fivethirtyeight--2020-02-07--New Hampshire Votes In Three Days. Many Voters Could Still Switch Candidates.

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
Fresh off a strong performance in Iowa , Sen. Bernie Sanders is ahead by 9 percentage points in our New Hampshire polling average and has a 74 percent chance of winning Tuesday ’ s primary , according to our forecast .
That may sound like Sanders is an overwhelming favorite in the Granite State , but the race is still wide open .
If the primary were held multiple times , Sanders would lose New Hampshire about 1 in 4 times , according to the forecast — about as likely as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both times .
Why is there so much uncertainty about the New Hampshire outcome , given Sanders ’ s lead in the polls ?
First of all , it ’ s a primary , and polling primaries is notoriously difficult : A larger share of voters in primaries are open to switching between candidates .
And there will be several opportunities for New Hampshire voters to do between now and Tuesday .
For one , the mess in Iowa is still sorting itself out .
Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 20 percent chance of winning the state , could potentially benefit from the victory he claimed in Iowa .
Friday ’ s Democratic debate could also sway voters , so we ’ re waiting for more polling .
Just how big is this group of people that could still change their mind ?
Polls have found that about two-fifths of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire say they might change their mind before next Tuesday ’ s primary , though voters ’ commitment varied by candidate .
• A Suffolk University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 43 percent of likely primary voters said they could change their mind .
Among Sanders supporters , 6o percent said their mind is made up .
Sixty-seven percent of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s supporters and 59 percent of Buttigieg supporters said the same , compared to about 45 percent of Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar ’ s supporters .
( Overall , the poll reported Sanders leading the field with 25 percent support , Buttigieg second at 19 percent , Biden at 12 percent and Warren at 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were undecided . )
• A University of Massachusetts Lowell poll conducted in late January — before Iowa — found that 39 percent of likely New Hampshire primary voters said they could still change their mind .
Sanders ’ s support was firmer in this poll : Of the 23 percent who picked Sanders as their first choice , 88 percent said they will definitely cast their vote for him .
Sixty-eight percent of Biden ’ s supporters were firm , as were 62 percent of Warren ’ s , 42 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Buttigieg ’ s .
• A recent Saint Anslem College poll of New Hampshire — also conducted before Iowa — found 41 percent of respondents said their preferred candidate could change .
Among respondents who said they were firm in their choice , Sanders led with 25 percent support .
Twenty-two percent supported Biden , 18 percent Buttigieg , 11 percent Warren and 9 percent Klobuchar .
Of those who said they could change their mind , 22 percent supported Biden , 17 percent Klobuchar , 16 percent Sanders , 14 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among likely voters , this poll reported Biden and Sanders tied at 19 percent support , Buttigieg with 14 percent and Klobuchar and Warren with 11 percent . )
• And a recent Monmouth University poll of New Hampshire — partially taken after Iowa — found that only 49 percent of likely primary voters are firmly decided in their choice , and 46 percent are open to a different candidate .
That 46 percent includes 11 percent who said there is a “ high possibility ” they could change their mind , 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderate possibility , ” and 10 percent who said there is a “ low possibility.
” Among respondents who make between $ 50,000 and $ 100,000 , just 43 percent are firmly decided .
Buttigieg and Sanders have the most support among that group , each with 21 percent support .
( Overall , the poll reported Sanders with 24 percent support from likely voters , Buttigieg with 20 percent , Biden with 17 percent and Warren with 13 percent . )
Taken together , the polling suggests somewhere close to half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of switching candidates .
While a few polls show Sanders with the most loyal following , others have Biden ahead or close behind .
The real question is , given the fluidity of the New Hampshire electorate , how many supporters could either pick up ?
Could voters shift to Buttigieg or Warren , or both , instead ?
Polling over the next few days will give us some clues , but don ’ t be surprised if there ’ s a lot of last-minute movement .
Oh !
And there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , hosted by ABC News , WMUR-TV and Apple News .
This debate will be one of the candidates ’ last chances to make their pitch to some of those persuadable New Hampshire voters .
• The notion that Iowa and New Hampshire should go first in the Democratic primary process might be popular in Iowa and New Hampshire , but nationally , not so much .
In the recent UMass Lowell poll , 67 percent of likely New Hampshire voters said Iowa and New Hampshire should continue to go first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only 20 percent of Democrats said Iowa and New Hampshire should go first , while 34 percent said other states should go first and 46 percent were not sure , according to a February Economist/YouGov poll .
• In that recent UMass Lowell poll , likely New Hampshire voters were asked if they prefer President Trump win reelection on Nov. 3 or “ a giant meteor strikes the earth , extinguishing all life.
” Sixty-two percent said they prefer the meteor strike .
When broken out by income , gender , age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which a majority of respondents chose Trump ’ s reelection were those making more than $ 100,000 per year .
• Americans are feeling particularly optimistic about their personal finances .
A record-breaking 59 percent of Americans said they are better off financially now than they were a year ago , according to a recent Gallup poll .
That ’ s the highest it ’ s been since Gallup started asking the question in 1977 .
In that same poll , 74 percent also predicted they will be better off financially a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1977 ) .
However , the breakdown is fairly partisan : While 76 percent of Republicans said they are better off now than a year ago , only 43 percent of Democrats said the same .
• Pew Research Center recently looked at how popular each of the candidates polled among religious groups within the Democratic Party .
Biden led among Christian and Jewish voters — 36 percent of Protestants , 34 percent of Catholics and 31 percent of Jewish voters said the former vice president was their first choice .
His support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters ( 44 percent ) .
At 28 percent , Sanders led among unaffiliated voters ( atheists , agnostics and “ nothing in particular ” ) .
• Trump is the most popular president among Republicans and Barack Obama is the most popular president among Democrats , according to a recent YouGov poll .
