fivethirtyeight--2020-01-14--Will The Last Debate Before Iowa Shake Up The 2020 Race?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : This is the first debate of 2020 and the last debate before the voting starts in Iowa in less than three weeks .
There are six candidates ( the smallest debate stage yet ) , and we ’ ve finally published our primary forecast ( !
!
! )
, which shows the field ( especially in Iowa ) is pretty wide open .
So how are you thinking about tonight ’ s debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential to really shake things up ?
clare.malone ( Clare Malone , senior political writer ) : I think the big story on Monday — and potentially the big story of the debate — is what ’ s going on with the rivalry between Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders .
First , there is the Sanders campaign ’ s talking points that reportedly had volunteers paint Warren as “ the candidate of the elite.
” And then a story leaked on Monday that ’ s pretty damn unflattering to Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think a woman could win the presidency .
So … I would say there ’ s some jostling on the progressive end of the spectrum that could play out tonight !
ameliatd ( Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux , senior writer ) : Definitely .
One thing I ’ ll be watching for is whether some of the tacit alliances we ’ ve seen between the candidates start to break down .
That story really did not reflect well on Sanders .
On the other hand , it ’ s generally risky for women to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these , so it might be a little tricky for Warren to turn that to her advantage .
natesilver ( Nate Silver , editor in chief ) : Yeah , it seems like the theme of this debate is somewhat inevitably going to be SANDERS-WARREN BATTLE .
Unless they really do decide to turn the other cheek .
clare.malone : I mean , I do think the Warren people have been savvier about dropping opposition research like this .
clare.malone : Sanders ’ s defense is generally “ the mainstream media is stirring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partially , in the sense that the media is the one publishing this stuff , but there are , indeed , real tensions between those two campaigns !
natesilver : Like , 95 percent of these oppo drops are dumb as fuck , concerning things that ordinarily voters couldn ’ t possibly care about .
But this would be a big deal if it ’ s somehow confirmed or if Warren repeats the accusation herself .
sarahf : Yeah , it ’ s amazing how fast the news cycle moves , I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dominant thread of conversation tonight , but agree that between the Selzer & Co. Iowa poll that put Sanders in first in Iowa , and now the breakdown of Warren and Sanders ’ s truce to not attack each other , that will be a big part of tonight ’ s debate .
And going in , it doesn ’ t seem great for Sanders … ameliatd : Warren could really benefit from getting some more support from lefty Democrats who might be undecided or mostly seem to be sticking with Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a cheap shot from Warren , I think that could hurt her .
Or at least , not endear her further to those on the left .
clare.malone : Sanders ’ s support is pretty sticky , though , so it ’ s hard for me to see her winning over any of his supporters .
Honestly , at this point , I think she has to worry about losing her supporters to Sanders or Pete Buttigieg — or even Joe Biden .
natesilver : Part of the dynamic is that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front-runner .
But now the media is covering him like one , even though it ’ s not really clear how much has actually changed in his candidacy .
( If you look at the odds in our primary model — where we ran older forecasts retroactively before we launched — Sanders ’ s chances of winning the majority of pledged delegates have been pretty steady since November . )
sarahf : So let ’ s say tonight is the Sanders “ wine cave ” edition , where he ’ s at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the December debate .
That debate seemed to have actually dampened some enthusiasm for Buttigieg — for instance , he fell pretty substantially in that Selzer poll from where he was in November .
Do we see Sanders as the candidate tonight who has the most at stake ?
What about Biden ?
He is after all , the front-runner in our model even if he ’ s not the clear favorite to win ; i.e.
, he ’ s still an underdog relative to the rest of the field .
natesilver : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree that Sanders ’ s support is likely to be pretty sticky , as Clare puts it .
There ’ s evidence from polls that his supporters are the most firmly committed to any one candidate .
But on the other hand , he hasn ’ t really gotten the same front-runner-type scrutiny that Warren DID get at some points this fall .
So whether he holds up , once that level of scrutiny is applied , is very much up in the air .
ameliatd : And it ’ s not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s been actively trying to revitalize her campaign .
When I was in Iowa on a reporting trip a few weeks ago , she was kind of trying to hit the “ reset ” button by hammering her core message on corruption and the economy .
And of course , she ’ s now campaigning with Julián Castro .
clare.malone : I mean , we ’ ll just have to wait and see what the attacks are .
I ’ m not entirely sure Warren , for instance , would go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage .
That just doesn ’ t seem like her temperament .
I would expect more of an attack on Sanders from Warren to be like , “ his plans are implausible and therefore , bad for the general election.
” But then again , he could also push back ( as he ’ s been doing on the campaign trail ) , saying that HE is actually the most electable in a general .
And there ’ s some truth to it , especially in comparison to Warren .
Our polling with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally rate Sanders next after Biden in terms of his ability to defeat Trump .
Also , Sanders benefits from everyone kinda knowing what his thing is — socialism , baby !
— which takes some of the sting out of “ he ’ s too far out there !
!
” attacks .
The brand is strong , as the kids say .
sarahf : Right , but to Amelia ’ s point , tonight could be a big night for Warren .
She was only 3 points behind Sanders in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign for her considering her national numbers had dipped in late November and through December .
And you can already see the slightest of upticks already in our national polling average : geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : Yeah , that Selzer poll had Sanders in the lead in Iowa as we ’ ve discussed , but then that Monmouth poll out on Monday showed Biden in the lead with 24 percent in Iowa and Sanders in second at 18 percent , suggesting that Iowa is very wide open and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like the state itself !
sarahf : Right , Biden is either in first or fourth , depending on which poll you look at .
geoffrey.skelley : So far , the debates haven ’ t seemed to have affected the polls all that much , at least not since Sen. Kamala Harris ’ s surge after the June debate .
Although I haven ’ t run the numbers the same way for the November and December debates , one look at the polls suggests there wasn ’ t a dramatic shakeup after those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s debate could be different since there are fewer candidates and voting is right around the corner .
But then again , maybe not .
clare.malone : My spidey sense is that this debate will matter , especially to Iowans .
These people are tuned in to a deranged degree !
natesilver : And polls also find that a high proportion of Iowans haven ’ t yet made their final decision .
sarahf : So if many Iowans haven ’ t made their final decision … how many do you think are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Klobuchar didn ’ t do as well in that Selzer poll as I thought she might , given how respondents in our poll with Ipsos rated her December debate performance .
Granted , a lot of time has passed since Dec. 19 , but there also haven ’ t been that many polls .
And then Steyer had a kind of weird surge in South Carolina and Nevada ?
It ’ s too soon to really make sense of what ’ s happening there ( although he has spent a ton of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Klobuchar is actually in a pretty weird place .
She ’ s at 6.6 percent in our Iowa polling average , but usually candidates either rise up to at least ~15 percent in Iowa — which matters , given how the caucus process itself works — or fall back into the low single digits .
clare.malone : The Steyer stuff is interesting in the sense that yes , he ’ s doing well in polls , probably because of advertising in those two states that have fewer ads in general than , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But other candidates are going to start to get into that media-market scrum .
Let ’ s see how much those numbers stick for him .
What I will say , though , is that the ads themselves cannily talk about the economy , not impeachment or climate change , subjects with which Steyer is more closely associated .
ameliatd : Steyer has been kind of defensive , too , about the fact that he made the debate at all — the implication being that he ’ s only there because he spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That makes him a potential target , particularly for someone like Sanders or Warren .
But attacking him also runs the risk of making him look like a more serious threat , so it ’ s somewhat complicated .
clare.malone : I think he won ’ t really be a big factor , tbh .
natesilver : I just don ’ t think Steyer is very interesting .
ameliatd : Right , maybe the other candidates won ’ t think it ’ s worth their time to question why he ’ s even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s at 3 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire , I don ’ t really care where he is in Nevada and South Carolina .
clare.malone : I mean , I don ’ t think he ’ s half bad in debates !
I just think the scrum will go a little more the Sanders/Warren and the Buttigieg/Klobuchar .
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : We touched on this a bit earlier , but Biden is currently winning the race for the nomination .
And I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing blunter criticism of him .
Buttigieg and Sanders have both taken Biden to task for his vote for the Iraq War , and Sanders has also criticized Biden ’ s record on issues of racial justice .
I ’ m not sure his rivals will attack Biden on Tuesday , but that ’ s the thing I ’ m watching most closely : Does anyone decide this is the last real chance to take on the person mostly likely to win ?
I have been confused by how much Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems like Warren is attacking Sanders — but Biden is winning !
It feels like 2016 a bit — Christie attacking Rubio instead of Trump — what is the point ?
natesilver : If somehow Biden gets through the debate , and all the focus is on Sanders vs. Warren , Buttigieg , etc .
— that seems like a very fortunate outcome for the former vice president .
ameliatd : Yes , Biden clearly benefited from being able to float above the fray in the December debate .
And the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was a little weird .
natesilver : Biden does have a tendency to cause trouble for himself , of course .
It ’ s also probably worth noting that his relatively smooth debate in December has been followed up by quite a few endorsements , etc .
Party elites seem to have fewer concerns than they once did about his steadiness as a candidate .
perry : Harris was kind of limited in taking on Biden , in my view , since she will be high on the VP list .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to pick Buttigieg , Warren or Sanders for VP , so they have very little incentive to hold back .
Buttigieg , in particular , has been very good at attacking people — it would be interesting to see if one was the one to push the Iraq issue , because Biden seems , at times , unwilling to concede he voted for the war .
clare.malone : Yeah , I got ta say , that whole thing is really weird .
John Kerry , a Biden surrogate , was trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record , but it ’ s clear as day that Biden voted for the Iraq War .
If you want to complicate the narrative and say it was a mistake , and you were misled — fine .
But that whole talking point is weak sauce , in my opinion .
sarahf : OK , this is our last debate before the voting starts in Iowa , and as I said at the outset of the chat — it ’ s pretty much a four-way race with Biden , Sanders , Warren and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden is in the lead in our forecast , but as we ’ ve said in our chat , a lot of Iowans are still on the fence .
What will you be keeping a close eye on tonight to see if it moves the needle at all ?
perry : Biden seems poised to win the nomination — perhaps even Iowa .
I ’ ll be watching to see whether any of the other top three really take him on — and if they do , on what issues ?
ameliatd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Perry mentioned , if Biden ’ s Iraq war vote — and his strange unwillingness to admit to it — gets turned against him , or if he can turn the general foreign policy conversation/discussion of what ’ s happening with Iran in his favor .
Because in general , that ’ s an issue where he has a clear advantage over the other candidates .
clare.malone : I mean , it ’ s trite , but I ’ ll be curious to see what Warren and Sanders do on stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had .
And I ’ ll be curious to see if Sanders , in particular , challenges Biden on a general-election electability front .
natesilver : Repeating myself a bit , but it feels to me like Sanders is liable to play a central role in this debate with perceptions that he ’ s now a front-runner , and those sorts of debates tend to be pretty high stakes .
