campaign , and his employees were reportedly told that they would have jobs through November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will end up retaining these staffers for some kind of operation to boost Biden against Sanders and Warren in the primary , have his team start focusing now on the general election against Trump or simply wind down his apparatus .
But I expect him to stay out of the primary and focus on Trump .
In short , Bloomberg may end up spending more than $ 1 billion in 2020 to get Trump out of the Oval Office — and from Bloomberg ’ s view , spending about half of that money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably a failed investment that was well worth the risk .

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

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $400 million on television commercials alone during his ultimately brief 2020 presidential campaign. He blanketed the airwaves across the nation, running ads in almost every single state. And in the end, which came on Wednesday when Bloomberg announced that he was exiting the race and endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden, all he had to show for it was a handful of delegates and a win in American Samoa.
So Bloomberg’s candidacy failed in getting him to the Oval Office — but he won in another way.
Bloomberg entered the race in late November. At that point, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was ascendant, and fears about Biden’s weaknesses were rampant. Bloomberg opposed many of Warren’s more liberal ideas, such as her wealth tax plan, and he viewed her as unlikely to defeat President Trump in a general election. He reportedly saw both her and Sen. Bernie Sanders as unacceptable general election nominees and doubted Biden or any of the other more establishment, moderate candidates in the race could beat them. So he got in.
But Bloomberg opted for an unorthodox strategy to win the Democratic nomination, skipping the first four contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — while hoping his huge spending advantage would put him in a position to rack up delegates on Super Tuesday.
His strategy looked like it could work a few weeks ago. Sanders had jumped to the front of the queue instead of Warren, but the same fears about nominating too liberal a candidate applied to him. Bloomberg began amassing endorsements from more center-left figures in the party who opposed a Sanders nomination. Black voters started to move from Biden to Bloomberg. In short, Bloomberg looked like he could replace Biden as the candidate for older and more moderate Democratic voters and the party’s center-left elites. National polls showed Bloomberg climbing into a tie with Biden for second:
Then, Bloomberg’s plan fell apart. In fact, it fell apart so fast that national polls really didn’t have enough time to capture it. First, his surge in the polls resulted in the news media and the other candidates, particularly Warren, hammering him in the debates and on the trail, particularly about accusations that he has made sexist comments in the past. His performance in his first debate, in Las Vegas, was almost universally panned. It’s not clear that Bloomberg could have recovered from any of that — we didn’t get a ton of polling between that Nevada debate and South Carolina. But the real end of the former mayor’s candidacy came when Biden won overwhelmingly in South Carolina, got a surge of endorsements and then did well on Super Tuesday. The center-left, establishment wing of the party no longer needed a Biden replacement — they had Biden.
So with Biden now back as the most likely Democratic nominee, it did not make much sense for Bloomberg to keep running.
But I don’t think Bloomberg’s candidacy was a mistake or unwise. He’s worth more than $50 billion — so it’s not clear the $400 million he spent on television commercials or the other money he poured into his campaign matters much to him. He got to go on stage in the debates and attack Sanders and Warren. We don’t know if that boosted Biden, but it likely didn’t hurt him. With Biden now in a much stronger position than when Bloomberg entered the race, you could argue that Bloomberg provided what he and other more center-left figures wanted — to steer the race towards a more moderate nominee. The more extreme back-up plan — nominate Bloomberg — ended up not being needed. My guess is that Bloomberg would have preferred to be the candidate instead of Biden but knew that was a fairly unlikely outcome, since he is a one-time Republican who entered the race in late November.
So Bloomberg, who has flirted with running for president since 2008, can now go back to his previous political role: pumping his billions into a variety of liberal causes. He hired people in numerous states for his presidential campaign, and his employees were reportedly told that they would have jobs through November. It’s not clear if Bloomberg will end up retaining these staffers for some kind of operation to boost Biden against Sanders and Warren in the primary, have his team start focusing now on the general election against Trump or simply wind down his apparatus. But I expect him to stay out of the primary and focus on Trump.
In short, Bloomberg may end up spending more than $1 billion in 2020 to get Trump out of the Oval Office — and from Bloomberg’s view, spending about half of that money to replace Trump with Michael Bloomberg was probably a failed investment that was well worth the risk.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Biden won Super Tuesday


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-04--Biden Won Super Tuesday Because He Won Voters Who Decided Late

On Super Tuesday , it was better late than never for former Vice President Joe Biden .
Late-deciding voters , that is .
One consistent trend across the country was that voters who made their minds up in the last few days moved toward Biden , helping him win some states unexpectedly and run up bigger margins in others .
Biden ’ s strength among late-deciding voters was further evidence of his stunning turnaround since the Nevada caucuses — rising from a distant second to Sen. Bernie Sanders and competing with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exit poll data from 10 Super Tuesday states , Biden won at least 40 percent of the late-deciding vote in every state except for Sanders ’ s home state of Vermont .
In six states , Biden performed at least 16 percentage points better among late deciders than early deciders .
Conversely , Sanders did far worse among late deciders , harming his chances of winning some states .
Minnesota stands out as the state where Biden benefited most from late deciders .
The departure of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsement of Biden , helped push enough voters into Biden ’ s camp for the former vice president to win the state by 9 points — particularly impressive considering Sanders had a 2 in 3 chance of winning Minnesota when Klobuchar left the race , according to our model .
Two other states with big gaps : Massachusetts and Maine .
Biden won the former by 7 points , and he leads by a point in the latter , though the race remains too close to call .
( Some outlets have called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 1 in 4 shot of winning Maine and a 1 in 5 chance of winning Massachusetts when we froze our forecast the morning of the election , but big margins among late deciders — and a large number of late deciders — put Biden in a strong position in both states .
If we dig a little further into the differences between early and late deciders , Maine , Massachusetts and Minnesota illustrate how one group — white voters — played a key role in Biden ’ s success .
Each state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent white .
Gary Langer , ABC ’ s polling guru , reported on election night that , in aggregate data across all states with exit polls , Biden won 52 percent of white voters who decided in the last few days compared to just 21 percent among those who picked a candidate earlier .
That 31-point margin was the largest among any racial or ethnic group for which we have data .
But white voters weren ’ t the only group that saw a major gap in late and early deciders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden won 38 percent of Hispanic voters who decided late versus just 20 percent of earlier deciders .
That kind of margin may have helped make a difference for Biden in Texas , where he won by just 3 points .
Hispanic voters made up about one-third of the Texas electorate , and about a quarter of them decided their vote in the last few days .
Of those , 34 percent backed Biden , compared to 23 percent of the earlier deciders .
There was less of a gap among black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deciders were with Biden .
Overall , the last-minute withdrawals by Klobuchar and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , along with Democratic leaders ’ endorsements of Biden after South Carolina ’ s primary , may have done just enough to move many uncertain voters toward Biden .
If Biden goes on to win the Democratic nomination — no certainty — the frantic couple of days between South Carolina and Super Tuesday will be remembered as an inflection point in the 2020 primary .