Thirty percent of Republicans said Trump is the best president , followed by 22 percent who said Ronald Reagan and 10 percent who said George Washington .
Among Democrats , 23 percent said Obama was the best , followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roosevelt and 11 percent who said Abraham Lincoln .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 43.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 51.8 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -7.9 points ) .
At this time last week , 42.9 percent approved and 52.7 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -9.8 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 42.0 percent and a disapproval rating of 53.3 percent , for a net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 5.7 percentage points ( 47.2 percent to 41.5 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 5.6 points ( 46.9 percent to 41.3 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 6.6 points ( 47.5 percent to 40.9 percent ) .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
Fresh off a strong performance in Iowa, Sen. Bernie Sanders is ahead by 9 percentage points in our New Hampshire polling average and has a 74 percent chance of winning Tuesday’s primary, according to our forecast. That may sound like Sanders is an overwhelming favorite in the Granite State, but the race is still wide open. If the primary were held multiple times, Sanders would lose New Hampshire about 1 in 4 times, according to the forecast — about as likely as flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times.
Why is there so much uncertainty about the New Hampshire outcome, given Sanders’s lead in the polls? First of all, it’s a primary, and polling primaries is notoriously difficult: A larger share of voters in primaries are open to switching between candidates. And there will be several opportunities for New Hampshire voters to do between now and Tuesday. For one, the mess in Iowa is still sorting itself out. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who our forecast thinks has a 20 percent chance of winning the state, could potentially benefit from the victory he claimed in Iowa. Friday’s Democratic debate could also sway voters, so we’re waiting for more polling.
Just how big is this group of people that could still change their mind? Polls have found that about two-fifths of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire say they might change their mind before next Tuesday’s primary, though voters’ commitment varied by candidate.
A Suffolk University poll conducted after the Iowa caucuses found 43 percent of likely primary voters said they could change their mind. Among Sanders supporters, 6o percent said their mind is made up. Sixty-seven percent of former Vice President Joe Biden’s supporters and 59 percent of Buttigieg supporters said the same, compared to about 45 percent of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar’s supporters. (Overall, the poll reported Sanders leading the field with 25 percent support, Buttigieg second at 19 percent, Biden at 12 percent and Warren at 11. Fourteen percent of respondents also said they were undecided.)
A University of Massachusetts Lowell poll conducted in late January — before Iowa — found that 39 percent of likely New Hampshire primary voters said they could still change their mind. Sanders’s support was firmer in this poll: Of the 23 percent who picked Sanders as their first choice, 88 percent said they will definitely cast their vote for him. Sixty-eight percent of Biden’s supporters were firm, as were 62 percent of Warren’s, 42 percent of Klobuchar’s and 29 percent of Buttigieg’s.
A recent Saint Anslem College poll of New Hampshire — also conducted before Iowa — found 41 percent of respondents said their preferred candidate could change. Among respondents who said they were firm in their choice, Sanders led with 25 percent support. Twenty-two percent supported Biden, 18 percent Buttigieg, 11 percent Warren and 9 percent Klobuchar. Of those who said they could change their mind, 22 percent supported Biden, 17 percent Klobuchar, 16 percent Sanders, 14 percent Warren and 13 percent Buttigieg. (Among likely voters, this poll reported Biden and Sanders tied at 19 percent support, Buttigieg with 14 percent and Klobuchar and Warren with 11 percent.)
And a recent Monmouth University poll of New Hampshire — partially taken after Iowa — found that only 49 percent of likely primary voters are firmly decided in their choice, and 46 percent are open to a different candidate. That 46 percent includes 11 percent who said there is a “high possibility” they could change their mind, 25 percent who said there is a “moderate possibility,” and 10 percent who said there is a “low possibility.” Among respondents who make between $50,000 and $100,000, just 43 percent are firmly decided. Buttigieg and Sanders have the most support among that group, each with 21 percent support. (Overall, the poll reported Sanders with 24 percent support from likely voters, Buttigieg with 20 percent, Biden with 17 percent and Warren with 13 percent.)
Taken together, the polling suggests somewhere close to half of New Hampshire voters say they are capable of switching candidates. While a few polls show Sanders with the most loyal following, others have Biden ahead or close behind. The real question is, given the fluidity of the New Hampshire electorate, how many supporters could either pick up? Could voters shift to Buttigieg or Warren, or both, instead? Polling over the next few days will give us some clues, but don’t be surprised if there’s a lot of last-minute movement.
Oh! And there’s a three-hour debate tonight in Manchester, New Hampshire, hosted by ABC News, WMUR-TV and Apple News. This debate will be one of the candidates’ last chances to make their pitch to some of those persuadable New Hampshire voters.
Other polling bites
The notion that Iowa and New Hampshire should go first in the Democratic primary process might be popular in Iowa and New Hampshire, but nationally, not so much. In the recent UMass Lowell poll, 67 percent of likely New Hampshire voters said Iowa and New Hampshire should continue to go first in future presidential primaries. But nationally, only 20 percent of Democrats said Iowa and New Hampshire should go first, while 34 percent said other states should go first and 46 percent were not sure, according to a February Economist/YouGov poll.
In that recent UMass Lowell poll, likely New Hampshire voters were asked if they prefer President Trump win reelection on Nov. 3 or “a giant meteor strikes the earth, extinguishing all life.” Sixty-two percent said they prefer the meteor strike. When broken out by income, gender, age and ideology, the only group in which a majority of respondents chose Trump’s reelection were those making more than $100,000 per year.
Americans are feeling particularly optimistic about their personal finances. A record-breaking 59 percent of Americans said they are better off financially now than they were a year ago, according to a recent Gallup poll. That’s the highest it’s been since Gallup started asking the question in 1977. In that same poll, 74 percent also predicted they will be better off financially a year from now (again the highest since 1977). However, the breakdown is fairly partisan: While 76 percent of Republicans said they are better off now than a year ago, only 43 percent of Democrats said the same.