ameliatd : Basically , tonight comes down to who ’ s taking the gloves off , and who are they going after ?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): This is the first debate of 2020 and the last debate before the voting starts in Iowa in less than three weeks. There are six candidates (the smallest debate stage yet), and we’ve finally published our primary forecast (!!!), which shows the field (especially in Iowa) is pretty wide open.
So how are you thinking about tonight’s debate? Do you think it has the potential to really shake things up?
clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): I think the big story on Monday — and potentially the big story of the debate — is what’s going on with the rivalry between Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. First, there is the Sanders campaign’s talking points that reportedly had volunteers paint Warren as “the candidate of the elite.” And then a story leaked on Monday that’s pretty damn unflattering to Sanders, claiming he told Warren he didn’t think a woman could win the presidency. So … I would say there’s some jostling on the progressive end of the spectrum that could play out tonight!
ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Definitely. One thing I’ll be watching for is whether some of the tacit alliances we’ve seen between the candidates start to break down. That story really did not reflect well on Sanders. On the other hand, it’s generally risky for women to go on the offensive in debates like these, so it might be a little tricky for Warren to turn that to her advantage.
Biden, Sanders neck and neck In Iowa
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Yeah, it seems like the theme of this debate is somewhat inevitably going to be SANDERS-WARREN BATTLE. Unless they really do decide to turn the other cheek.
clare.malone: I mean, I do think the Warren people have been savvier about dropping opposition research like this.
natesilver: That’s a pretty serious oppo drop.
clare.malone: Sanders’s defense is generally “the mainstream media is stirring up conflict.”
Which is true, partially, in the sense that the media is the one publishing this stuff, but there are, indeed, real tensions between those two campaigns!
natesilver: Like, 95 percent of these oppo drops are dumb as fuck, concerning things that ordinarily voters couldn’t possibly care about. But this would be a big deal if it’s somehow confirmed or if Warren repeats the accusation herself.
sarahf: Yeah, it’s amazing how fast the news cycle moves, I had thought the situation with Iran would be the dominant thread of conversation tonight, but agree that between the Selzer & Co. Iowa poll that put Sanders in first in Iowa, and now the breakdown of Warren and Sanders’s truce to not attack each other, that will be a big part of tonight’s debate. And going in, it doesn’t seem great for Sanders …
ameliatd: Warren could really benefit from getting some more support from lefty Democrats who might be undecided or mostly seem to be sticking with Sanders. But if this accusation comes off as a cheap shot from Warren, I think that could hurt her. Or at least, not endear her further to those on the left.
clare.malone: Sanders’s support is pretty sticky, though, so it’s hard for me to see her winning over any of his supporters. Honestly, at this point, I think she has to worry about losing her supporters to Sanders or Pete Buttigieg — or even Joe Biden.
natesilver: Part of the dynamic is that Sanders hasn’t really been considered a front-runner. But now the media is covering him like one, even though it’s not really clear how much has actually changed in his candidacy. (If you look at the odds in our primary model — where we ran older forecasts retroactively before we launched — Sanders’s chances of winning the majority of pledged delegates have been pretty steady since November.)
sarahf: So let’s say tonight is the Sanders “wine cave” edition, where he’s at the center of attacks like Buttigieg was in the December debate. That debate seemed to have actually dampened some enthusiasm for Buttigieg — for instance, he fell pretty substantially in that Selzer poll from where he was in November. Do we see Sanders as the candidate tonight who has the most at stake? What about Biden? He is after all, the front-runner in our model even if he’s not the clear favorite to win; i.e., he’s still an underdog relative to the rest of the field.
natesilver: So on the one hand, I agree that Sanders’s support is likely to be pretty sticky, as Clare puts it. There’s evidence from polls that his supporters are the most firmly committed to any one candidate. But on the other hand, he hasn’t really gotten the same front-runner-type scrutiny that Warren DID get at some points this fall. So whether he holds up, once that level of scrutiny is applied, is very much up in the air.
ameliatd: And it’s not a low-stakes debate for Warren either, because she’s been actively trying to revitalize her campaign. When I was in Iowa on a reporting trip a few weeks ago, she was kind of trying to hit the “reset” button by hammering her core message on corruption and the economy. And of course, she’s now campaigning with Julián Castro.
clare.malone: I mean, we’ll just have to wait and see what the attacks are. I’m not entirely sure Warren, for instance, would go for “Bernie is sexist” on stage. That just doesn’t seem like her temperament. I would expect more of an attack on Sanders from Warren to be like, “his plans are implausible and therefore, bad for the general election.” But then again, he could also push back (as he’s been doing on the campaign trail), saying that HE is actually the most electable in a general. And there’s some truth to it, especially in comparison to Warren. Our polling with Ipsos shows the same thing — voters generally rate Sanders next after Biden in terms of his ability to defeat Trump.
Also, Sanders benefits from everyone kinda knowing what his thing is — socialism, baby! — which takes some of the sting out of “he’s too far out there!!” attacks. The brand is strong, as the kids say.
sarahf: Right, but to Amelia’s point, tonight could be a big night for Warren. She was only 3 points behind Sanders in that Selzer poll, which is a good sign for her considering her national numbers had dipped in late November and through December. And you can already see the slightest of upticks already in our national polling average:
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Yeah, that Selzer poll had Sanders in the lead in Iowa as we’ve discussed, but then that Monmouth poll out on Monday showed Biden in the lead with 24 percent in Iowa and Sanders in second at 18 percent, suggesting that Iowa is very wide open and very difficult to predict.
clare.malone: Like the state itself!
sarahf: Right, Biden is either in first or fourth, depending on which poll you look at.
geoffrey.skelley: So far, the debates haven’t seemed to have affected the polls all that much, at least not since Sen. Kamala Harris’s surge after the June debate.
The first Democratic debate shifted polls the most Average change* in national polls and the candidates who moved the most after the first four Democratic primary debates Debate Avg. Change Biggest gainer Biggest loser June 26-27 +/- 2.4 Harris +8.3 Biden -6.5 July 30-31 0.9 Warren +3.0 Harris -3.0 Sept. 12 1.1 Warren +4.4 Sanders -2.0 Oct. 15 1.0 Buttigieg +1.6 Warren -3.5 *Average change in national polls evaluates the average absolute change in polling averages before and after each debate across the 10 candidates with the highest post-debate polling average. Polling averages were calculated using national polls conducted during the two weeks before and two weeks after each debate. Source: Polls
Although I haven’t run the numbers the same way for the November and December debates, one look at the polls suggests there wasn’t a dramatic shakeup after those events, either. Now, tonight’s debate could be different since there are fewer candidates and voting is right around the corner. But then again, maybe not.
clare.malone: My spidey sense is that this debate will matter, especially to Iowans. These people are tuned in to a deranged degree!
natesilver: And polls also find that a high proportion of Iowans haven’t yet made their final decision.
clare.malone: Right.
sarahf: So if many Iowans haven’t made their final decision … how many do you think are actively considering Amy Klobuchar or Tom Steyer?
Klobuchar didn’t do as well in that Selzer poll as I thought she might, given how respondents in our poll with Ipsos rated her December debate performance. Granted, a lot of time has passed since Dec. 19, but there also haven’t been that many polls.
And then Steyer had a kind of weird surge in South Carolina and Nevada? It’s too soon to really make sense of what’s happening there (although he has spent a ton of money on TV ads).
natesilver: Klobuchar is actually in a pretty weird place. She’s at 6.6 percent in our Iowa polling average, but usually candidates either rise up to at least ~15 percent in Iowa — which matters, given how the caucus process itself works — or fall back into the low single digits.
clare.malone: The Steyer stuff is interesting in the sense that yes, he’s doing well in polls, probably because of advertising in those two states that have fewer ads in general than, say, Iowa or New Hampshire. But other candidates are going to start to get into that media-market scrum. Let’s see how much those numbers stick for him.
What I will say, though, is that the ads themselves cannily talk about the economy, not impeachment or climate change, subjects with which Steyer is more closely associated.
ameliatd: Steyer has been kind of defensive, too, about the fact that he made the debate at all — the implication being that he’s only there because he spent a ton of money on ads. That makes him a potential target, particularly for someone like Sanders or Warren. But attacking him also runs the risk of making him look like a more serious threat, so it’s somewhat complicated.
clare.malone: I think he won’t really be a big factor, tbh.
natesilver: I just don’t think Steyer is very interesting.
ameliatd: Right, maybe the other candidates won’t think it’s worth their time to question why he’s even there.
natesilver: So long as he’s at 3 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don’t really care where he is in Nevada and South Carolina.
clare.malone: I mean, I don’t think he’s half bad in debates! I just think the scrum will go a little more the Sanders/Warren and the Buttigieg/Klobuchar.
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): We touched on this a bit earlier, but Biden is currently winning the race for the nomination. And I think, as a result, you are seeing blunter criticism of him. Buttigieg and Sanders have both taken Biden to task for his vote for the Iraq War, and Sanders has also criticized Biden’s record on issues of racial justice.
I’m not sure his rivals will attack Biden on Tuesday, but that’s the thing I’m watching most closely: Does anyone decide this is the last real chance to take on the person mostly likely to win? I have been confused by how much Warren’s allies are attacking Buttigieg, and now it seems like Warren is attacking Sanders — but Biden is winning!
It feels like 2016 a bit — Christie attacking Rubio instead of Trump — what is the point?
natesilver: If somehow Biden gets through the debate, and all the focus is on Sanders vs. Warren, Buttigieg, etc. — that seems like a very fortunate outcome for the former vice president.
ameliatd: Yes, Biden clearly benefited from being able to float above the fray in the December debate. And the other candidates mostly let him do that, which was a little weird.
natesilver: Biden does have a tendency to cause trouble for himself, of course.
It’s also probably worth noting that his relatively smooth debate in December has been followed up by quite a few endorsements, etc. Party elites seem to have fewer concerns than they once did about his steadiness as a candidate.
perry: Harris was kind of limited in taking on Biden, in my view, since she will be high on the VP list. But I don’t think Biden is going to pick Buttigieg, Warren or Sanders for VP, so they have very little incentive to hold back. Buttigieg, in particular, has been very good at attacking people — it would be interesting to see if one was the one to push the Iraq issue, because Biden seems, at times, unwilling to concede he voted for the war.
clare.malone: Yeah, I gotta say, that whole thing is really weird.
John Kerry, a Biden surrogate, was trying to say that other candidates were misrepresenting his record, but it’s clear as day that Biden voted for the Iraq War. If you want to complicate the narrative and say it was a mistake, and you were misled — fine. But that whole talking point is weak sauce, in my opinion.
sarahf: OK, this is our last debate before the voting starts in Iowa, and as I said at the outset of the chat — it’s pretty much a four-way race with Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg all projected to get some delegates. Biden is in the lead in our forecast, but as we’ve said in our chat, a lot of Iowans are still on the fence. What will you be keeping a close eye on tonight to see if it moves the needle at all?
perry: Biden seems poised to win the nomination — perhaps even Iowa. I’ll be watching to see whether any of the other top three really take him on — and if they do, on what issues?
ameliatd: I will be interested to see, as Perry mentioned, if Biden’s Iraq war vote — and his strange unwillingness to admit to it — gets turned against him, or if he can turn the general foreign policy conversation/discussion of what’s happening with Iran in his favor. Because in general, that’s an issue where he has a clear advantage over the other candidates.
clare.malone: I mean, it’s trite, but I’ll be curious to see what Warren and Sanders do on stage, given the conflict they’ve had. And I’ll be curious to see if Sanders, in particular, challenges Biden on a general-election electability front.
natesilver: Repeating myself a bit, but it feels to me like Sanders is liable to play a central role in this debate with perceptions that he’s now a front-runner, and those sorts of debates tend to be pretty high stakes.
ameliatd: Basically, tonight comes down to who’s taking the gloves off, and who are they going after?
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: A 4-way pileup In Iowa