On Super Tuesday, it was better late than never for former Vice President Joe Biden. Late-deciding voters, that is. One consistent trend across the country was that voters who made their minds up in the last few days moved toward Biden, helping him win some states unexpectedly and run up bigger margins in others. Biden’s strength among late-deciding voters was further evidence of his stunning turnaround since the Nevada caucuses — rising from a distant second to Sen. Bernie Sanders and competing with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the race’s front-runner.
Based on preliminary exit poll data from 10 Super Tuesday states, Biden won at least 40 percent of the late-deciding vote in every state except for Sanders’s home state of Vermont. In six states, Biden performed at least 16 percentage points better among late deciders than early deciders. Conversely, Sanders did far worse among late deciders, harming his chances of winning some states.
Late voters turned the tide for Biden Vote share by candidate among voters who decided in the last few days (“late” voters) and prior to the last few days (“early” voters), according to exit polls in 10 Super Tuesday states Biden Sanders State Early Late Diff. Early Late Diff. Minnesota 24% 53% +29 45% 19% -26 Tennessee 34 61 +27 28 15 -13 Maine 22 47 +25 47 17 -30 Vermont 13 35 +22 64 32 -32 Massachusetts 24 43 +19 40 18 -22 Texas 29 45 +16 33 16 -17 North Carolina 39 53 +14 26 22 -4 Oklahoma 31 41 +10 32 15 -17 Virginia 50 59 +9 29 17 -12 Alabama 63 64 +1 20 11 -9 California is not included because much of its vote will be counted over the next few weeks. Colorado is not included as its exit poll was conducted prior to Election Day to account for its mostly mail-in balloting system so it included candidates who withdrew just ahead of Super Tuesday. We don’t have exit poll data from Arkansas, Utah or American Samoa. Source: ABC NEWS/edison research
Minnesota stands out as the state where Biden benefited most from late deciders. The departure of Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the presidential race on Monday, along with her endorsement of Biden, helped push enough voters into Biden’s camp for the former vice president to win the state by 9 points — particularly impressive considering Sanders had a 2 in 3 chance of winning Minnesota when Klobuchar left the race, according to our model.
Two other states with big gaps: Massachusetts and Maine. Biden won the former by 7 points, and he leads by a point in the latter, though the race remains too close to call. (Some outlets have called it.) Biden only had about a 1 in 4 shot of winning Maine and a 1 in 5 chance of winning Massachusetts when we froze our forecast the morning of the election, but big margins among late deciders — and a large number of late deciders — put Biden in a strong position in both states.
If we dig a little further into the differences between early and late deciders, Maine, Massachusetts and Minnesota illustrate how one group — white voters — played a key role in Biden’s success. Each state’s electorate was at least 80 percent white. Gary Langer, ABC’s polling guru, reported on election night that, in aggregate data across all states with exit polls, Biden won 52 percent of white voters who decided in the last few days compared to just 21 percent among those who picked a candidate earlier. That 31-point margin was the largest among any racial or ethnic group for which we have data.
But white voters weren’t the only group that saw a major gap in late and early deciders. Langer’s election night analysis found that Biden won 38 percent of Hispanic voters who decided late versus just 20 percent of earlier deciders. That kind of margin may have helped make a difference for Biden in Texas, where he won by just 3 points. Hispanic voters made up about one-third of the Texas electorate, and about a quarter of them decided their vote in the last few days. Of those, 34 percent backed Biden, compared to 23 percent of the earlier deciders.
There was less of a gap among black voters, as both early and late deciders were with Biden.
Overall, the last-minute withdrawals by Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, along with Democratic leaders’ endorsements of Biden after South Carolina’s primary, may have done just enough to move many uncertain voters toward Biden. If Biden goes on to win the Democratic nomination — no certainty — the frantic couple of days between South Carolina and Super Tuesday will be remembered as an inflection point in the 2020 primary.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Biden won Super Tuesday


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-05--Politicians Are The Last People Americans Want Fighting Coronavirus

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wants you to stay home if you ’ re sick , stop buying face masks if you ’ re healthy and ( for God ’ s sake ) wash your hands .
But it ’ s hard for the agency to communicate that relatively measured coronavirus prevention plan to the public when the burgeoning epidemic is becoming increasingly politicized .
From President Trump ’ s claims that criticism of his administration ’ s response to the outbreak represented a Democratic hoax , to his more recent use of the virus as an anti-immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in danger of getting buried under a pile of misleading statements , fact checks and fear .
And that makes experts uneasy .
Politicians — all of them — are uniquely unsuited to be at the forefront of a public health crisis , said Robert Blendon , professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health .
Not only is politicization bad for public safety — it ’ s pretty risky for the politicians as well .
It all starts with trust — something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the list of people and groups Americans trust , politicians are right down at the bottom , lower even than journalists .
Even among the most trusting Americans , only 46 percent have any confidence our elected officials will make decisions in our best interest .
Americans ’ trust in government itself is at its lowest point since we started systematically measuring it .
Only one-fifth of us trust the federal government to do the right thing .
And trust — in politicians and the government they represent — turns out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responding to an epidemic .
For example , in a 2006 survey that came out after the SARS epidemic , Blendon and his colleagues found that Americans were less likely to trust their government to tell them accurate information about an outbreak than citizens of Hong Kong , Singapore or Taiwan — and that those lower trust scores were correlated with less support for wearing face masks , getting a vaccine or agreeing to have their temperature taken before they enter a public building .
Other studies have come to similar conclusions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have in the government , the less likely they are to refuse vaccines .
HIV-positive Americans are more likely to take antiretroviral drugs and to have better health outcomes if they have more trust in the government .
Trust is even associated with a greater likelihood of having a family emergency preparedness plan in a public health crisis .
All that seems like a problem for a country with so much institutional mistrust .
But Blendon told me he ’ s long been able to find a silver lining in the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much Americans trust “ the government ” and how much they trust specific parts of the government .
“ Congress is a heartbeat away from not having any level of trust , ” Blendon told me .
In a 2019 Pew survey , just 36 percent of Americans reported a favorable view of that institution .
But less political agencies have higher approval ratings .
In a second Pew study fielded one month later , 80 percent of Americans reported having a good opinion of the CDC .
Other surveys have found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to mistrust the government but trust the CDC and listen to its recommendations in an epidemic .
That effect , though , can be undermined when mistrusted elected officials start putting themselves at the forefront of otherwise trustworthy public health campaigns , Blendon said .
“ The minute there ’ s a political motive , people say , ‘ Well they didn ’ t make that decision because it ’ s the best judgement , they made it for political reasons , ’ ” he said .
Basically , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of information than one of the least .
That ’ s bad news for public health .
But it can also be bad news for politicians , themselves .
President Gerald Ford found that out the hard way in 1976 , after his reelection campaign got swept up in the threat of a novel flu virus .
When the virus turned out to be less dangerous than Ford and other politicians had made it out to be — and the vaccine they ’ d rushed to production was found to come with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disorder — the backlash fell on their heads .
Given the numerous uncertainties surrounding coronavirus — from its infection rate to how long it will be before a vaccine can be ready — Blendon said the best thing politicians can do right now is step out of the way .