Pew Research Center recently looked at how popular each of the candidates polled among religious groups within the Democratic Party. Biden led among Christian and Jewish voters — 36 percent of Protestants, 34 percent of Catholics and 31 percent of Jewish voters said the former vice president was their first choice. His support was even higher among black Protestant Democratic voters (44 percent). At 28 percent, Sanders led among unaffiliated voters (atheists, agnostics and “nothing in particular”).
Trump is the most popular president among Republicans and Barack Obama is the most popular president among Democrats, according to a recent YouGov poll. Thirty percent of Republicans said Trump is the best president, followed by 22 percent who said Ronald Reagan and 10 percent who said George Washington. Among Democrats, 23 percent said Obama was the best, followed by 13 percent who said Franklin Delano Roosevelt and 11 percent who said Abraham Lincoln.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 51.8 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -7.9 points). At this time last week, 42.9 percent approved and 52.7 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -9.8 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 42.0 percent and a disapproval rating of 53.3 percent, for a net approval rating of -11.3 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 5.7 percentage points (47.2 percent to 41.5 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 5.6 points (46.9 percent to 41.3 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 6.6 points (47.5 percent to 40.9 percent).


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-07--The Calendar Isn’t Helping Biden, But His Iowa Performance Points To Bigger Problems

Iowa has given us more questions than answers .
And perhaps the most important question is whether former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s poor performance there — with results still not quite finalized , he ’ s in fourth place with just 14.9 percent of the first-alignment vote — can be chalked up to Iowa-specific factors or is instead symptomatic of larger problems for his campaign .
Here ’ s one way to provide some perspective .
Our primary model , although it mostly relies on polling , also uses a regression-based method to forecast the outcome in states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The regression tries to impute each candidate ’ s demographic strengths and weaknesses based on states where we do have polling .
It also adjusts for the home states and regions of the candidates — so , for instance , Sen. Bernie Sanders gets a big boost in Vermont at the expense of other candidates .
( You can read more about the regression method in our methodology primer . )
Here , then , is what the regression method had forecasted for Biden in each state as of our final update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Note the values below includes a slight adjustment to account for the fact that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not on the ballot in New Hampshire , Nevada or South Carolina , but is in other states . )
Iowa ranks as Biden ’ s 41st best state out of 50 .
The fact that its caucus electorate is fairly liberal — and extremely white — is not favorable for Biden , whose support is concentrated among older , moderate whites and African Americans .
On the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be helpful for Biden .
But it ’ s a well-below-average state for him on balance .
Still , Iowa is not so below-average for Biden that one can excuse his performance there .
Our regression “ thinks ” that Biden should have gotten about 25 percent of the vote in Iowa .
Instead , as I said , he got only about 15 percent in the first-alignment vote .
One explanation for Biden ’ s numbers in Iowa was the relatively strong performance of former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates who compete with Biden for the moderate “ lane.
” In fact , Buttigieg overperformed his regression-based forecast by around 8 percentage points in Iowa , while Klobuchar beat hers by 5 percentage points .
( Keep in mind that the regression already accounts for the fact that Buttigieg and Klobuchar are from the Midwest , which means they overperformed more than their regional advantage would suggest . )
But if you were to take a couple of points from Buttigieg and a couple more from Klobuchar , Biden ’ s Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse .
Buttigieg and Klobuchar may have done well in Iowa in part because Biden failed to give older , more moderate voters a candidate they were entirely happy about .
Of course , there are other factors that make Iowa unique .
Retail campaigning takes on far more importance in the state , since candidates spend so much time there .
And the ground game matters a lot given all the unusual rules in the caucuses .
Neither of these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a caucus is not a secret ballot — caucusgoers can see what their neighbors are doing at all stages of the process .
Mild weakness for Biden in a certain precinct could snowball if voters in the room thought Biden didn ’ t have a lot of support and they preemptively joined other groups .
The problem for Biden is that the next state on tap , New Hampshire , doesn ’ t look any better for him .
In fact , the regression model has it as being an even tougher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation for Biden , ahead of only Massachusetts , Minnesota , Vermont and Indiana , which are all home states for one of the other major candidates .
Furthermore , even though the regression model has only modest expectations for Biden in New Hampshire ( 23 percent ) , he ’ s still underperforming the regression forecast in polls there , where he has just 14 percent of the vote , on average .
Nevada , more racially diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire and fairly working-class , figures to be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before Iowa , it ranked in the middle of the pack for Biden — the 30th best state out of 50 .
However , Nevada is another caucus state , and after Iowa , one wonders whether Biden is prone to systematically underperform in caucuses .
Fortunately for Biden , there are far fewer caucuses in the schedule this year if he ’ s able to survive beyond Nevada .
South Carolina , on the other hand , is certainly a good state for Biden — the sixth best state of 50 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Nevada , expectations for Biden might be so low by the time South Carolina votes that he could actually get some credit ( and a bit of a polling bounce ) for winning it .
For right now , though , a primary on Feb. 29 is an eternity away .
This analysis is not meant to be entirely unsympathetic to Biden .
Iowa and New Hampshire generally get a lot more media coverage than Nevada and South Carolina , and so candidates who are well-suited to those states are at an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first , in the hypothetical world where South Carolina and New Hampshire switched places on the calendar and South Carolina went second , Biden might be poised for a big comeback next week instead of what is likely to be another loss .
But that isn ’ t the world we ’ re living in , and Biden ’ s Iowa performance was poor enough that he probably can ’ t blame the calendar alone .