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-14--Who Will Win The January Debate?

Who Will Win The January Debate?

Who voters are considering Share of respondents who are considering voting for each candidate The field may be shrinking , @ @ @ @ @ stopped voters in our poll from saying they ’ re considering multiple candidates , although @ @ @ @ @ voters are focusing on four candidates : Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren @ @ @ @ @ half said they were considering Biden , but that wasn ’ t too far off @ @ @ @ @ who named Sanders as a possibility .
Thirty-seven percent said they ’ re considering voting @ @ @ @ @ a quarter said they might back Buttigieg .
As for the other two candidates on @ @ @ @ @ Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer — they ’ ve got a bit up of catching @ @ @ @ @ only about 10 percent of respondents thinking about supporting them .
We ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ voters ’ maybes changes after the debate .
Are they considering fewer candidates ?
More @ @ @ @ @ or lost the most potential supporters ?

Tuesday night’s debate was the last one before the voting starts in Iowa, and before the debate, our forecast thought there was roughly a four-way tie for who will win the caucuses. So to get more insight into this neck and neck race, we once again partnered with Ipsos to track how the debate, hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register, affected likely primary voters’ feelings about the candidates on the stage. The FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll, conducted using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, interviewed the same group of voters twice, once on either side of the debate, to capture both the “before” and “after” picture.
To better understand which candidates did well or poorly Tuesday night, we plotted how favorably respondents rated the candidates before the debate vs. how debate-watchers rated candidates’ performances afterward — and Elizabeth Warren, in particular, seemed to have a breakout evening according to this metric. She not only received the highest marks for her debate performance, but her scores were high even relative to her pre-debate favorability rating.
That said, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden also received medium-to-high marks for their performances, but because of their relatively high pre-debate favorability ratings, we expected a lot of voters to already be predisposed to viewing their debate performances in a positive light. So while they still did pretty well on the debate stage, they didn’t exceed expectations the way Warren did. Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer, on the other hand, tied for the lowest overall debate grades, putting them only barely above where we’d expect them to be given their pre-debate favorability ratings.
The numbers behind the chart
Candidate Pre-debate favorability Debate performance Elizabeth Warren 65.9% 3.3 Bernie Sanders 68.2 3.1 Pete Buttigieg 60.3 3.0 Joe Biden 66.8 3.0 Amy Klobuchar 54.0 2.9 Tom Steyer 52.8 2.9
In terms of raw debate grades — respondents graded candidates on a four-point scale (higher scores are better) — Warren got the highest average score, closely followed by Sanders, Buttigeg and Biden.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-13--Politics Podcast: A Four-Way Pileup In Iowa

The latest polling in Iowa shows a tight , four-way race just three weeks away from caucus day .
In @ @ @ @ @ Politics podcast , the crew updates their thinking about who is likely to win there @ @ @ @ @ win in Iowa could affect the rest of the primary .
They also discuss Sen. @ @ @ @ @ to drop out of the Democratic primary and recent polling showing Tom Steyer gaining significantly @ @ @ @ @ .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in @ @ @ @ @ by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
@ @ @ @ @ podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays @ @ @ @ @ the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment @ @ @ @ @ “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on @ @ @ @ @ .

The latest polling in Iowa shows a tight, four-way race just three weeks away from caucus day. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew updates their thinking about who is likely to win there, and about how a win in Iowa could affect the rest of the primary. They also discuss Sen. Cory Booker’s decision to drop out of the Democratic primary and recent polling showing Tom Steyer gaining significantly in Nevada and South Carolina.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: A 4-way pileup In Iowa
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-13--What The Heck Is Going On With Tom Steyer’s Poll Numbers?