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wants you to stay home if you’re sick, stop buying face masks if you’re healthy and (for God’s sake) wash your hands. But it’s hard for the agency to communicate that relatively measured coronavirus prevention plan to the public when the burgeoning epidemic is becoming increasingly politicized.
From President Trump’s claims that criticism of his administration’s response to the outbreak represented a Democratic hoax, to his more recent use of the virus as an anti-immigration rallying cry, the public health response is in danger of getting buried under a pile of misleading statements, fact checks and fear. And that makes experts uneasy. Politicians — all of them — are uniquely unsuited to be at the forefront of a public health crisis, said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Not only is politicization bad for public safety — it’s pretty risky for the politicians as well.
It all starts with trust — something politicians just don’t have. On the list of people and groups Americans trust, politicians are right down at the bottom, lower even than journalists. Even among the most trusting Americans, only 46 percent have any confidence our elected officials will make decisions in our best interest. Americans’ trust in government itself is at its lowest point since we started systematically measuring it. Only one-fifth of us trust the federal government to do the right thing.
And trust — in politicians and the government they represent — turns out to be a pretty important part of effectively responding to an epidemic. For example, in a 2006 survey that came out after the SARS epidemic, Blendon and his colleagues found that Americans were less likely to trust their government to tell them accurate information about an outbreak than citizens of Hong Kong, Singapore or Taiwan — and that those lower trust scores were correlated with less support for wearing face masks, getting a vaccine or agreeing to have their temperature taken before they enter a public building.
Other studies have come to similar conclusions. Generally speaking, the more trust Americans have in the government, the less likely they are to refuse vaccines. HIV-positive Americans are more likely to take antiretroviral drugs and to have better health outcomes if they have more trust in the government. Trust is even associated with a greater likelihood of having a family emergency preparedness plan in a public health crisis.
All that seems like a problem for a country with so much institutional mistrust. But Blendon told me he’s long been able to find a silver lining in the fact that there’s a big difference between how much Americans trust “the government” and how much they trust specific parts of the government. “Congress is a heartbeat away from not having any level of trust,” Blendon told me. In a 2019 Pew survey, just 36 percent of Americans reported a favorable view of that institution. But less political agencies have higher approval ratings. In a second Pew study fielded one month later, 80 percent of Americans reported having a good opinion of the CDC. Other surveys have found similar discrepancies. It’s perfectly possible to mistrust the government but trust the CDC and listen to its recommendations in an epidemic.
That effect, though, can be undermined when mistrusted elected officials start putting themselves at the forefront of otherwise trustworthy public health campaigns, Blendon said. “The minute there’s a political motive, people say, ‘Well they didn’t make that decision because it’s the best judgement, they made it for political reasons,’” he said. Basically, one of the most trusted professions is probably a better source of information than one of the least.
That’s bad news for public health. But it can also be bad news for politicians, themselves. President Gerald Ford found that out the hard way in 1976, after his reelection campaign got swept up in the threat of a novel flu virus. When the virus turned out to be less dangerous than Ford and other politicians had made it out to be — and the vaccine they’d rushed to production was found to come with a higher risk of a rare neurological disorder — the backlash fell on their heads.
Given the numerous uncertainties surrounding coronavirus — from its infection rate to how long it will be before a vaccine can be ready — Blendon said the best thing politicians can do right now is step out of the way.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-05--Does Sanders Need A New Strategy?

Does Sanders Need A New Strategy?

Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight ’ s politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : Sen. Bernie Sanders objectively did not have a good Super Tuesday .
He won just three states outright ( Colorado , Utah and Vermont ) and across the board , he underperformed expectations .
He does seem on track to win delegate-rich California — but because so many voters mail in their ballots , it ’ ll be weeks before we know the final vote there .
But at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t succeeded in turning out the voters he needs to win , and now some are arguing that to find a path to the nomination , he has to stop running as an insurgent .
So is it time for Sanders to adopt a new strategy ?
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : I ’ m not sure I accept the premise of that argument ?
Obviously , being an insurgent is a core part of Sanders ’ s identity .
And a lot of the party is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still averaging almost 30 percent in national polls ! )
But , of course , that doesn ’ t preclude him from doing some things to reach out to new voters .
For example , a majority of voters in Super Tuesday exit polls said they supported Sanders ’ s key policies of Medicare for All and free college — but , paradoxically , a plurality of voters in many states said they wanted to return to former President Barack Obama ’ s policies .
And perhaps as a nod to that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying nice things about him .
ameliatd ( Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux , senior writer ) : So , with the big caveat that we do need to wait and see how Sanders performed in California , which is where he put a lot of resources , it does seem like his choice to bank on voters who don ’ t normally turn out in high numbers ( especially young people ) backfired .
In some states , the share of young voters who turned out was actually lower than it was in 2016 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders .
But I don ’ t know if his “ insurgency ” is to blame .
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : To me , that Obama commercial feels like a bit of an admission of failure .
Wouldn ’ t the time to run a commercial saying “ Obama loves me ” be in the run-up to a bunch of primaries in the heavily black Deep South , not afterward ?
nrakich : I don ’ t know if I buy the argument that Sanders screwed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday .
The events of Sunday and Monday — the party clearly deciding on former Vice President Joe Biden , and multiple establishment politicians giving up their personal ambitions to do so — were extraordinary .
And would have been very difficult to predict .
A week ago , I ran a table titled “ Sanders is forecasted to rack up wins on Super Tuesday “ !
I think that until basically Monday , when it was too late , Sanders was totally justified in thinking that divided opposition would allow him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuck to his usual schtick .
ameliatd : But there was probably some hubris on Sanders ’ s part in assuming that he could rely mainly on low-turnout voters ’ excitement about him .
sarahf : Wait , aren ’ t you inherently arguing , Nathaniel , that Sanders still needed to pivot at some point ?
nrakich : Yeah , maybe , Sarah , but really I ’ m just saying Sanders has so far made perfectly rational strategic decisions with the information he had .
And now that he has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , the timing of this Obama ad makes sense .
ameliatd : I ’ ll disagree with that a little , Nathaniel — I think Sanders could have done more to reach out to people who are not in his core base once he started doing well in the early states .
And maybe being conciliatory could have helped .
Or at least he could have , like , not doubled down on his comments praising Fidel Castro last week .
sarahf : I guess the counterargument , though , is : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense for Sanders ?
It ’ s weird and it ’ s complicated and , as you said earlier , Nathaniel , part of Sanders ’ s appeal is that he is a political outsider and isn ’ t afraid to call the establishment out .
But he ’ s also not running as an underdog this year , and he ’ s trying to win the Democratic nomination , so at some point , you have to win … some Democrats .
Right ?
perry : My view is that Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were related to the consolidation of the establishment .
He had no control over that .
It was surprising , as Nathaniel said .
The total blowouts in the South were not shocking — but I do think running an ad about how Obama loves him would have been most useful before a lot of the South voted .
So we will agree to disagree on that !
But Sarah , I think that tweet was fine and is being overblown .
Sanders ’ s appeal in the general election is partly based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties .
nrakich : Yeah , tweets are overrated .
Only about a fifth of Americans are even on Twitter !
perry : Voters don ’ t think they are in the establishment either .
nrakich : And I guess I would point out that Sanders has tried to make inroads with voters he wasn ’ t strong with in 2016 .
We ’ ve written about this : Sanders invested a lot in Latino outreach in Nevada and California , and he has improved his numbers with black voters to an impressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of things moved very quickly and somewhat unpredictably in the past few days , and none of those things were helpful to Sanders .
What should he do now ?
Again with the caveat that we don ’ t know what happened in California , it does seem like Sanders has to start appealing to some non-young Democrats .
sarahf : Right , next Tuesday six more states vote : Idaho , Michigan , North Dakota , Washington , Missouri and Mississippi .
So does Sanders pivot now ?
Will he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of those states no matter what ?
( Three of them are at least sorta kinda in the West , which is where Sanders is supposed to be strongest . )
nrakich : That ’ s actually a pretty good group of states for Sanders .
Sanders is strong in Western states ( I think North Dakota kinda counts as culturally Western ) .
And he scored a shocking win in Michigan last cycle , which many Democrats there probably remember .
However , Missouri and Mississippi , as Southern ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , definitely do feel like Biden states .
Also , next week we ’ ll get the results of the Democrats Abroad primary , which should be good for Sanders .
ameliatd : I would assume that Bloomberg getting out of the race will be helpful to Biden in Michigan , though .
nrakich : Yeah , that ’ s going to be the barnburner of the evening .
It ’ s the closest of next week ’ s races per our forecast ( as of Tuesday morning ) , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any state voting next Tuesday .
perry : Sanders has a bunch of blocs where he is weak : 1. older black voters ; 2. college-educated white women ; 3. basically anyone over age 45 .
And I don ’ t see how easy it is for him to pivot to win these groups , because his whole campaign is about shaking things up , and these might be groups that are resistant to big change .
ameliatd : There was one very consistent aspect of Sanders ’ s voters last night ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — he gets more support from men than women .
That is going to be hard for him to change .
sarahf : So this is from The Washington Post ’ s analysis of Super Tuesday exit polls , and as Perry says — aside from really young voters , really liberal voters and Hispanic voters — Sanders really does have a bunch of blocs where he is weak .
So he has to at least start trying to win some of these voters from Biden , right ?
Or is there an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double down on his current strategy ?
One thing we talked about on the live blog is that if it ’ s a two-person race by March 15 , that could be bad for Biden and good for Sanders , just considering their skills as debaters .
perry : Is Sanders good at debates ?
( Conceding that Biden is fairly bad at them . )
sarahf : Sanders is more reliable , I ’ d say .
ameliatd : The problem is that without high turnout among his core groups , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I keep coming back to the fact that young voters have not been turning out in high numbers .
That was a big part of his strategic bet , and it just doesn ’ t seem to be paying off .
nrakich : Not to , like , invalidate this entire chat , but I ’ m not sure this debate is even relevant .
I think Sanders will double down on his current strategy , because it ’ s just who he is .
He is a progressive insurgent bomb-thrower , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it throughout his career .
In fact , Sanders does too .
He tweeted this on Wednesday : ameliatd : One possibility , I guess , is that Biden ’ s sudden surge could galvanize Sanders supporters and convince them to turn out in higher numbers .
perry : But Nathaniel , are you suggesting that Sanders can ’ t pivot or won ’ t pivot ?
He did get better on racial issues and outreach to black voters and Latino voters from 2016 to 2020 .
So he can do better outreach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right ?
Maybe the distinction is that his rhetoric won ’ t change , but maybe the strategy of his campaign operation will ?
ameliatd : But again , I keep coming back to the groups where Sanders is weak .
It ’ s not obvious to me that Warren supporters who see the writing on the wall for their candidate will throw their support to Sanders .
And that ’ s a problem for him .
perry : Amelia , I agree — right now , I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders if she drops out .
His first move should be trying to get her to endorse him enthusiastically , and I have no idea how that will happen .
ameliatd : What would it mean for the strategy of his campaign operation to change without his rhetoric changing , Nathaniel ?
I don ’ t want to sound too down on Sanders , but part of his brand is his rhetorical consistency .
How does he change his campaign ’ s outreach without changing how he talks about his candidacy ?
Getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal , Perry , I agree .
Maybe Sanders ’ s mistake was not being more conciliatory to Warren .
perry : Well , the Obama ad was a shift .
Sanders thinks Obama was too centrist as president , but he did run the ad .
So I think Sanders can adapt .
nrakich : Right , I think that ’ s a great example .
Lots of people might see that ad and think , “ Sanders is trying to reach out to me.
” Meanwhile , at rallies , Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
perry : I think reaching older voters is hard because my sense is they are wary of free college and debt forgiveness ( “ I paid for college myself , why can ’ t this generation , etc.
” ) The socialist label is hard too , as is the perception that Biden is electable and next in line .
nrakich : Yeah , I feel like the canary in the coal mine will be if Sanders ever begins to deemphasize the “ socialism ” label .
I feel like he probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a big obstacle for him winning over both older Democrats in the primary and swing voters in the general .
perry : He should downplay or recast the socialism hat immediately .
Give a big speech about how he is a liberal Democrat and that “ socialism ” is not a big part of his political identity .
ameliatd : I ’ ve also felt just kind of a sense of exhaustion from the voters I ’ ve talked to .
The idea that Biden was finally getting it together seemed like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I spoke with over the weekend and on Monday .
That ’ s a difficult sentiment to quantify , of course , but I wonder how many Democrats really have an appetite for a knock-down , drag-out fight between Biden and Sanders at this point .
The group in the party that wants a fight might just be the 30 percent of voters already with Sanders .
sarahf : Right , and as you said earlier , Perry , if his whole campaign ’ s message is about shaking things up , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of these voters if they ’ re resistant to big change .
Buttigieg had tried to attack him on this front in some of the debates , and I think maybe that ’ s the biggest problem with a Sanders pivot .
He can ’ t really back down from that message of systemic change .
ameliatd : Also , I wonder if Biden has benefited from Bloomberg being in the race , if only by making him seem a little more liberal and palatable .
perry : I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chat .
What does his comeback look like ?
The race has flipped a bunch of times .
Surely it can flip again .
Maybe Biden is in for another scrutiny cycle now .
Maybe Sanders gets some momentum from some of the good states he has coming up .
Maybe Warren drops out and endorses him .
Or maybe she stays in and her delegates are what Sanders needs to get a majority at a contested convention !
ameliatd : Part of his comeback has to hinge on doing really well in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve been critical of Sanders ’ s outreach campaign in this chat , but he was smart about how he approached that state .
And we won ’ t know the full results there for a while .
nrakich : That ’ s a great point , Amelia .
If California is strong enough for him , it ’ s still possible that Sanders will be the delegate leader after Super Tuesday !
ameliatd : And I don ’ t know , maybe his supporters were taking him for granted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the next round of states .
I do agree with you , Perry , that this race has turned around so many times that it feels dangerous to assume everything is settling into place for Biden .
sarahf : Right , we are entering a new phase of the race .
The field isn ’ t as crowded , and to some extent it ’ s a two-person race now , which will change both Biden ’ s and Sanders ’ s strategy .
The race can definitely flip again , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some way moving forward .
The Obama ad is evidence of this even if its timing felt off .
Biden “ won ” Super Tuesday , but we ’ ve still got a ways to go .
And Sanders is still very much in this race .

Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Sen. Bernie Sanders objectively did not have a good Super Tuesday. He won just three states outright (Colorado, Utah and Vermont) and across the board, he underperformed expectations.
He does seem on track to win delegate-rich California — but because so many voters mail in their ballots, it’ll be weeks before we know the final vote there.
But at this point, it does seem as if Sanders hasn’t succeeded in turning out the voters he needs to win, and now some are arguing that to find a path to the nomination, he has to stop running as an insurgent. So is it time for Sanders to adopt a new strategy?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I’m not sure I accept the premise of that argument? Obviously, being an insurgent is a core part of Sanders’s identity. And a lot of the party is attracted to that. (He is still averaging almost 30 percent in national polls!) But, of course, that doesn’t preclude him from doing some things to reach out to new voters.
For example, a majority of voters in Super Tuesday exit polls said they supported Sanders’s key policies of Medicare for All and free college — but, paradoxically, a plurality of voters in many states said they wanted to return to former President Barack Obama’s policies. And perhaps as a nod to that, Sanders released an ad today featuring Obama saying nice things about him.
Confidence Interval: The Bloomberg campaign isn’t actually ending
ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): So, with the big caveat that we do need to wait and see how Sanders performed in California, which is where he put a lot of resources, it does seem like his choice to bank on voters who don’t normally turn out in high numbers (especially young people) backfired.
In some states, the share of young voters who turned out was actually lower than it was in 2016. That is not a good sign for Sanders.
But I don’t know if his “insurgency” is to blame.
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): To me, that Obama commercial feels like a bit of an admission of failure. Wouldn’t the time to run a commercial saying “Obama loves me” be in the run-up to a bunch of primaries in the heavily black Deep South, not afterward?
nrakich: I don’t know if I buy the argument that Sanders screwed up by not being more aggressively conciliatory before Super Tuesday.
The events of Sunday and Monday — the party clearly deciding on former Vice President Joe Biden, and multiple establishment politicians giving up their personal ambitions to do so — were extraordinary.
And would have been very difficult to predict.
A week ago, I ran a table titled “Sanders is forecasted to rack up wins on Super Tuesday“!
I think that until basically Monday, when it was too late, Sanders was totally justified in thinking that divided opposition would allow him to win Super Tuesday if he just stuck to his usual schtick.
perry: I agree with that.
ameliatd: But there was probably some hubris on Sanders’s part in assuming that he could rely mainly on low-turnout voters’ excitement about him.
sarahf: Wait, aren’t you inherently arguing, Nathaniel, that Sanders still needed to pivot at some point?
nrakich: Yeah, maybe, Sarah, but really I’m just saying Sanders has so far made perfectly rational strategic decisions with the information he had.
And now that he has the new information of his loss on Super Tuesday, the timing of this Obama ad makes sense.
ameliatd: I’ll disagree with that a little, Nathaniel — I think Sanders could have done more to reach out to people who are not in his core base once he started doing well in the early states. And maybe being conciliatory could have helped. Or at least he could have, like, not doubled down on his comments praising Fidel Castro last week.
sarahf: I guess the counterargument, though, is: Did a tweet like this ever make sense for Sanders?
I've got news for the Republican establishment. I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 22, 2020
It’s weird and it’s complicated and, as you said earlier, Nathaniel, part of Sanders’s appeal is that he is a political outsider and isn’t afraid to call the establishment out. But he’s also not running as an underdog this year, and he’s trying to win the Democratic nomination, so at some point, you have to win … some Democrats. Right?
perry: My view is that Sanders’s losses in Minnesota and the Northeast were related to the consolidation of the establishment. He had no control over that. It was surprising, as Nathaniel said.
The total blowouts in the South were not shocking — but I do think running an ad about how Obama loves him would have been most useful before a lot of the South voted. So we will agree to disagree on that!
But Sarah, I think that tweet was fine and is being overblown.
Sanders’s appeal in the general election is partly based on running as an outsider to both parties.
nrakich: Yeah, tweets are overrated. Only about a fifth of Americans are even on Twitter!
perry: Voters don’t think they are in the establishment either.
nrakich: And I guess I would point out that Sanders has tried to make inroads with voters he wasn’t strong with in 2016. We’ve written about this: Sanders invested a lot in Latino outreach in Nevada and California, and he has improved his numbers with black voters to an impressive degree.
ameliatd: OK, so a lot of things moved very quickly and somewhat unpredictably in the past few days, and none of those things were helpful to Sanders. What should he do now? Again with the caveat that we don’t know what happened in California, it does seem like Sanders has to start appealing to some non-young Democrats.
sarahf: Right, next Tuesday six more states vote: Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Washington, Missouri and Mississippi.
So does Sanders pivot now? Will he do a bit better with at least some of those states no matter what? (Three of them are at least sorta kinda in the West, which is where Sanders is supposed to be strongest.)
nrakich: That’s actually a pretty good group of states for Sanders. Sanders is strong in Western states (I think North Dakota kinda counts as culturally Western). And he scored a shocking win in Michigan last cycle, which many Democrats there probably remember.
However, Missouri and Mississippi, as Southern (or Southern-ish) states with significant black populations, definitely do feel like Biden states. Also, next week we’ll get the results of the Democrats Abroad primary, which should be good for Sanders.
ameliatd: I would assume that Bloomberg getting out of the race will be helpful to Biden in Michigan, though.
nrakich: Yeah, that’s going to be the barnburner of the evening. It’s the closest of next week’s races per our forecast (as of Tuesday morning), and it’s also worth the most delegates of any state voting next Tuesday.
perry: Sanders has a bunch of blocs where he is weak: 1. older black voters; 2. college-educated white women; 3. basically anyone over age 45.
And I don’t see how easy it is for him to pivot to win these groups, because his whole campaign is about shaking things up, and these might be groups that are resistant to big change.
ameliatd: There was one very consistent aspect of Sanders’s voters last night (and in the first four states) — he gets more support from men than women. That is going to be hard for him to change.
sarahf: So this is from The Washington Post’s analysis of Super Tuesday exit polls, and as Perry says — aside from really young voters, really liberal voters and Hispanic voters — Sanders really does have a bunch of blocs where he is weak.
So he has to at least start trying to win some of these voters from Biden, right? Or is there an argument to be made that Sanders should double down on his current strategy?
One thing we talked about on the live blog is that if it’s a two-person race by March 15, that could be bad for Biden and good for Sanders, just considering their skills as debaters.
perry: Is Sanders good at debates? (Conceding that Biden is fairly bad at them.)
sarahf: Sanders is more reliable, I’d say.
ameliatd: The problem is that without high turnout among his core groups, how can Sanders stay the course and win? I keep coming back to the fact that young voters have not been turning out in high numbers. That was a big part of his strategic bet, and it just doesn’t seem to be paying off.
nrakich: Not to, like, invalidate this entire chat, but I’m not sure this debate is even relevant. I think Sanders will double down on his current strategy, because it’s just who he is. He is a progressive insurgent bomb-thrower, and he has been remarkably consistent about it throughout his career.
perry: I agree with that Nathaniel.
In fact, Sanders does too. He tweeted this on Wednesday:
This campaign is different. We have received 8.7 million contributions from over 1.9 million donors. We don't hold high-dollar fundraisers. We don't have a super PAC spending millions of dollars on TV ads. We don't have a single billionaire donor. We have the people. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 4, 2020
ameliatd: One possibility, I guess, is that Biden’s sudden surge could galvanize Sanders supporters and convince them to turn out in higher numbers.
perry: But Nathaniel, are you suggesting that Sanders can’t pivot or won’t pivot?
He did get better on racial issues and outreach to black voters and Latino voters from 2016 to 2020. So he can do better outreach to women and older people? Yes, right?
nrakich: Yeah, that’s a good point, Perry.
Maybe the distinction is that his rhetoric won’t change, but maybe the strategy of his campaign operation will?
ameliatd: But again, I keep coming back to the groups where Sanders is weak. It’s not obvious to me that Warren supporters who see the writing on the wall for their candidate will throw their support to Sanders. And that’s a problem for him.
perry: Amelia, I agree — right now, I don’t think Warren supporters are going in bulk to Sanders if she drops out.
His first move should be trying to get her to endorse him enthusiastically, and I have no idea how that will happen.
ameliatd: What would it mean for the strategy of his campaign operation to change without his rhetoric changing, Nathaniel? I don’t want to sound too down on Sanders, but part of his brand is his rhetorical consistency. How does he change his campaign’s outreach without changing how he talks about his candidacy?
Getting a Warren endorsement would be a big deal, Perry, I agree. Maybe Sanders’s mistake was not being more conciliatory to Warren.
perry: Well, the Obama ad was a shift. Sanders thinks Obama was too centrist as president, but he did run the ad. So I think Sanders can adapt.
nrakich: Right, I think that’s a great example. Lots of people might see that ad and think, “Sanders is trying to reach out to me.” Meanwhile, at rallies, Sanders can keep delivering his usual applause lines.
perry: I think reaching older voters is hard because my sense is they are wary of free college and debt forgiveness (“I paid for college myself, why can’t this generation, etc.”)
The socialist label is hard too, as is the perception that Biden is electable and next in line.
nrakich: Yeah, I feel like the canary in the coal mine will be if Sanders ever begins to deemphasize the “socialism” label.
I feel like he probably won’t. But IMO that is a big obstacle for him winning over both older Democrats in the primary and swing voters in the general.
perry: He should downplay or recast the socialism hat immediately. Give a big speech about how he is a liberal Democrat and that “socialism” is not a big part of his political identity.
ameliatd: I’ve also felt just kind of a sense of exhaustion from the voters I’ve talked to. The idea that Biden was finally getting it together seemed like a relief to a lot of people I spoke with over the weekend and on Monday.
That’s a difficult sentiment to quantify, of course, but I wonder how many Democrats really have an appetite for a knock-down, drag-out fight between Biden and Sanders at this point.
perry: I think that’s right, Amelia.
The group in the party that wants a fight might just be the 30 percent of voters already with Sanders.
sarahf: Right, and as you said earlier, Perry, if his whole campaign’s message is about shaking things up, that might not be an attractive message for a lot of these voters if they’re resistant to big change. Buttigieg had tried to attack him on this front in some of the debates, and I think maybe that’s the biggest problem with a Sanders pivot. He can’t really back down from that message of systemic change.
ameliatd: Also, I wonder if Biden has benefited from Bloomberg being in the race, if only by making him seem a little more liberal and palatable.
perry: I’ve been fairly down on Sanders in this chat. What does his comeback look like? The race has flipped a bunch of times. Surely it can flip again.
nrakich: Exactly.
Maybe Biden is in for another scrutiny cycle now.
Maybe Sanders gets some momentum from some of the good states he has coming up.
Maybe Warren drops out and endorses him.
Or maybe she stays in and her delegates are what Sanders needs to get a majority at a contested convention!
Sanders-Warren unity ticket, anyone? 😉
ameliatd: Part of his comeback has to hinge on doing really well in California, which could still happen. I’ve been critical of Sanders’s outreach campaign in this chat, but he was smart about how he approached that state. And we won’t know the full results there for a while.
nrakich: That’s a great point, Amelia. If California is strong enough for him, it’s still possible that Sanders will be the delegate leader after Super Tuesday!
ameliatd: And I don’t know, maybe his supporters were taking him for granted on Super Tuesday and they get really motivated in the next round of states.
I do agree with you, Perry, that this race has turned around so many times that it feels dangerous to assume everything is settling into place for Biden.
sarahf: Right, we are entering a new phase of the race. The field isn’t as crowded, and to some extent it’s a two-person race now, which will change both Biden’s and Sanders’s strategy. The race can definitely flip again, and I do think Sanders will pivot in some way moving forward. The Obama ad is evidence of this even if its timing felt off.
Biden “won” Super Tuesday, but we’ve still got a ways to go. And Sanders is still very much in this race.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-05--Confidence Interval: The Bloomberg Campaign Isn’t Actually Ending