Iowa has given us more questions than answers. And perhaps the most important question is whether former Vice President Joe Biden’s poor performance there — with results still not quite finalized, he’s in fourth place with just 14.9 percent of the first-alignment vote — can be chalked up to Iowa-specific factors or is instead symptomatic of larger problems for his campaign.
Here’s one way to provide some perspective. Our primary model, although it mostly relies on polling, also uses a regression-based method to forecast the outcome in states where there is little or no polling. The regression tries to impute each candidate’s demographic strengths and weaknesses based on states where we do have polling. It also adjusts for the home states and regions of the candidates — so, for instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders gets a big boost in Vermont at the expense of other candidates. (You can read more about the regression method in our methodology primer.)
Here, then, is what the regression method had forecasted for Biden in each state as of our final update on Monday before the Iowa caucus. (Note the values below includes a slight adjustment to account for the fact that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not on the ballot in New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, but is in other states. )
Biden’s best and worst states by the “fundamentals” Biden’s projected vote share based on demographics and geography, per FiveThirtyEight’s last forecast before the Iowa caucuses Rank State Projected vote share 1 Delaware 59.2% 2 Mississippi 38.1 3 Pennsylvania 37.8 4 Louisiana 36.6 5 Maryland 36.3 6 South Carolina* 35.5 7 Alabama 35.4 8 Georgia 34.7 9 Florida 33.8 10 Tennessee 33.6 11 Arkansas 33.2 12 North Carolina 33.2 13 New Jersey 33.1 14 West Virginia 31.8 15 Virginia 31.3 16 Texas 31.1 17 Kentucky 30.5 18 Ohio 29.8 19 Missouri 29.4 20 New Mexico 29.2 21 New York 28.9 22 Michigan 28.1 23 Idaho 28.0 24 South Dakota 27.8 25 Oklahoma 27.6 26 Illinois 27.5 27 Montana 27.4 28 Arizona 27.4 29 Connecticut 27.2 30 Nevada* 26.8 31 Kansas 26.6 32 Rhode Island 26.5 33 Maine 26.2 34 Wyoming 26.2 35 Nebraska 26.1 36 Alaska 25.8 37 California 25.7 38 Wisconsin 25.4 39 Utah 25.1 40 North Dakota 24.9 41 Iowa 24.7 42 Washington 24.7 43 Oregon 24.7 44 Colorado 24.3 45 Hawaii 23.2 46 New Hampshire* 23.1 47 Indiana 22.7 48 Minnesota 21.0 49 Massachusetts 20.0 50 Vermont 17.1 * Projections for Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are adjusted to reflect the fact that Michael Bloomberg is not on the ballot there, when he is in other states.
Iowa ranks as Biden’s 41st best state out of 50. The fact that its caucus electorate is fairly liberal — and extremely white — is not favorable for Biden, whose support is concentrated among older, moderate whites and African Americans. On the other hand, Iowa is fairly middle-class, which ought to be helpful for Biden. But it’s a well-below-average state for him on balance.
Still, Iowa is not so below-average for Biden that one can excuse his performance there. Our regression “thinks” that Biden should have gotten about 25 percent of the vote in Iowa. Instead, as I said, he got only about 15 percent in the first-alignment vote.
One explanation for Biden’s numbers in Iowa was the relatively strong performance of former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, candidates who compete with Biden for the moderate “lane.” In fact, Buttigieg overperformed his regression-based forecast by around 8 percentage points in Iowa, while Klobuchar beat hers by 5 percentage points. (Keep in mind that the regression already accounts for the fact that Buttigieg and Klobuchar are from the Midwest, which means they overperformed more than their regional advantage would suggest.) But if you were to take a couple of points from Buttigieg and a couple more from Klobuchar, Biden’s Iowa performance would look a lot more respectable.
How Iowa results compare to demographic projections Projected vote share for each candidate based on “fundamentals” in FiveThirtyEight’s final Democratic primary forecast before the Iowa caucuses vs. their actual first-alignment vote share Candidate PROJECTED vote share actual vote share Biden 24.7% 14.9% Sanders 23.4 24.7 Warren 15.8 18.5 Buttigieg 13.4 21.2 Klobuchar 7.9 12.7 Bloomberg 4.8 0.1 Yang 4.2 5.0 Steyer 3.6 1.7 Gabbard 1.3 0.2 Patrick 0.5 0.0 Bennet 0.4 0.1 source: IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY
But an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. Buttigieg and Klobuchar may have done well in Iowa in part because Biden failed to give older, more moderate voters a candidate they were entirely happy about.
Of course, there are other factors that make Iowa unique. Retail campaigning takes on far more importance in the state, since candidates spend so much time there. And the ground game matters a lot given all the unusual rules in the caucuses. Neither of these are Biden strengths, necessarily. In addition, a caucus is not a secret ballot — caucusgoers can see what their neighbors are doing at all stages of the process. Mild weakness for Biden in a certain precinct could snowball if voters in the room thought Biden didn’t have a lot of support and they preemptively joined other groups.
The problem for Biden is that the next state on tap, New Hampshire, doesn’t look any better for him. In fact, the regression model has it as being an even tougher state — the 46th best state in the nation for Biden, ahead of only Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Indiana, which are all home states for one of the other major candidates.
Furthermore, even though the regression model has only modest expectations for Biden in New Hampshire (23 percent), he’s still underperforming the regression forecast in polls there, where he has just 14 percent of the vote, on average.
Nevada, more racially diverse than Iowa or New Hampshire and fairly working-class, figures to be more of a fair fight for Biden. Before Iowa, it ranked in the middle of the pack for Biden — the 30th best state out of 50. However, Nevada is another caucus state, and after Iowa, one wonders whether Biden is prone to systematically underperform in caucuses. Fortunately for Biden, there are far fewer caucuses in the schedule this year if he’s able to survive beyond Nevada.