Last Thursday , billionaire activist Tom Steyer picked up two really good early-state polls that catapulted him onto the debate stage at the last minute .
He hit 15 percent in a Fox News poll of South Carolina — he had 4 percent support in October — and 12 percent in a Fox News poll of Nevada , up from 5 percent in November .
These results had pretty big repercussions for Steyer in both our Nevada and South Carolina state polling averages , putting him at 8 percent in Nevada and 10 percent in South Carolina , as of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina number is roughly the same as Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s : But before you cry “ Steyer surge !
” remember that once you get past the top four candidates — Warren , former Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg — he and all the other candidates combined currently have a 1 percent chance of capturing a majority of delegates , according to our forecast .
And even though his standing in the polls has substantially improved in those two states , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of winning South Carolina or Nevada .
( He ’ s also still at 2 percent in our national polling average . )
In fact , those two Fox News surveys might be outliers , as they are the only two early-state polls released after the last debate ( Dec. 19 ) that show Steyer getting that sort of bump , though there have admittedly been relatively few polls to kick us off here in January .
In the other five early-state polls we have — aside from those two Fox News surveys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less impressive , although these are polls of Iowa and New Hampshire , not Nevada and South Carolina , where Fox found Steyer surging : • In a CBS News/YouGov poll of Iowa released Jan. 5 , Steyer was at 2 percent .
• In a CBS News/YouGov poll of New Hampshire released Jan. 5 , Steyer was at 3 percent .
• In a Monmouth University poll of New Hampshire released Jan. 9 , Steyer was at 4 percent .
• In a CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of Iowa released Jan. 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • In a Monmouth University poll of Iowa released Jan. 13 , Steyer was at 4 percent .
To really understand what ’ s going on with Steyer ’ s numbers , we need more polls — especially of South Carolina and Nevada — but at this stage , there is at least one other pollster besides Fox News who has found that Steyer might be making a real dent in the early states : Morning Consult .
The pollster ’ s weekly tracking poll takes stock of the race nationally but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ( unfortunately , the early states are treated as a group , so the pollster does not display results for individual early states ) .
And since late November , Morning Consult has found Steyer polling between 8 and 10 percent among early-state voters , including 10 percent in its most recent survey .
( He was only at 4 percent nationally . )
What ’ s more , there ’ s some evidence in both South Carolina and Nevada that Steyer has made inroads among nonwhite voters , which could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on more diverse states like South Carolina is not as strong as we think .
In that Fox News poll of South Carolina , Biden led among black primary voters with 43 percent support , but Steyer was in second with 16 percent — which put him ahead of the rest of the field , including Sanders , who was in third at 12 percent .
And in Fox News ’ s survey of Nevada , no one candidate has a firm grasp on nonwhite voters .
Sanders and Biden were running neck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Steyer placed third among that group with 14 percent .
Again , it ’ s hard to know exactly what ’ s behind this uptick in Steyer ’ s numbers , but one obvious explanation is his prodigious spending on broadcast television ads .
According to data from Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group , Steyer ads aired 5,721 times in Nevada-based media markets and 7,914 times in South Carolina-based markets from Dec. 1 through Jan. 9 .
The other Democratic candidates combined have aired six spots in Nevada and 2,195 in South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparison ’ s sake , Steyer has aired a similar number of ads in Iowa , but he is sharing the airwaves there with several other candidates .
For instance , from Dec. 1 through Jan. 9 , Sanders ( 7,678 ) and Andrew Yang ( 6,932 ) each aired more spots in Iowa than Steyer ( 6,675 ) .
And in tiny New Hampshire , neither Steyer nor other Democrats have been advertising as aggressively .
This could explain why Steyer hasn ’ t ( yet ) seen a polling bump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has done so in the third and fourth .
That said , Steyer has dominated the airwaves in Nevada and South Carolina for months ; it ’ s not clear what changed to cause a sudden spike in his polling numbers here in January .
However , it ’ s worth noting that polling of Nevada and South Carolina has been extremely sparse ; before those Fox News polls came out , mid-November was the last time a live-interviewer poll was conducted in South Carolina and the last time any poll was conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tuned into the primary race since then and have only now begun to react to Steyer ’ s ads .
So we ’ ll be keeping a close eye on Steyer ’ s debate performance Tuesday and on the post-debate polls to see whether he has serious staying power .
It ’ s too soon to tell , but Steyer might just be a January surprise no one was expecting .

Last Thursday, billionaire activist Tom Steyer picked up two really good early-state polls that catapulted him onto the debate stage at the last minute. He hit 15 percent in a Fox News poll of South Carolina — he had 4 percent support in October — and 12 percent in a Fox News poll of Nevada, up from 5 percent in November.
These results had pretty big repercussions for Steyer in both our Nevada and South Carolina state polling averages, putting him at 8 percent in Nevada and 10 percent in South Carolina, as of Monday afternoon. For context, that South Carolina number is roughly the same as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s:
But before you cry “Steyer surge!” remember that once you get past the top four candidates — Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg — he and all the other candidates combined currently have a 1 percent chance of capturing a majority of delegates, according to our forecast. And even though his standing in the polls has substantially improved in those two states, he still only has a 2 percent chance of winning South Carolina or Nevada. (He’s also still at 2 percent in our national polling average.)
In fact, those two Fox News surveys might be outliers, as they are the only two early-state polls released after the last debate (Dec. 19) that show Steyer getting that sort of bump, though there have admittedly been relatively few polls to kick us off here in January.
In the other five early-state polls we have — aside from those two Fox News surveys — Steyer’s numbers are far less impressive, although these are polls of Iowa and New Hampshire, not Nevada and South Carolina, where Fox found Steyer surging:
To really understand what’s going on with Steyer’s numbers, we need more polls — especially of South Carolina and Nevada — but at this stage, there is at least one other pollster besides Fox News who has found that Steyer might be making a real dent in the early states: Morning Consult. The pollster’s weekly tracking poll takes stock of the race nationally but also gives its results for the four early states (unfortunately, the early states are treated as a group, so the pollster does not display results for individual early states). And since late November, Morning Consult has found Steyer polling between 8 and 10 percent among early-state voters, including 10 percent in its most recent survey. (He was only at 4 percent nationally.)
What’s more, there’s some evidence in both South Carolina and Nevada that Steyer has made inroads among nonwhite voters, which could be a sign that Biden’s grasp on more diverse states like South Carolina is not as strong as we think. In that Fox News poll of South Carolina, Biden led among black primary voters with 43 percent support, but Steyer was in second with 16 percent — which put him ahead of the rest of the field, including Sanders, who was in third at 12 percent. And in Fox News’s survey of Nevada, no one candidate has a firm grasp on nonwhite voters. Sanders and Biden were running neck and neck at around 25 percent, while Steyer placed third among that group with 14 percent.
Again, it’s hard to know exactly what’s behind this uptick in Steyer’s numbers, but one obvious explanation is his prodigious spending on broadcast television ads. According to data from Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group, Steyer ads aired 5,721 times in Nevada-based media markets and 7,914 times in South Carolina-based markets from Dec. 1 through Jan. 9. The other Democratic candidates combined have aired six spots in Nevada and 2,195 in South Carolina during that same time period.
For comparison’s sake, Steyer has aired a similar number of ads in Iowa, but he is sharing the airwaves there with several other candidates. For instance, from Dec. 1 through Jan. 9, Sanders (7,678) and Andrew Yang (6,932) each aired more spots in Iowa than Steyer (6,675). And in tiny New Hampshire, neither Steyer nor other Democrats have been advertising as aggressively. This could explain why Steyer hasn’t (yet) seen a polling bump in the first two states to vote but has done so in the third and fourth.
That said, Steyer has dominated the airwaves in Nevada and South Carolina for months; it’s not clear what changed to cause a sudden spike in his polling numbers here in January. However, it’s worth noting that polling of Nevada and South Carolina has been extremely sparse; before those Fox News polls came out, mid-November was the last time a live-interviewer poll was conducted in South Carolina and the last time any poll was conducted in Nevada. Perhaps more people have tuned into the primary race since then and have only now begun to react to Steyer’s ads.
So we’ll be keeping a close eye on Steyer’s debate performance Tuesday and on the post-debate polls to see whether he has serious staying power. It’s too soon to tell, but Steyer might just be a January surprise no one was expecting.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: A 4-way pileup In Iowa


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-13--Why Booker’s Campaign Never Really Took Off