Welcome back to our new video series , Confidence Interval , where we persuasively argue for a political take and @ @ @ @ @ we really are .
In this episode , elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley explains why former @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign may not actually be ending .

Welcome back to our new video series, Confidence Interval, where we persuasively argue for a political take and then reveal just how confident we really are.
In this episode, elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley explains why former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s campaign may not actually be ending.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-05--Super Tuesday Democrats Picked A Lane: Pragmatism

Voting in a liberal democracy is supposed to be about choice .
You have the right to choose the person you believe is best suited to represent you .
But campaigns are in the business of coopting that individual choice , making it about something greater than what a person believes in their heart of hearts .
They ask the individual to think of the collective , namely who can best grab power ( for what purposes is too knotty to dive into here ) .
Good politicians play on emotions like fear and anger and sometimes joy and love @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human beings are free to make choices , we are also prisoners of our environments , our pathologies and vexations .
The 2020 primary has been prisoner to pathologies Democrats have developed during the Trump presidency .
Though the party has spent the years since the president ’ s election grappling with internal ideological differences — to the point where any real meaning has been wrung from the words “ progressive ” and “ establishment ” — the canvas that covers Democrats ’ big tent bears one motto : “ BEAT TRUMP.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year — after their first serious candidates declared , Democrats find themselves peering out into the post-Super Tuesday abyss wondering how they ended up where they ’ ve ended up .
After spending all of 2019 of cycling through flavor-of-the-month candidates , Democrats now have a front-runner in former Vice President Joe Biden who sounds very much like the previous two Democratic nominees but looks very different , with his — not her — thinning white hair and his creased , white — not brown — skin .
Because as much as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump , it is also about how people in America confront change .
It has been a monthslong argument between millions of voters about whether enough passionate ideological tempers can light the flame of persuasion , or whether a more conciliatory method is preferable .
The Democratic Party has liberalized over the past few decades , the party has whipsawed to the left since 2016 — think the rise of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democrats ’ increasing comfort with socialism .
That was initiated largely by young progressive movements centered around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by white , college-educated Democrats who have been rapidly liberalizing .
In the the past few days , though , the party has been pulled back onto a more centrist course by a core of moderate black voters , whose experience with race in America perhaps informed their notions about what is the realistic pace of change in this country .
On Super Tuesday , white , college-educated voters fell in line behind black voters ’ preferences , at least the one telegraphed by Biden ’ s nearly 30 percentage-point win in South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ability to win seeming to melt away — winning , of course , being the great American virtue of our time — the former vice president gained the confidence of even white college-educated voters .
Exit polls show Biden did 31 points better with voters in this demographic who decided who to vote for late in the game than those who made their selection earlier .
The “ electability ” argument won out on the biggest day of primary voting .
Just look to Biden ’ s surprise wins in Massachusetts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respectively , Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar , and ones filled with white voters .
The 2020 primary had been , up until that moment , about finding the point where ideology and pragmatism best meet — former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg tested where exactly that point was situated .
On Tuesday , it seemed that the wind was at the backs of the pragmatists .
While the party ’ s base might entertain liberal policies — a February survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 74 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday embrace of “ electability ” also meant embracing some fundamentally illiberal beliefs : namely , that a woman can ’ t be elected president in 2020 .
Warren , the one serious woman contender left standing , seemed understandably bitter beneath her perma-cheer veneer on Tuesday evening .
“ My name is Elizabeth Warren and I ’ m the woman who ’ s going to beat Donald Trump , ” she said , before admonishing the voters who have yet to cast a ballot : “ What I see happening is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting into some kind of complicated strategy .
Pundits , friends , neighbors are all saying you have to second-guess yourself on this .
They ’ re playing games on prediction and strategy .
… Here ’ s my advice : Cast a vote that will make you proud .
Cast a vote from your heart and vote for the person you think will make the best president of the United States of America.
” The notion almost seemed quaint .
A choice free from strategic positioning — the sacred , secret ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We used to call that “ voting your conscience.
” But there ’ s not much talk about that these days .
Not in 2020 .
Warren dropped out two days later .