South Carolina, on the other hand, is certainly a good state for Biden — the sixth best state of 50. And if he loses both New Hampshire and Nevada, expectations for Biden might be so low by the time South Carolina votes that he could actually get some credit (and a bit of a polling bounce) for winning it. For right now, though, a primary on Feb. 29 is an eternity away.
This analysis is not meant to be entirely unsympathetic to Biden. Iowa and New Hampshire generally get a lot more media coverage than Nevada and South Carolina, and so candidates who are well-suited to those states are at an advantage. Even if Iowa had gone first, in the hypothetical world where South Carolina and New Hampshire switched places on the calendar and South Carolina went second, Biden might be poised for a big comeback next week instead of what is likely to be another loss. But that isn’t the world we’re living in, and Biden’s Iowa performance was poor enough that he probably can’t blame the calendar alone.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-07--Election Update: Buttigieg Is Rising In New Hampshire

Sen. Bernie Sanders , New Hampshire ’ s next-door neighbor who won the state by 22 percentage points in 2016 , has been the front-runner in the Granite State ’ s first-in-the-nation primary for weeks .
And according to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast , he still has a 2 in 3 ( 68 percent chance ) of winning the state .
But former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg is now making it interesting .
His numbers are rising in almost every successive poll of the state , and he ’ s now up to a 1 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning there .
Today ’ s piece of good news for the Buttigieg campaign was an NBC News/Marist poll of New Hampshire , conducted Tuesday through Thursday , that showed Sanders at 25 percent and Buttigieg at 21 percent .
( They were followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14 percent , former Vice President Joe Biden at 13 percent and Sen. Amy Klobuchar at 8 percent .
However , New Hampshire is probably just a two-person race — our model thinks there is only a 7 percent chance that someone other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marist ’ s last New Hampshire poll , conducted Jan. 20-23 , Sanders had 22 percent and Buttigieg had 17 percent , so they both did a bit better in the latest poll — although the differences were within the margin of error .
Still , no other candidate experienced a boost of more than 1 percentage point .
And given the evidence from other polls , it seems safe to say that Buttigieg , at least , is on the upswing in New Hampshire .
Both Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV and 7 News/Emerson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Granite State , and the latest installment of each was released late last night .
And the trend is clear : Since the final poll before the Iowa caucuses — which took place on Feb. 3 , although the results have been announced slowly over the course of the entire week — Buttigieg has gained 12 points in the Suffolk poll and 10 points in the Emerson poll .
The Suffolk poll implies he is getting this support from Biden , who has dropped 7 points since Feb. 2-3 , although the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as significant a dropoff for the former vice president — so maybe Buttigieg ’ s claim of victory in Iowa is just causing undecided voters to finally settle on him as their choice .
And there is still plenty of room for Buttigieg ( or another candidate — if , say , someone else has a good debate on Friday ) to gain .
According to Marist , 15 percent of likely Democratic primary voters who have a preferred candidate say they still might change their minds , and 5 percent say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg has the momentum in New Hampshire , however , doesn ’ t mean his chances of winning the nomination have increased .
Our overall primary forecast still gives Buttigieg only a 1 in 25 ( 4 percent ) chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates .
In a nutshell , proving you can ( partially ) win Iowa and ( maybe ) win New Hampshire doesn ’ t prove you can win more diverse states like Nevada and South Carolina — and Buttigieg is still underperforming with nonwhite voters , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-Iowa national polls to confirm this .

Sen. Bernie Sanders, New Hampshire’s next-door neighbor who won the state by 22 percentage points in 2016, has been the front-runner in the Granite State’s first-in-the-nation primary for weeks. And according to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast, he still has a 2 in 3 (68 percent chance) of winning the state. But former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is now making it interesting. His numbers are rising in almost every successive poll of the state, and he’s now up to a 1 in 4 (25 percent) chance of winning there.
Today’s piece of good news for the Buttigieg campaign was an NBC News/Marist poll of New Hampshire, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, that showed Sanders at 25 percent and Buttigieg at 21 percent. (They were followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14 percent, former Vice President Joe Biden at 13 percent and Sen. Amy Klobuchar at 8 percent. However, New Hampshire is probably just a two-person race — our model thinks there is only a 7 percent chance that someone other than Sanders or Buttigieg wins.) In Marist’s last New Hampshire poll, conducted Jan. 20-23, Sanders had 22 percent and Buttigieg had 17 percent, so they both did a bit better in the latest poll — although the differences were within the margin of error. Still, no other candidate experienced a boost of more than 1 percentage point.
And given the evidence from other polls, it seems safe to say that Buttigieg, at least, is on the upswing in New Hampshire. Both Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV and 7 News/Emerson College have been conducting tracking polls of the Granite State, and the latest installment of each was released late last night. And the trend is clear:
Buttigieg is on the rise in New Hampshire… Day-by-day results of the Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV tracking poll of New Hampshire, Feb. 2 – 6, 2020 Candidate Feb. 2-3 Feb. 3-4 Feb. 4-5 Feb. 5-6 Bernie Sanders 24% 24% 25% 24% Pete Buttigieg 11 15 19 23 Elizabeth Warren 13 10 11 13 Joe Biden 18 15 12 11 Amy Klobuchar 6 6 6 6 Source: Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV
… No matter what poll you check Day-by-day results of the 7 News/Emerson College tracking poll of New Hampshire, Jan. 31 – Feb. 6, 2020 Candidate Jan. 31-Feb. 2 Feb. 1-3 Feb. 2-4 Feb. 3-5 Feb. 5-6 Bernie Sanders 29% 32% 32% 31% 32% Pete Buttigieg 13 12 17 21 23 Elizabeth Warren 12 13 11 11 13 Joe Biden 14 13 13 12 11 Amy Klobuchar 8 12 11 12 9 Source: 7 News/Emerson College
Since the final poll before the Iowa caucuses — which took place on Feb. 3, although the results have been announced slowly over the course of the entire week — Buttigieg has gained 12 points in the Suffolk poll and 10 points in the Emerson poll. The Suffolk poll implies he is getting this support from Biden, who has dropped 7 points since Feb. 2-3, although the Emerson poll doesn’t show nearly as significant a dropoff for the former vice president — so maybe Buttigieg’s claim of victory in Iowa is just causing undecided voters to finally settle on him as their choice.