On Monday , New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker dropped out of the presidential race .
And for a candidate who has long been pegged as a presidential aspirant , even while he was still mayor of Newark , it ’ s remarkable how little impact Booker ’ s candidacy made on the Democratic primary .
Booker never really had a “ moment ” in the race .
He was polling at 2 percent nationally on the day he dropped out , and as you can see in the chart below , there were only a few polls where he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after the first debate in late June , he didn ’ t surpass 4 percent in a single national survey , and he continued to lose steam , failing to qualify for the December and January debates , and he wasn ’ t really in contention in any of the early states at this point either .
Part of Booker ’ s problem was that a path to the nomination never really opened up for him .
Back when he entered the race on Feb. 1 , the most obvious winning coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of black voters , party loyalists and some younger voters .
But Booker never really won over these groups .
Instead , former Vice President Joe Biden has maintained his advantage among African American Democrats , which has made it more difficult for Booker ( and other candidates ) to garner much support from that voting bloc .
( Booker , for instance , was only in the single digits among black voters last spring , and in a January survey from The Washington Post and Ipsos , his standing hadn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while Biden led the field among African American voters with 48 percent support . )
Biden has also generally scored the best on the question of who Democrats believe has the best chance of beating President Trump in the general election , which could help explain his appeal among party loyalists , and why other candidates have struggled to make inroads there .
Booker did pick up a flurry of endorsements when he first entered the race , but he struggled to emerge as a consensus candidate , even though there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least weren ’ t opposed to him ) .
An early January poll from The Economist/YouGov found that only 13 percent of Democratic primary voters would be “ disappointed ” if Booker became the nominee , the second-smallest percentage behind Warren ( 11 percent ) .
The problem was that very few voters were considering voting for Booker in the first place .
He was the first choice of only 1 percent of respondents in that poll , and the second choice of just 6 percent .
One reason more voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sen. Kamala Harris was also in the race and competing for many of the same voters .
Harris had similar appeal to Booker as a relatively young African American candidate who was dynamic on the stump , but , unlike Booker , she actually managed to build some support before dropping out in December .
For instance , Harris was able to get out ahead Booker on the endorsement front , earning backers from outside of her home state — which Booker largely failed to do — and from many members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , Harris rivaled only Biden for endorsements .
She also had a newsworthy moment in the first debate , after which her poll numbers ballooned — whereas Booker never experienced that sort of burst .
Yet , like Harris , Booker has a political career to protect , which may have played a role in his choice to drop out of the race now .
He hadn ’ t raised that much money , but he still probably would have been able to hang around though Iowa , as he raised a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the third quarter of 2019 , and she ’ s still in the race .
But with fews signs of progress , Booker may have felt it was time to cut his losses and focus on the more achievable opportunities available to him .
For one thing , he ’ s up for reelection this November , so refocusing his energy on New Jersey and his Senate race isn ’ t a bad idea .
Additionally , he could very well end up a vice presidential option for the eventual Democratic nominee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ ll butt heads with whomever that person is , which might help preserve his chance of being picked as a running mate .
Sometimes a candidate makes a fair amount of sense on paper but then fails to put it together on the campaign trail .
Booker was that kind of candidate , although he is not the first presidential contender to fall into this category — and he probably won ’ t be the last either .

On Monday, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker dropped out of the presidential race. And for a candidate who has long been pegged as a presidential aspirant, even while he was still mayor of Newark, it’s remarkable how little impact Booker’s candidacy made on the Democratic primary.
Booker never really had a “moment” in the race. He was polling at 2 percent nationally on the day he dropped out, and as you can see in the chart below, there were only a few polls where he did better than 4 percent. In fact, after the first debate in late June, he didn’t surpass 4 percent in a single national survey, and he continued to lose steam, failing to qualify for the December and January debates, and he wasn’t really in contention in any of the early states at this point either.
Part of Booker’s problem was that a path to the nomination never really opened up for him. Back when he entered the race on Feb. 1, the most obvious winning coalition for Booker seemed to be a combination of black voters, party loyalists and some younger voters. But Booker never really won over these groups. Instead, former Vice President Joe Biden has maintained his advantage among African American Democrats, which has made it more difficult for Booker (and other candidates) to garner much support from that voting bloc. (Booker, for instance, was only in the single digits among black voters last spring, and in a January survey from The Washington Post and Ipsos, his standing hadn’t improved — he had 4 percent support, while Biden led the field among African American voters with 48 percent support.)
Biden has also generally scored the best on the question of who Democrats believe has the best chance of beating President Trump in the general election, which could help explain his appeal among party loyalists, and why other candidates have struggled to make inroads there. Booker did pick up a flurry of endorsements when he first entered the race, but he struggled to emerge as a consensus candidate, even though there is some evidence that voters liked Booker (or at least weren’t opposed to him). An early January poll from The Economist/YouGov found that only 13 percent of Democratic primary voters would be “disappointed” if Booker became the nominee, the second-smallest percentage behind Warren (11 percent). The problem was that very few voters were considering voting for Booker in the first place. He was the first choice of only 1 percent of respondents in that poll, and the second choice of just 6 percent.
One reason more voters might not have been considering Booker is that Sen. Kamala Harris was also in the race and competing for many of the same voters. Harris had similar appeal to Booker as a relatively young African American candidate who was dynamic on the stump, but, unlike Booker, she actually managed to build some support before dropping out in December. For instance, Harris was able to get out ahead Booker on the endorsement front, earning backers from outside of her home state — which Booker largely failed to do — and from many members of the Congressional Black Caucus. At one point, Harris rivaled only Biden for endorsements. She also had a newsworthy moment in the first debate, after which her poll numbers ballooned — whereas Booker never experienced that sort of burst.
Yet, like Harris, Booker has a political career to protect, which may have played a role in his choice to drop out of the race now. He hadn’t raised that much money, but he still probably would have been able to hang around though Iowa, as he raised a bit more than Sen. Amy Klobuchar in the third quarter of 2019, and she’s still in the race. But with fews signs of progress, Booker may have felt it was time to cut his losses and focus on the more achievable opportunities available to him. For one thing, he’s up for reelection this November, so refocusing his energy on New Jersey and his Senate race isn’t a bad idea. Additionally, he could very well end up a vice presidential option for the eventual Democratic nominee. And dropping out now reduces the risk he’ll butt heads with whomever that person is, which might help preserve his chance of being picked as a running mate.
Sometimes a candidate makes a fair amount of sense on paper but then fails to put it together on the campaign trail. Booker was that kind of candidate, although he is not the first presidential contender to fall into this category — and he probably won’t be the last either.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-14--Election Update: Two New Polls Show Biden’s Upside Scenario

With a mix of relatively strong and relatively weak polls for each of the major candidates , the top line of our 2020 Democratic primary forecast has been roughly unchanged over the past several days .
In a race without a clear favorite , former Vice President Joe Biden remains the front-runner , with a 39 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates .
He ’ s followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders with a 23 percent chance , Sen. Elizabeth Warren with a 13 percent chance and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one will win a majority of pledged delegates is 14 percent .
All of those figures are within 1 percentage point of when I last wrote about the forecast on Saturday .
The twist , though , is that this time Biden ’ s strongest new polls — at least , in terms of how much they helped or hurt him in the model — were in Iowa and New Hampshire , whereas he got middling numbers in new polls of Nevada and California ( along with a not-particularly-great set of national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll of Iowa released on Monday , Biden led the pack with 24 percent of the vote , followed by 18 percent for Sanders , 17 percent for Buttigieg and 15 percent for Warren .
Meanwhile , an RKM Research and Communications poll of New Hampshire , conducted for Franklin Pierce University and the Boston Herald , had Biden ahead with 26 percent of the vote there , leading Sanders at 22 , Warren at 18 and Buttigieg at 7 .
None of that puts Biden in a spectacular position .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by prediction markets ) seems to assume that Sanders is considerably more likely than Biden to win in Iowa and New Hampshire .
That isn ’ t really true based on the polls in each state , however .
Of the three most recent Iowa polls , for instance , Biden was tied for the lead in one and led outright in another , the same as Sanders .
Our model essentially regards Biden and Sanders as co-favorites in each of the first two states , with Warren and Buttigieg also having decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first two states , he ’ d be in a very strong position , with a 92 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates and a 95 percent chance of winning a plurality .
On average in such scenarios , Biden would win 2,747 of the possible 3,979 pledged delegates and 50 of the 57 nominating contests .
So as much as we like to emphasize the uncertainty in the outlook , scenarios that involve Biden winning do come up more often than those for other candidates .
And some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination easily .
Others could involve a split outcome in the first two states .
What if Biden wins either Iowa or New Hampshire but not both ?
He ’ d be the favorite overall , but that could lead to a reasonably close race .
If he won Iowa but lost New Hampshire , Biden would have a 56 percent chance of a pledged delegate majority and a 67 percent chance of a plurality .
The reverse scenario — where Biden loses Iowa but wins New Hampshire — would be slightly better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent chance of a majority and a 76 percent chance of a plurality .
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight ’ s Democratic primary forecast in full ; you can also see all the 2020 primary polls we ’ ve collected , including national polls , Iowa polls , New Hampshire polls , Nevada polls and South Carolina polls .