Voting in a liberal democracy is supposed to be about choice. You have the right to choose the person you believe is best suited to represent you. But campaigns are in the business of coopting that individual choice, making it about something greater than what a person believes in their heart of hearts. They ask the individual to think of the collective, namely who can best grab power (for what purposes is too knotty to dive into here). Good politicians play on emotions like fear and anger and sometimes joy and love. They know that as much as human beings are free to make choices, we are also prisoners of our environments, our pathologies and vexations.
The 2020 primary has been prisoner to pathologies Democrats have developed during the Trump presidency. Though the party has spent the years since the president’s election grappling with internal ideological differences — to the point where any real meaning has been wrung from the words “progressive” and “establishment” — the canvas that covers Democrats’ big tent bears one motto: “BEAT TRUMP.”
More than a year — a long year — after their first serious candidates declared, Democrats find themselves peering out into the post-Super Tuesday abyss wondering how they ended up where they’ve ended up. After spending all of 2019 of cycling through flavor-of-the-month candidates, Democrats now have a front-runner in former Vice President Joe Biden who sounds very much like the previous two Democratic nominees but looks very different, with his — not her — thinning white hair and his creased, white — not brown — skin.
Because as much as the story of the Democrats and 2020 is about Trump, it is also about how people in America confront change. It has been a monthslong argument between millions of voters about whether enough passionate ideological tempers can light the flame of persuasion, or whether a more conciliatory method is preferable.
The Democratic Party has liberalized over the past few decades, the party has whipsawed to the left since 2016 — think the rise of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democrats’ increasing comfort with socialism. That was initiated largely by young progressive movements centered around the struggles of communities of color and fed by white, college-educated Democrats who have been rapidly liberalizing. In the the past few days, though, the party has been pulled back onto a more centrist course by a core of moderate black voters, whose experience with race in America perhaps informed their notions about what is the realistic pace of change in this country.
On Super Tuesday, white, college-educated voters fell in line behind black voters’ preferences, at least the one telegraphed by Biden’s nearly 30 percentage-point win in South Carolina. With doubts about Biden’s ability to win seeming to melt away — winning, of course, being the great American virtue of our time — the former vice president gained the confidence of even white college-educated voters. Exit polls show Biden did 31 points better with voters in this demographic who decided who to vote for late in the game than those who made their selection earlier.
The “electability” argument won out on the biggest day of primary voting. Just look to Biden’s surprise wins in Massachusetts and Minnesota, the home states of, respectively, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, and ones filled with white voters. The 2020 primary had been, up until that moment, about finding the point where ideology and pragmatism best meet — former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg tested where exactly that point was situated. On Tuesday, it seemed that the wind was at the backs of the pragmatists. While the party’s base might entertain liberal policies — a February survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 74 percent of Democrats favor Medicare for All — its Super Tuesday embrace of “electability” also meant embracing some fundamentally illiberal beliefs: namely, that a woman can’t be elected president in 2020.
Warren, the one serious woman contender left standing, seemed understandably bitter beneath her perma-cheer veneer on Tuesday evening. “My name is Elizabeth Warren and I’m the woman who’s going to beat Donald Trump,” she said, before admonishing the voters who have yet to cast a ballot: “What I see happening is a lot of folks trying to turn voting into some kind of complicated strategy. Pundits, friends, neighbors are all saying you have to second-guess yourself on this. They’re playing games on prediction and strategy. … Here’s my advice: Cast a vote that will make you proud. Cast a vote from your heart and vote for the person you think will make the best president of the United States of America.”
The notion almost seemed quaint. A choice free from strategic positioning — the sacred, secret ballot as an expression of real belief. We used to call that “voting your conscience.” But there’s not much talk about that these days. Not in 2020.
Warren dropped out two days later.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Warren drops out


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-05--Emergency Politics Podcast: Warren Drops Out Of The Democratic Primary

In an emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to the news that Sen. Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ president .
They discuss why she wasn ’ t able to form a winning coalition @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the race .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the @ @ @ @ @ the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or @ @ @ @ @ If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

In an emergency installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to the news that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is suspending her campaign for president. They discuss why she wasn’t able to form a winning coalition and how her exit affects the rest of the race.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Warren drops out
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--2020-03-05--Why Warren Couldn’t Win

Why Warren Couldn’t Win

Sen. Elizabeth Warren gained support in national polls for much of 2019 .
By October , she had nearly caught the front-runner , former Vice President Joe Biden .
She topped him in polls of Iowa and New Hampshire .
Warren seemed positioned to seriously contend for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination .
Once voting started , however , the delegates never really materialized .
Warren , who will reportedly announce that she is suspending her campaign on Thursday , never finished higher than third in any primary or caucus , including in Massachusetts , the state she has represented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what went wrong for Warren , who was perhaps the most credible threat to prevent a two-person race between Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders ?
I think there are four main explanations for her lack of support , and they are all connected .
The party was wary of a “ too liberal ” nominee Warren took positions similar to those Sanders has embraced , such as supporting a wealth tax and , most notably , calling for Medicare for All .
Some more centrist Democrats simply oppose those policies .
Others worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winding down of private insurance , would be too disruptive and the idea would scare away too many voters .
So Warren ’ s ascent to the top of the polls was met with resistance from a big chunk of the Democratic Party establishment .
News articles began to proliferate quoting party donors and leaders fretting about the Democratic 2020 field .
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Massachusetts Gov .
Deval Patrick launched late bids for the nomination that almost amounted to “ Stop Warren ” candidacies .
The anti-Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more aggressive anti-Sanders campaign orchestrated by party establishment figures between the Vermont senator ’ s victory in the Nevada caucuses and Super Tuesday .
So whatever her campaign tactics , Warren likely would have struggled to win the nomination for the same reason that Sanders is now an underdog to Biden : Her leftism didn ’ t appeal to party elites , who signaled to voters that Warren lacked “ electability , ” the credential many Democratic voters are obsessed with this election cycle .
Of course , Warren could have taken different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same ones in different ways , except … She tried to win very liberal voters from Sanders Sanders urged Warren to run for president as the liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election cycle .
Warren declined , the Vermont senator jumped in himself , and Sanders became the informal leader of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party after his surprisingly successful 2016 presidential run .
With both of them running in 2020 , Sanders and Warren spent much of last year basically battling over who could release the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free , increasing taxes on the rich , and so on .
A big part of that battle revolved around health care .
Warren , before the 2020 campaign , had not made health policy a major part of her brand or focused a lot on Medicare for All .
But with Sanders leaning into that stance , she opted to adopt a similar position .
And in the fall of 2019 , she doubled down , releasing a detailed proposal to fund Medicare for All .
When Sanders had a heart attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including me , anticipated that he would gradually drop in the polls , and Warren ’ s advisers might have assumed so as well .
In that context , Sanders ’ s voters would be up for grabs , and supporting Medicare for All would help Warren inherit those supporters .
Or the Warren campaign may have simply hoped to win over the Sanders bloc , heart attack or no ; remember , she had been climbing in the polls for months at that point .
Instead , Sanders recovered , both healthwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started , Warren performed best among Democrats who described their views as “ very liberal , ” but she still trailed Sanders among those voters .
And she had terrible numbers among self-described moderates .
She had failed to outflank Sanders on the left , but she failed to win over those voters while also convincing a lot of centrist Democrats that she was too liberal and perhaps a risky bet in the general election .
Of course , the assumption that she ’ d be a general-election risk was likely related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men are more electable Several of the women who ran for president — Sens .
Kirsten Gillibrand , Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar , in particular — have said that they faced constant gender-based questions from Democratic voters about their electability .
Democrats nominated a woman to take on Trump once , lost , and may have been unwilling to do it again .
I don ’ t want to downplay the strengths of Biden or Sanders or ignore the weaknesses of the women and people of color who ran in 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two white male candidates probably reflected this view of electability .
Biden and Sanders were consistently rated as the most likely to defeat Trump in a general election .
This electability challenge was arguably the biggest problem for Warren .
While rank-and-file voters talked about her gender , more elite Democrats and the media cast her as a bad candidate to face Trump for other reasons ( how much these reasons were also simply cover for concerns about nominating a woman , I can ’ t say ) .
First , she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden and Sanders ) in hypothetical general-election polls .
Second , considering the liberal tilt of Massachusetts , she notched somewhat underwhelming margins of victory in her 2012 and 2018 Senate runs .
Third , she took decidedly liberal positions on policy questions .
And finally , Warren ’ s background , as a Harvard Law professor and Massachusetts senator , made some party officials worried that she would not connect with Democratic voters in the Midwest .
I ’ m not sure how valid these concerns actually are , but party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Warren winning .
She was the “ wine track ” candidate There is a long tradition of lefty candidates running in the Democratic primary and getting a lot of traction , buzz and campaign donations from party activists but not really catching on with rank-and-file voters .
Think Sen. Bill Bradley in the 2000 presidential cycle or Gov .
Howard Dean in 2004 .
This kind of candidate is sometimes referred to the “ wine track ” candidate , who appeals mainly to elites , as opposed to candidates who are on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are thought of as being better at connecting with the working class .
Warren was perhaps the 2020 wine track candidate .
In her campaigning and policy plans , Warren tried hard to counter this weakness by courting working class and nonwhite voters .
She was well-liked by black academics , figures associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and a hard-to-qualify bloc of black figures who are vocal on Twitter and influential in non-electoral ways .
But she just never caught on with a broad swath of voters — polls suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college graduates .
The New York Times described Warren as the candidate who often had the support of the “ grass tops ” rather than the grassroots — meaning that the leaders of activist groups often really liked Warren , but it ’ s not clear that the lower ranks did .
For example , Warren won the personal endorsement of the president of the American Federation of Teachers , but the union itself wouldn ’ t endorse her because many of its members were with Biden or Sanders .
So Warren lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really come particularly close to winning .
That said , her campaign mattered in a way that a lot of other failed 2020 candidacies didn ’ t .
Her strategy of rolling out a ton of left-leaning policy plans arguably forced Sanders to match her , and she pushed the other candidates leftward even if they didn ’ t wind up quite where Warren was .
Her plans also created public conversations about ideas that had not previously been in the mainstream , such as the idea that Facebook should be broken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates for president and other offices will tout ideas similar to the wealth tax that she proposed .
In other words , no matter whether the nomination goes to Sanders or Biden , many of Warren ’ s ideas may end up “ winning , ” even if she couldn ’ t .

FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Warren drops out
Sen. Elizabeth Warren gained support in national polls for much of 2019. By October, she had nearly caught the front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden. She topped him in polls of Iowa and New Hampshire. Warren seemed positioned to seriously contend for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
Once voting started, however, the delegates never really materialized. Warren, who will reportedly announce that she is suspending her campaign on Thursday, never finished higher than third in any primary or caucus, including in Massachusetts, the state she has represented in the Senate since 2013.
So what went wrong for Warren, who was perhaps the most credible threat to prevent a two-person race between Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders? I think there are four main explanations for her lack of support, and they are all connected.
The party was wary of a “too liberal” nominee
Warren took positions similar to those Sanders has embraced, such as supporting a wealth tax and, most notably, calling for Medicare for All. Some more centrist Democrats simply oppose those policies. Others worried that Medicare for All, and the winding down of private insurance, would be too disruptive and the idea would scare away too many voters.
So Warren’s ascent to the top of the polls was met with resistance from a big chunk of the Democratic Party establishment. News articles began to proliferate quoting party donors and leaders fretting about the Democratic 2020 field. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick launched late bids for the nomination that almost amounted to “Stop Warren” candidacies. The anti-Warren movement was essentially a preview of the more aggressive anti-Sanders campaign orchestrated by party establishment figures between the Vermont senator’s victory in the Nevada caucuses and Super Tuesday.
So whatever her campaign tactics, Warren likely would have struggled to win the nomination for the same reason that Sanders is now an underdog to Biden: Her leftism didn’t appeal to party elites, who signaled to voters that Warren lacked “electability,” the credential many Democratic voters are obsessed with this election cycle.
Of course, Warren could have taken different policy positions, or tried spinning the same ones in different ways, except …
She tried to win very liberal voters from Sanders
Sanders urged Warren to run for president as the liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election cycle. Warren declined, the Vermont senator jumped in himself, and Sanders became the informal leader of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party after his surprisingly successful 2016 presidential run. With both of them running in 2020, Sanders and Warren spent much of last year basically battling over who could release the most liberal plans, such as making college free, increasing taxes on the rich, and so on.
A big part of that battle revolved around health care. Warren, before the 2020 campaign, had not made health policy a major part of her brand or focused a lot on Medicare for All. But with Sanders leaning into that stance, she opted to adopt a similar position. And in the fall of 2019, she doubled down, releasing a detailed proposal to fund Medicare for All. When Sanders had a heart attack in early October, many people, including me, anticipated that he would gradually drop in the polls, and Warren’s advisers might have assumed so as well. In that context, Sanders’s voters would be up for grabs, and supporting Medicare for All would help Warren inherit those supporters. Or the Warren campaign may have simply hoped to win over the Sanders bloc, heart attack or no; remember, she had been climbing in the polls for months at that point.
Instead, Sanders recovered, both healthwise and in the polls. Once voting started, Warren performed best among Democrats who described their views as “very liberal,” but she still trailed Sanders among those voters. And she had terrible numbers among self-described moderates. She had failed to outflank Sanders on the left, but she failed to win over those voters while also convincing a lot of centrist Democrats that she was too liberal and perhaps a risky bet in the general election.
Of course, the assumption that she’d be a general-election risk was likely related to another factor …
Democrats seem to think men are more electable
Several of the women who ran for president — Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, in particular — have said that they faced constant gender-based questions from Democratic voters about their electability. Democrats nominated a woman to take on Trump once, lost, and may have been unwilling to do it again. I don’t want to downplay the strengths of Biden or Sanders or ignore the weaknesses of the women and people of color who ran in 2020, but the primary process coming down to two white male candidates probably reflected this view of electability. Biden and Sanders were consistently rated as the most likely to defeat Trump in a general election.
This electability challenge was arguably the biggest problem for Warren. While rank-and-file voters talked about her gender, more elite Democrats and the media cast her as a bad candidate to face Trump for other reasons (how much these reasons were also simply cover for concerns about nominating a woman, I can’t say). First, she had fairly weak numbers against Trump (compared to Biden and Sanders) in hypothetical general-election polls. Second, considering the liberal tilt of Massachusetts, she notched somewhat underwhelming margins of victory in her 2012 and 2018 Senate runs. Third, she took decidedly liberal positions on policy questions. And finally, Warren’s background, as a Harvard Law professor and Massachusetts senator, made some party officials worried that she would not connect with Democratic voters in the Midwest. I’m not sure how valid these concerns actually are, but party elites and the press considered them barriers to Warren winning.
She was the “wine track” candidate
There is a long tradition of lefty candidates running in the Democratic primary and getting a lot of traction, buzz and campaign donations from party activists but not really catching on with rank-and-file voters. Think Sen. Bill Bradley in the 2000 presidential cycle or Gov. Howard Dean in 2004. This kind of candidate is sometimes referred to the “wine track” candidate, who appeals mainly to elites, as opposed to candidates who are on more “beer track,” who are thought of as being better at connecting with the working class.
Warren was perhaps the 2020 wine track candidate. In her campaigning and policy plans, Warren tried hard to counter this weakness by courting working class and nonwhite voters. She was well-liked by black academics, figures associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and a hard-to-qualify bloc of black figures who are vocal on Twitter and influential in non-electoral ways.
But she just never caught on with a broad swath of voters — polls suggest that she had little support outside of white college graduates. The New York Times described Warren as the candidate who often had the support of the “grass tops” rather than the grassroots — meaning that the leaders of activist groups often really liked Warren, but it’s not clear that the lower ranks did. For example, Warren won the personal endorsement of the president of the American Federation of Teachers, but the union itself wouldn’t endorse her because many of its members were with Biden or Sanders.
So Warren lost. In fact, she didn’t really come particularly close to winning. That said, her campaign mattered in a way that a lot of other failed 2020 candidacies didn’t.
Her strategy of rolling out a ton of left-leaning policy plans arguably forced Sanders to match her, and she pushed the other candidates leftward even if they didn’t wind up quite where Warren was. Her plans also created public conversations about ideas that had not previously been in the mainstream, such as the idea that Facebook should be broken up. And I expect future Democratic candidates for president and other offices will tout ideas similar to the wealth tax that she proposed.
In other words, no matter whether the nomination goes to Sanders or Biden, many of Warren’s ideas may end up “winning,” even if she couldn’t.