And there is still plenty of room for Buttigieg (or another candidate — if, say, someone else has a good debate on Friday) to gain. According to Marist, 15 percent of likely Democratic primary voters who have a preferred candidate say they still might change their minds, and 5 percent say they are still outright undecided.
Just because Buttigieg has the momentum in New Hampshire, however, doesn’t mean his chances of winning the nomination have increased. Our overall primary forecast still gives Buttigieg only a 1 in 25 (4 percent) chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates. In a nutshell, proving you can (partially) win Iowa and (maybe) win New Hampshire doesn’t prove you can win more diverse states like Nevada and South Carolina — and Buttigieg is still underperforming with nonwhite voters, although we’d like to see more post-Iowa national polls to confirm this.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-07--Election Update: There’s A New Face In Our Forecast. (It’s Bloomberg.)

As of Friday , you ’ ll see a shiny new face in our Democratic primary forecast : former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg .
We ’ re now featuring Bloomberg more prominently in our forecast interactive and in our polling averages ; he joins four other candidates ( Sen. Bernie Sanders ; former Vice President Joe Biden ; former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ; and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ) who get their own color in the forecast ( in Bloomberg ’ s case , gold ) .
Bloomberg has always been in the underlying calculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he was lumped in with “ all others ” on many of the charts , making him hard to find .
Bloomberg is a tricky candidate to forecast , given that his strategy of essentially skipping the first four states but then spending enormous amounts of money on the race is fairly unprecedented .
Although Bloomberg is at only 11 percent in national polls right now — below the 15 percent threshold required to pick up delegates in states and congressional districts — he ’ s getting close enough to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picking up a decent number of delegates in its average simulation .
On the other hand , the model thinks it ’ s quite unlikely that Bloomberg can get a majority of delegates because he ’ s getting off to a late start .
It ’ s not that skipping out on Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada and South Carolina is itself all that costly ; those states have relatively few delegates .
Rather , it ’ s that Bloomberg is unlikely to have a huge surge before Super Tuesday .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could certainly do reasonably well on Super Tuesday and get a surge in later states .
But at that point , 38 percent of delegates will already have been chosen .
Say Bloomberg wins 30 percent of the delegates on Super Tuesday ; that would certainly get him some attention , probably make him a real contender , and perhaps knock other moderate candidates out of the race .
Bloomberg , however , would need to get 64 percent of the delegates in all the states beyond Super Tuesday to earn a majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awfully high bar to clear .
Bloomberg getting a plurality of pledged delegates , on the other hand , is more likely .
( There ’ s a 1 in 40 chance of that , or about 3 percent , according to our model — as compared to a roughly 1 in 100 chance he gets a majority . )
More likely still is that Bloomberg appears to be the strongest candidate at the end of the process , even though he doesn ’ t necessarily have a plurality .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be leading in national polls at the end of the race , our model estimates .
Being able to point to indicators like that could be helpful to Bloomberg in the not-at-all-unlikely event of a contested convention .
These distinctions matter because – it seems like I can ’ t emphasize this enough , as I see people misquoting our forecast all the time — we are not actually forecasting the identity of the nominee .
Rather , we are forecasting the chance of each candidate getting a majority of pledged delegates ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islands casts the final votes of the primary season on June 6 .
Bloomberg could easily become the nominee at a contested convention — and a contested convention is a reasonably likely possibility — but our model does not try to predict how a contested convention would turn out .
We ’ ve also made two subtle changes that should slightly help the model ’ s handling of Bloomberg , although they make little difference to the top line forecast .
First , in the state-by-state regression analysis that we conduct to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are no longer using Bloomberg ’ s Iowa results as an input for him .
In the regressions , the model doesn ’ t use a candidate ’ s performance from states in which they weren ’ t on the ballot .
Iowa technically didn ’ t have a ballot , however .
( Indeed , Bloomberg won a very small number of votes there . )
But since he never set foot in the state after launching his campaign ( his last visit there was in December 2018 ) nor made any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regression will ignore his performance in Iowa .
The other small change is in how we calculate what we call the “ fundamentals , ” which are a combination of indicators based on a candidate ’ s fundraising , endorsements and level of experience in elected office .
( See Step 3 in our methodology guide for more about this . )
We find that candidates who are strong in these areas tend to see their polling improve on average , and candidates who are weak tend to see their polling get worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subtle and plenty of candidates defy the trends ( see also : President Trump ) .
The model now randomizes how much weight it puts on these categories in each simulation , instead of always treating them as equally important .
Likewise , it randomizes the amount of weight it puts on the three categories of fundraising we track ( small-donor contributions , all individual contributions , and all contributions from any source including self-funding ) .
Thus , in some simulations , the model treats Bloomberg ’ s enormous spending as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in other simulations , it gives it very little weight .
This reflects the fact that the evidence is quite mixed on how self-financed candidates do as compared with candidates who raise money from individual donors .
There ’ s certainly a lot to think about here , so I may do some longer stories about Bloomberg after New Hampshire .
But we ’ ll leave it there for now .