With a mix of relatively strong and relatively weak polls for each of the major candidates, the top line of our 2020 Democratic primary forecast has been roughly unchanged over the past several days.
In a race without a clear favorite, former Vice President Joe Biden remains the front-runner, with a 39 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates. He’s followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders with a 23 percent chance, Sen. Elizabeth Warren with a 13 percent chance and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg with a 10 percent chance. The chance that no one will win a majority of pledged delegates is 14 percent. All of those figures are within 1 percentage point of when I last wrote about the forecast on Saturday.
The twist, though, is that this time Biden’s strongest new polls — at least, in terms of how much they helped or hurt him in the model — were in Iowa and New Hampshire, whereas he got middling numbers in new polls of Nevada and California (along with a not-particularly-great set of national numbers).
In a Monmouth University poll of Iowa released on Monday, Biden led the pack with 24 percent of the vote, followed by 18 percent for Sanders, 17 percent for Buttigieg and 15 percent for Warren. Meanwhile, an RKM Research and Communications poll of New Hampshire, conducted for Franklin Pierce University and the Boston Herald, had Biden ahead with 26 percent of the vote there, leading Sanders at 22, Warren at 18 and Buttigieg at 7.
Biden, Sanders neck and neck In Iowa
None of that puts Biden in a spectacular position. But the conventional wisdom (at least as espoused by prediction markets) seems to assume that Sanders is considerably more likely than Biden to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. That isn’t really true based on the polls in each state, however. Of the three most recent Iowa polls, for instance, Biden was tied for the lead in one and led outright in another, the same as Sanders. Our model essentially regards Biden and Sanders as co-favorites in each of the first two states, with Warren and Buttigieg also having decent chances.
And if Biden does win the first two states, he’d be in a very strong position, with a 92 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates and a 95 percent chance of winning a plurality. On average in such scenarios, Biden would win 2,747 of the possible 3,979 pledged delegates and 50 of the 57 nominating contests.
So as much as we like to emphasize the uncertainty in the outlook, scenarios that involve Biden winning do come up more often than those for other candidates. And some of those scenarios involve Biden winning the nomination easily.
Others could involve a split outcome in the first two states. What if Biden wins either Iowa or New Hampshire but not both? He’d be the favorite overall, but that could lead to a reasonably close race. If he won Iowa but lost New Hampshire, Biden would have a 56 percent chance of a pledged delegate majority and a 67 percent chance of a plurality. The reverse scenario — where Biden loses Iowa but wins New Hampshire — would be slightly better for him, giving him a 66 percent chance of a majority and a 76 percent chance of a plurality.
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight’s Democratic primary forecast in full; you can also see all the 2020 primary polls we’ve collected, including national polls, Iowa polls, New Hampshire polls, Nevada polls and South Carolina polls.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: A 4-way pileup In Iowa


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-13--Why Cory Booker’s Campaign Never Really Took Off


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-15--What Went Down At The January Democratic Debate

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-15--The January Democratic Debate In 6 Charts

We ’ re less than three weeks away from the Iowa caucuses , and the Democrats held their first presidential debate of 2020 on Tuesday night in Iowa .
Just six candidates took the stage this time , the smallest grouping yet .
Much of the debate centered on foreign policy , given President Trump ’ s recent decision to authorize a drone strike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani , which has escalated tension between the U.S. and Iran .
Another topic of debate was Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s claim that Sen. Bernie Sanders told her in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the presidential election , which led to an onstage disagreement between them .
But Warren seems to have gotten the upper hand — she got the highest debate grade from viewers and she now has the highest net favorability rating , according to our poll with Ipsos , which used Ipsos ’ s KnowledgePanel to interview the same respondents before and after the debate .
Anyway , maybe you missed the January debate because you ’ re gearing up for the three debates in February ( it ’ s a marathon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you just want more analysis of how this debate will affect the race .
Either way , we ’ ve got you covered .
First up , who viewers thought had the best debate performance .
To answer this , we compared candidates ’ pre-debate favorability ratings to how well respondents who watched the debate thought the candidates performed .
Candidates are graded on a four-point scale where higher numbers are better ; comparing those grades to favorability ratings helps us adjust our expectations , since people may be inclined to view well-liked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got the highest marks for her performance on Tuesday night , and they were strong enough to be impressive even after you account for her high favorability .
That represents an improvement for her , after she fell slightly below expectations during the December debate .
Sanders , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Biden didn ’ t do poorly per se , but because they were already well-liked , we expected a lot of voters to view their debate performance favorably .
Democratic voters really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can beat Trump .
Nearly two-thirds of likely Democratic primary voters in our poll with Ipsos said they prefer a candidate who they think can win the general election over a candidate who shares their stance on issues — and those numbers didn ’ t budge after the debate .
In December , voters who prioritized winning in November thought Biden had the best performance , but this time they thought Warren performed the best — perhaps a sign that her pitch for why a woman can win the presidency resonated with viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with voters who preferred a candidate whose position on the issues was similar to their own , which is consistent what we found after the last three debates .
Most of the candidates on the stage made good impressions with voters Tuesday night , according to changes in their net favorability ratings ( favorable rating minus unfavorable rating ) .
But perhaps unsurprisingly , the candidates who gained most were those who many voters didn ’ t already have an opinion on .
For instance , around 40 percent of voters had neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Amy Klobuchar and billionaire activist Tom Steyer before the debate — easily the highest percentages of anyone on stage — and they also saw the biggest gains in net favorability , racking up 5 points or more on this measure .
The other candidates saw more modest gains ( Buttigieg and Warren ) or lost some ground ( Sanders and Biden ) .
In fact , thanks to Warren ’ s gains and leading candidates ’ stumbles , Warren now has the highest net favorability rating overall .
In the last three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led the group in number of words spoken , and the same was true again Tuesday night .
Warren topped the list by speaking 3,428 words in total , just 134 more than Klobuchar .
On the other end of the spectrum , Steyer spoke the least with only 2,285 words , though that ’ s still more than he ’ s said in past debates .
In contrast to the other candidates , however , when he was talking , Steyer was often agreeing with his opponents .
Of the 11 times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response , he spent at least part of five of them agreeing with another candidate .
But Steyer speaking the least isn ’ t all that surprising given that lower-polling candidates tend to get less air time .
However , both Klobuchar and Buttigieg managed to buck that trend , speaking just about as much as higher-polling candidates like Biden and Warren , which was similar to what we saw in the December debate .
Overall , the relationship between a candidate ’ s polling average and the number of words he or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the early debates when the stage was much more crowded .
That said , Sanders still spoke relatively little given where he is polling nationally .
Trump came up more often Klobuchar mentioned Trump by name more often than other candidates in Tuesday ’ s debate , which was consistent with her strategy in the December debate , when she also mentioned him the most .
But the president ’ s name also came up more often in general than it did last time — candidates mentioned him an average of about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with about six times each in December .
Warren , for instance , only mentioned Trump once in the December debate , but this time she called him out on eight occasions .
Biden talked about Trump six times in both the January and December debates , but while that put him in third last time , he was the candidate to mention Trump the least this time around .
Do you want even more debate coverage ?
• The New York Times tracked how much time each candidate spent speaking about various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Klobuchar spent more time on health care than other topics .
Biden , on the other hand , spent a lot of time talking about the military .
• And despite the Warren-Sanders clash over whether a woman can be president , it was actually Klobuchar who attacked her opponents the most , according to NBC News ’ s attack tracker .
Warren came in a close second .
• Bloomberg News compared which issues dominated this debate with previous debates and found that health care , which has taken up less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was revived on Tuesday night .
Meanwhile , economic inequality and social issues took a backseat compared to past debates .
• Rick Klein at ABC News broke down the debate ’ s focus on foreign policy and the clashes between the candidates .
• The Des Moines Register covered how Iowans watched the debate and what candidates need to say to caucusgoers .
• PolitiFact did a live fact-check of the debate .
Of course , we think our debate coverage is pretty good too : • The politics crew chatted after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Galen Druke and Clare Malone stayed up late to bring you a podcast .
• We partnered with Ipsos to poll the same group of voters before and after the debate .
• And you can re-create all the action by scrolling through our live blog .

We’re less than three weeks away from the Iowa caucuses, and the Democrats held their first presidential debate of 2020 on Tuesday night in Iowa. Just six candidates took the stage this time, the smallest grouping yet.
Much of the debate centered on foreign policy, given President Trump’s recent decision to authorize a drone strike that killed Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani, which has escalated tension between the U.S. and Iran. Another topic of debate was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s claim that Sen. Bernie Sanders told her in 2018 that a woman couldn’t win the presidential election, which led to an onstage disagreement between them. But Warren seems to have gotten the upper hand — she got the highest debate grade from viewers and she now has the highest net favorability rating, according to our poll with Ipsos, which used Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel to interview the same respondents before and after the debate.
Anyway, maybe you missed the January debate because you’re gearing up for the three debates in February (it’s a marathon, not a sprint), or maybe you just want more analysis of how this debate will affect the race. Either way, we’ve got you covered.
Warren got high marks
First up, who viewers thought had the best debate performance. To answer this, we compared candidates’ pre-debate favorability ratings to how well respondents who watched the debate thought the candidates performed. Candidates are graded on a four-point scale where higher numbers are better; comparing those grades to favorability ratings helps us adjust our expectations, since people may be inclined to view well-liked candidates in a positive light. Warren got the highest marks for her performance on Tuesday night, and they were strong enough to be impressive even after you account for her high favorability. That represents an improvement for her, after she fell slightly below expectations during the December debate. Sanders, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Biden didn’t do poorly per se, but because they were already well-liked, we expected a lot of voters to view their debate performance favorably.
Voters’ priorities affected candidates’ grades
Democratic voters really care about picking a nominee they think can beat Trump. Nearly two-thirds of likely Democratic primary voters in our poll with Ipsos said they prefer a candidate who they think can win the general election over a candidate who shares their stance on issues — and those numbers didn’t budge after the debate.
In December, voters who prioritized winning in November thought Biden had the best performance, but this time they thought Warren performed the best — perhaps a sign that her pitch for why a woman can win the presidency resonated with viewers. Sanders, meanwhile, did best with voters who preferred a candidate whose position on the issues was similar to their own, which is consistent what we found after the last three debates.
Voters who prioritize beating Trump thought Warren did best How debate-watchers scored candidates’ performances (on a four-point scale where higher is better) in the January Democratic debate, by which type of candidate they prefer voter Prefers a candidate who … candidate shares stance on issues can beat trump Warren 3.0 3.4 Biden 2.6 3.1 Buttigieg 2.7 3.1 Sanders 3.1 3.1 Klobuchar 2.6 3.0 Steyer 2.7 3.0 From a survey of 3,057 likely Democratic primary voters who were surveyed between Jan. 10 to Jan. 13. The same people were surveyed again from Jan. 14 to Jan. 15; 659 responded to the second wave and said they watched the debate. The average ratings are out of 4 points, where 4 is best and 1 is worst. Source: Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight
Voters warmed to Klobuchar
Most of the candidates on the stage made good impressions with voters Tuesday night, according to changes in their net favorability ratings (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating). But perhaps unsurprisingly, the candidates who gained most were those who many voters didn’t already have an opinion on. For instance, around 40 percent of voters had neither a favorable nor an unfavorable view of Sen. Amy Klobuchar and billionaire activist Tom Steyer before the debate — easily the highest percentages of anyone on stage — and they also saw the biggest gains in net favorability, racking up 5 points or more on this measure. The other candidates saw more modest gains (Buttigieg and Warren) or lost some ground (Sanders and Biden).
In fact, thanks to Warren’s gains and leading candidates’ stumbles, Warren now has the highest net favorability rating overall.
Some voters soured on Sanders Change in net favorability for candidates in a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll taken before and after the January Democratic primary debate Net favorability candidate before debate after debate change Klobuchar +12.3 +18.1 +5.8 Steyer +9.9 +14.9 +5.0 Buttigieg +26.5 +31.2 +4.7 Warren +43.3 +47.2 +3.9 Biden +45.3 +43.7 -1.6 Sanders +47.8 +44.3 -3.6 From a survey of 3,057 likely Democratic primary voters who were surveyed between Jan. 10 to Jan. 13. The same people were surveyed again from Jan. 14 to Jan. 15; 1,743 responded to the second wave.
Women grabbed the mic
In the last three Democratic debates, a female candidate has led the group in number of words spoken, and the same was true again Tuesday night. Warren topped the list by speaking 3,428 words in total, just 134 more than Klobuchar. On the other end of the spectrum, Steyer spoke the least with only 2,285 words, though that’s still more than he’s said in past debates. In contrast to the other candidates, however, when he was talking, Steyer was often agreeing with his opponents. Of the 11 times he was able to give a substantive response, he spent at least part of five of them agreeing with another candidate.
Who held the floor? Number of words spoken by candidates in the January Democratic debate Candidate Words Spoken Elizabeth Warren 3,428 – Amy Klobuchar 3,294 – Joe Biden 3,178 – Pete Buttigieg 3,088 – Bernie Sanders 2,824 – Tom Steyer 2,285 – Transcript is preliminary and may contain errors that affect word count. Source: Debate Transcript via ABC News
But Steyer speaking the least isn’t all that surprising given that lower-polling candidates tend to get less air time. However, both Klobuchar and Buttigieg managed to buck that trend, speaking just about as much as higher-polling candidates like Biden and Warren, which was similar to what we saw in the December debate. Overall, the relationship between a candidate’s polling average and the number of words he or she spoke was not as strong as in the early debates when the stage was much more crowded. That said, Sanders still spoke relatively little given where he is polling nationally.
Trump came up more often
Klobuchar mentioned Trump by name more often than other candidates in Tuesday’s debate, which was consistent with her strategy in the December debate, when she also mentioned him the most. But the president’s name also came up more often in general than it did last time — candidates mentioned him an average of about eight times each on Tuesday, compared with about six times each in December.
Who talked about Trump? How often each candidate mentioned Trump’s name in the January Democratic debate Candidate Trump Mentions Amy Klobuchar 12 – Bernie Sanders 10 – Elizabeth Warren 8 – Pete Buttigieg 7 – Tom Steyer 7 – Joe Biden 6 – Transcript is preliminary and may contain errors that affect word count. Source: Debate Transcript via ABC News
Warren, for instance, only mentioned Trump once in the December debate, but this time she called him out on eight occasions. Biden talked about Trump six times in both the January and December debates, but while that put him in third last time, he was the candidate to mention Trump the least this time around.
Do you want even more debate coverage?
Cool graphics from other sites:
The New York Times tracked how much time each candidate spent speaking about various issues, finding that Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar spent more time on health care than other topics. Biden, on the other hand, spent a lot of time talking about the military.
And despite the Warren-Sanders clash over whether a woman can be president, it was actually Klobuchar who attacked her opponents the most, according to NBC News’s attack tracker. Warren came in a close second.
Bloomberg News compared which issues dominated this debate with previous debates and found that health care, which has taken up less time in the last two debates, was revived on Tuesday night. Meanwhile, economic inequality and social issues took a backseat compared to past debates.
And here’s more great post-debate analysis:
Of course, we think our debate coverage is pretty good too:
Biden, Sanders neck and neck In Iowa


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-15--Buckets, Satellites, Robots And More — How We Measure The Earth’s Average Temperature