Suffice it to say that I think there ’ s sometimes a lack of rigor when analyzing Bloomberg ’ s chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through specific , realistic scenarios for exactly how Bloomberg wins the race — which is what our model is doing in trying to simulate all the possibilities — the harder you ’ ll find it is for him to get a majority of pledged delegates .
It isn ’ t necessarily so hard to conceive of him accumulating a lot of delegates and winning the race via a delegate plurality or at a contested convention , however , and the model is more agnostic about those possibilities .

As of Friday, you’ll see a shiny new face in our Democratic primary forecast: former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. We’re now featuring Bloomberg more prominently in our forecast interactive and in our polling averages; he joins four other candidates (Sen. Bernie Sanders; former Vice President Joe Biden; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sen. Elizabeth Warren) who get their own color in the forecast (in Bloomberg’s case, gold). Bloomberg has always been in the underlying calculations and the detailed output behind the model, but he was lumped in with “all others” on many of the charts, making him hard to find.
Bloomberg is a tricky candidate to forecast, given that his strategy of essentially skipping the first four states but then spending enormous amounts of money on the race is fairly unprecedented. Although Bloomberg is at only 11 percent in national polls right now — below the 15 percent threshold required to pick up delegates in states and congressional districts — he’s getting close enough to the threshold that the model actually has him picking up a decent number of delegates in its average simulation.
On the other hand, the model thinks it’s quite unlikely that Bloomberg can get a majority of delegates because he’s getting off to a late start. It’s not that skipping out on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina is itself all that costly; those states have relatively few delegates. Rather, it’s that Bloomberg is unlikely to have a huge surge before Super Tuesday.
Here’s why that matters. Bloomberg could certainly do reasonably well on Super Tuesday and get a surge in later states. But at that point, 38 percent of delegates will already have been chosen. Say Bloomberg wins 30 percent of the delegates on Super Tuesday; that would certainly get him some attention, probably make him a real contender, and perhaps knock other moderate candidates out of the race. Bloomberg, however, would need to get 64 percent of the delegates in all the states beyond Super Tuesday to earn a majority of pledged delegates, which is an awfully high bar to clear.
Bloomberg getting a plurality of pledged delegates, on the other hand, is more likely. (There’s a 1 in 40 chance of that, or about 3 percent, according to our model — as compared to a roughly 1 in 100 chance he gets a majority.) More likely still is that Bloomberg appears to be the strongest candidate at the end of the process, even though he doesn’t necessarily have a plurality. There’s a 5 percent chance that Bloomberg will be leading in national polls at the end of the race, our model estimates. Being able to point to indicators like that could be helpful to Bloomberg in the not-at-all-unlikely event of a contested convention.
These distinctions matter because – it seems like I can’t emphasize this enough, as I see people misquoting our forecast all the time — we are not actually forecasting the identity of the nominee. Rather, we are forecasting the chance of each candidate getting a majority of pledged delegates (or a plurality) after the Virgin Islands casts the final votes of the primary season on June 6. Bloomberg could easily become the nominee at a contested convention — and a contested convention is a reasonably likely possibility — but our model does not try to predict how a contested convention would turn out.
We’ve also made two subtle changes that should slightly help the model’s handling of Bloomberg, although they make little difference to the top line forecast. First, in the state-by-state regression analysis that we conduct to help forecast states with little polling, we are no longer using Bloomberg’s Iowa results as an input for him. In the regressions, the model doesn’t use a candidate’s performance from states in which they weren’t on the ballot. Iowa technically didn’t have a ballot, however. (Indeed, Bloomberg won a very small number of votes there.) But since he never set foot in the state after launching his campaign (his last visit there was in December 2018) nor made any other effort to compete there, the regression will ignore his performance in Iowa.
The other small change is in how we calculate what we call the “fundamentals,” which are a combination of indicators based on a candidate’s fundraising, endorsements and level of experience in elected office. (See Step 3 in our methodology guide for more about this.) We find that candidates who are strong in these areas tend to see their polling improve on average, and candidates who are weak tend to see their polling get worse. However, their effects are quite subtle and plenty of candidates defy the trends (see also: President Trump). The model now randomizes how much weight it puts on these categories in each simulation, instead of always treating them as equally important. Likewise, it randomizes the amount of weight it puts on the three categories of fundraising we track (small-donor contributions, all individual contributions, and all contributions from any source including self-funding). Thus, in some simulations, the model treats Bloomberg’s enormous spending as a relatively important factor in the race, and in other simulations, it gives it very little weight. This reflects the fact that the evidence is quite mixed on how self-financed candidates do as compared with candidates who raise money from individual donors.
There’s certainly a lot to think about here, so I may do some longer stories about Bloomberg after New Hampshire. But we’ll leave it there for now. Suffice it to say that I think there’s sometimes a lack of rigor when analyzing Bloomberg’s chances. The more you try to run through specific, realistic scenarios for exactly how Bloomberg wins the race — which is what our model is doing in trying to simulate all the possibilities — the harder you’ll find it is for him to get a majority of pledged delegates. It isn’t necessarily so hard to conceive of him accumulating a lot of delegates and winning the race via a delegate plurality or at a contested convention, however, and the model is more agnostic about those possibilities.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-07--Who Will Win The New Hampshire Democratic Primary Debate?

It ’ s hard to believe after the weirdness of the Iowa caucuses this week — there still isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ there probably won ’ t be anytime soon — that it ’ s already time @ @ @ @ @ , but that ’ s how the primary season works .
On Tuesday , New @ @ @ @ @ for a Democratic nominee .
But first , candidates will face off in Manchester on @ @ @ @ @ So we ’ re once again partnering with Ipsos to track how the debate , @ @ @ @ @ affects likely primary voters ’ feelings about the candidates on the stage .
The FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos @ @ @ @ @ ’ s KnowledgePanel , interviews the same group of voters twice , once on either @ @ @ @ @ to capture both the “ before ” and “ after ” picture .