This summer , we asked readers to send us their climate change questions .
And they did .
We received many , many , many climate change questions .
So many , in fact , that we ’ re doing several different projects around them .
You ’ ve seen our columns on Who ’ s Winning Climate Change ?
Today , we ’ re diving into the mailbag for another edition of Climate Question from an Adult – a series that will explore the business , culture and chemistry behind your most pressing questions about global warming .
Have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
“ What are they measuring when they talk about limiting global average temperature change to less than 2 degrees ?
Is it air temp ?
Ocean temp ?
Where do they take the measurements ?
” – Danny Kremer , Minnesota When I started researching the answer to Danny ’ s question , I did not expect that it would lead to a crash course in the rapid advancement of bucket technology .
Yes , buckets .
Literal buckets .
The kind a bunch of sailors might put on a rope and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they wanted to pull up some seawater and stick a thermometer in it .
When we talk about the “ global average temperature ” and changes to that temperature , we are talking about a calculated average that incorporates measurements taken from both the land and the sea in locations scattered all over the world .
This week , the United States ’ National Climatic Data Center released its annual global climate report , which includes the latest estimate of how much hotter the planet was last year compared to the average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headlines that tell you 2019 was the second-hottest year on record , what you ’ re actually seeing is the output of a massive data collection program — one that spans not just continents and governments , but a variety of technologies and more than a century of time .
Behind that single number is a huge , complex story .
And the evolution of buckets is a part of that tale .
That ’ s because one of the ways we take the temperature of the ocean is with the help of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naval vessels who sign up to take daily readings during their journeys and report those to the United Kingdom ’ s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research .
This program began more than 150 years ago , as part of the British Empire ’ s efforts to map the warm-water currents that could efficiently carry colonialism from point A to point B .
The existence of this data is great news if you ’ re a scientist who wants to know how the temperature of the ocean has changed over time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to account for changes in buckets .
A water sample will stay warmer in a wooden bucket than in an uninsulated canvas one , John Kennedy , a climate monitoring and research scientist at the Hadley Centre , told me .
So you can ’ t directly compare a temperature taken in the 1880s ( when wooden buckets were the norm ) with one taken using the canvas buckets that became standard a few decades later .
“ The way we deal with buckets is that two of my former colleagues modeled how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather conditions , ” Kennedy said .
To normalize measurements across time , scientists use that model , as well as information like ship speed and wind speed .
“ It has to be retested over and over again , ” he told me .
And that ’ s just for the ocean temperatures .
On the other side of the Atlantic , the U.S. government has been measuring the temperature of air since around the end of the Civil War , said Derek Arndt , chief of the climate monitoring section at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which manages the National Climatic Data Center .
The measurements — originally the responsibility of surgeons at Army forts — were taken for the military and for farmers , Arndt said .
By the 1920s , that had grown into a nationwide network of volunteers — often those same farmers — who made daily records of temperature and precipitation .
That network still exists today , Arndt told me , and it remains crucial , even though the National Weather Service is also taking more precise measurements more frequently , using automated weather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automated stations are mostly located at airports .
When they were first set up , that meant the stations were out in the sticks .
But urban sprawl has pushed the city limits — and the heat islands that accompany cities — up to the edge of the taxiway .
The robots may do a better job of monitoring changes in the weather , but the human volunteers , who are still mostly located in rural areas , make sure scientists know how much of a rising temperature is due to climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanding .
In fact , all the measurements that go into the global average temperature have similar redundancies built in .
Measuring the temperature of the sea isn ’ t just the responsibility of sailors with buckets — it ’ s also done using satellites and again using floating thermometers that bob about in the world ’ s oceans .
Different groups of scientists study the same thing using different tools .
The measurements they all produce help serve as a check on the others .
Those bobbing thermometers , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which has released thousands of these little floating labs into the sea since 2000 .
Besides temperature , they also collect information on the saltiness of the water and other factors that help scientists study climate change .
Measurements taken by Argo floats are going to be a lot more precise than measurements taken by non-scientists on a shipping vessel , but all the Argo floats are also sourced from the same electronics supplier , said Megan Scanderbeg , a research associate at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography , which helps maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong in the manufacturing process , all the floats could report incorrect data .
And since the Argo floats are designed to ride the waves wherever the ocean takes them and not be recaptured , that sort of problem would be hard to fix .
Having multiple types of measurement serves as insurance .
It also helps protect against bias .
While a lot of countries , including Japan and many European nations , have measurement programs similar to those run by the U.S. and the U.K. , the countries most heavily involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centered on the Northern Hemisphere .
Even historic ocean temperature measurements taken by sailing vessels were biased towards the northern half of the globe , because that ’ s where the most heavily traveled trade routes were .
Argo floats and satellite data helped give scientists a clearer view of what is happening all over the planet .
All of this data — ocean and air temperature measurements from satellites , robots and human volunteers — comes together at the World Meteorological Organization .
It ’ s a branch of the United Nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate data between 193 member states and territories .
Data from around the globe goes in — climate change updates ( and daily weather forecasts ) come out .
It ’ s also where much of the data the NCDC uses for its Global Climate Report comes from , Arndt told me .
As one of the WMO ’ s primary archives , his team takes reams of temperature readings , runs quality control tests , checks for things like changes in the location of a temperature station that might affect its readings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summary of what is happening as the climate changes .
From this , we know 2019 was 0.95 degrees Celsius hotter than the 20th century average and 1.15 degrees hotter than the pre-industrial average .
Two little numbers ; awesome logistical effort .

This summer, we asked readers to send us their climate change questions. And they did. We received many, many, many climate change questions. So many, in fact, that we’re doing several different projects around them. You’ve seen our columns on Who’s Winning Climate Change? Today, we’re diving into the mailbag for another edition of Climate Question from an Adult – a series that will explore the business, culture and chemistry behind your most pressing questions about global warming. Have a question? Send it to us!
“What are they measuring when they talk about limiting global average temperature change to less than 2 degrees? Is it air temp? Ocean temp? Where do they take the measurements?” – Danny Kremer, Minnesota
When I started researching the answer to Danny’s question, I did not expect that it would lead to a crash course in the rapid advancement of bucket technology.
Yes, buckets. Literal buckets. The kind a bunch of sailors might put on a rope and throw over the side of a boat if they wanted to pull up some seawater and stick a thermometer in it.
When we talk about the “global average temperature” and changes to that temperature, we are talking about a calculated average that incorporates measurements taken from both the land and the sea in locations scattered all over the world.
This week, the United States’ National Climatic Data Center released its annual global climate report, which includes the latest estimate of how much hotter the planet was last year compared to the average 20th century temperature. When you see headlines that tell you 2019 was the second-hottest year on record, what you’re actually seeing is the output of a massive data collection program — one that spans not just continents and governments, but a variety of technologies and more than a century of time. Behind that single number is a huge, complex story.
And the evolution of buckets is a part of that tale. That’s because one of the ways we take the temperature of the ocean is with the help of volunteers — sailors on random merchant and naval vessels who sign up to take daily readings during their journeys and report those to the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. This program began more than 150 years ago, as part of the British Empire’s efforts to map the warm-water currents that could efficiently carry colonialism from point A to point B.
The existence of this data is great news if you’re a scientist who wants to know how the temperature of the ocean has changed over time. Unfortunately, it also means you have to account for changes in buckets. A water sample will stay warmer in a wooden bucket than in an uninsulated canvas one, John Kennedy, a climate monitoring and research scientist at the Hadley Centre, told me. So you can’t directly compare a temperature taken in the 1880s (when wooden buckets were the norm) with one taken using the canvas buckets that became standard a few decades later. “The way we deal with buckets is that two of my former colleagues modeled how much heat a bucket loses in different weather conditions,” Kennedy said. To normalize measurements across time, scientists use that model, as well as information like ship speed and wind speed. “It has to be retested over and over again,” he told me.
And that’s just for the ocean temperatures. On the other side of the Atlantic, the U.S. government has been measuring the temperature of air since around the end of the Civil War, said Derek Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring section at the National Centers for Environmental Information, which manages the National Climatic Data Center. The measurements — originally the responsibility of surgeons at Army forts — were taken for the military and for farmers, Arndt said.
By the 1920s, that had grown into a nationwide network of volunteers — often those same farmers — who made daily records of temperature and precipitation. That network still exists today, Arndt told me, and it remains crucial, even though the National Weather Service is also taking more precise measurements more frequently, using automated weather stations.
That’s because those automated stations are mostly located at airports. When they were first set up, that meant the stations were out in the sticks. But urban sprawl has pushed the city limits — and the heat islands that accompany cities — up to the edge of the taxiway. The robots may do a better job of monitoring changes in the weather, but the human volunteers, who are still mostly located in rural areas, make sure scientists know how much of a rising temperature is due to climate change … and how much is just cities expanding.
In fact, all the measurements that go into the global average temperature have similar redundancies built in. Measuring the temperature of the sea isn’t just the responsibility of sailors with buckets — it’s also done using satellites and again using floating thermometers that bob about in the world’s oceans. Different groups of scientists study the same thing using different tools. The measurements they all produce help serve as a check on the others.
Those bobbing thermometers, for example, are part of a project called Argo, which has released thousands of these little floating labs into the sea since 2000. Besides temperature, they also collect information on the saltiness of the water and other factors that help scientists study climate change. Measurements taken by Argo floats are going to be a lot more precise than measurements taken by non-scientists on a shipping vessel, but all the Argo floats are also sourced from the same electronics supplier, said Megan Scanderbeg, a research associate at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which helps maintain the Argo program. If something goes wrong in the manufacturing process, all the floats could report incorrect data. And since the Argo floats are designed to ride the waves wherever the ocean takes them and not be recaptured, that sort of problem would be hard to fix. Having multiple types of measurement serves as insurance.
It also helps protect against bias. While a lot of countries, including Japan and many European nations, have measurement programs similar to those run by the U.S. and the U.K., the countries most heavily involved in collecting this data have historically been centered on the Northern Hemisphere. Even historic ocean temperature measurements taken by sailing vessels were biased towards the northern half of the globe, because that’s where the most heavily traveled trade routes were. Argo floats and satellite data helped give scientists a clearer view of what is happening all over the planet.
All of this data — ocean and air temperature measurements from satellites, robots and human volunteers — comes together at the World Meteorological Organization. It’s a branch of the United Nations that coordinates the sharing of weather and climate data between 193 member states and territories. Data from around the globe goes in — climate change updates (and daily weather forecasts) come out.
It’s also where much of the data the NCDC uses for its Global Climate Report comes from, Arndt told me. As one of the WMO’s primary archives, his team takes reams of temperature readings, runs quality control tests, checks for things like changes in the location of a temperature station that might affect its readings and processes it all into an understandable summary of what is happening as the climate changes. From this, we know 2019 was 0.95 degrees Celsius hotter than the 20th century average and 1.15 degrees hotter than the pre-industrial average. Two little numbers; awesome logistical effort.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-15--Politics Podcast: The Candidates Took On Electability In Their Final Pre-Iowa Debate

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to the final Democratic primary debate before @ @ @ @ @ candidates spent time debating foreign policy and whether a woman can beat President Trump in @ @ @ @ @ You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the @ @ @ @ @ downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If @ @ @ @ @ , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
@ @ @ @ @ show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , @ @ @ @ @ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter @ @ @ @ @

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to the final Democratic primary debate before the Iowa caucuses. The candidates spent time debating foreign policy and whether a woman can beat President Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
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.