On Friday, seven candidates faced off in a Manchester, New Hampshire, debate hosted by ABC News. (Note: ABC News owns FiveThirtyEight.) This could be voters’ last look at the candidates before the state casts its votes for a Democratic nominee on Tuesday, and we once again partnered with Ipsos to track how the debate affected likely primary voters’ feelings about the candidates on the stage. The FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll, conducted using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, interviews 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, we plotted how favorably respondents rated the candidates before the debate vs. how debate-watchers rated candidates’ performances afterward — and three candidates stood out according to this metric: Sen. Bernie Sanders, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. In fact, Sanders received the highest marks of any candidate for his debate performance. But Buttigieg and Klobuchar weren’t too far off, and Klobuchar in particular did well, as her debate grade was high relative to her pre-debate favorability rating.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, got a middle-of-the-pack performance score, but because of her relatively high pre-debate favorability ratings, we expected a lot of voters to be predisposed to viewing her debate performance in a positive light, and her score doesn’t look as impressive in comparison. Former Vice President Joe Biden and businessman Andrew Yang, on the other hand, received somewhat subpar debate grades that looked even worse compared to their pre-debate favorability ratings.
The numbers behind the chart
Candidate Pre-debate favorability Debate performance Bernie Sanders 65.5% 3.3 Amy Klobuchar 57.6 3.1 Pete Buttigieg 63.7 3.1 Elizabeth Warren 64.0 3.0 Joe Biden 64.4 2.8 Tom Steyer 53.5 2.7 Andrew Yang 57.7 2.6
In terms of raw debate grades — respondents graded candidates on a four-point scale (higher scores are better) — Sanders got the highest average score, closely followed by Buttigeg and Klobuchar.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-09--Election Update: The Polling Picture In New Hampshire Is Actually Pretty Clear

Just how close is the New Hampshire Democratic primary ?
The five latest polls of the state seem to disagree , but our forecast has Sen. Bernie Sanders has a modest favorite to win .
He currently has a 2 in 3 ( 64 percent ) chance of winning the most votes , while former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg has a 3 in 10 ( 30 percent ) chance .
We actually have a pretty good idea of what ’ s happening in New Hampshire , too , as those five most recent polls actually agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s run through them : • The latest installment of the 7 News/Emerson College tracking poll in New Hampshire , conducted Feb. 7-8 , showed Sanders at 30 percent , Buttigieg at 20 percent , Sen. Amy Klobuchar at 13 percent , Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 12 percent and former Vice President Joe Biden at 11 percent .
• Meanwhile , the latest batch of results from the Suffolk University/Boston Globe/WBZ-TV tracking poll ( also conducted Feb. 7-8 ) shows Sanders at 24 percent and Buttigieg at 22 percent .
Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Klobuchar 9 percent .
• A Feb. 5-8 poll from CNN and the University of New Hampshire somewhat split the difference , putting Sanders at 28 percent and Buttigieg at 21 percent .
The other candidates greatly trailed : Biden had 12 percent , Warren had 9 percent and Klobuchar had 6 percent .
• According to a YouGov/CBS News poll from Feb. 5-8 , Sanders is at 29 percent support in the Granite State , Buttigieg is at 25 percent , Warren is at 17 percent , Biden is at 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Finally , NBC10 Boston/Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald are out with a poll ( conducted Feb. 5-8 by RKM Research and Communications ) that says Sanders has 23 percent support in New Hampshire , Buttigieg has 20 percent , Warren has 16 percent and Biden has 14 percent .
At first glance , these polls appear to show a 10-point Sanders lead , a 7-point Sanders lead , a 4-point Sanders lead , a 3-point Sanders lead and a 2-point Sanders lead .
How to reconcile this ?
This is where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with what these pollsters have said in the past .
And as it turns out , UNH , Emerson College and RKM have all tended to show higher numbers for Sanders than other pollsters have , and Suffolk University has historically tended to show lower numbers for Sanders than other pollsters have .
For example , based on the degree to which Emerson has overestimated Sanders in the past , our model treats his 30 percent in that poll as more like 25 percent once we adjust for house effects .
And his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually closer to 27 percent in our model .
So when you make these adjustments to the five polls above , a more consistent picture of the New Hampshire primary emerges : Sanders probably leads by about 5 points , although the RKM poll remains an outlier — it suggests that Buttigieg may actually be neck and neck with Sanders .
Of course , with still a few days left until the primary , 5 points wouldn ’ t be a safe lead for Sanders .
But it ’ s notable that Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which had been extremely evident in previous installments of the Emerson and Suffolk tracking polls , appears to have stalled out .
From the Feb. 6-7 edition to the Feb. 7-8 edition of the Emerson poll , Buttigieg ’ s vote share , after days of steady increases , went from 24 percent to 20 percent .
And in the Suffolk tracker , Buttigieg went from 11 percent in the Feb. 2-3 installment to a high of 25 percent in the Feb. 6-7 installment , only to fall back to 22 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drops are all within the margin of error , we can at least say that Buttigieg ’ s climb has not continued .
And Sanders ’ s vote shares have been quite consistent throughout the life of both tracking polls .
Another wild card is how far behind Warren is .
Her 9 percent performance in the CNN/UNH poll was eyebrow-raising — but she got nearly double that support in the YouGov/CBS News and RKM polls .
Here , house effects once again help explain some of the discrepancy , although not all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Warren all cycle , so our model thinks her 17 percent performance in that poll is more like 14 percent .
Same with RKM — our model adjusts her 16 percent in that poll down to 15 percent .
And UNH has slightly underestimated Warren in previous polls , so our model is treating her 9 percent in the UNH poll as closer to 10 percent .
By contrast , all the recent polls have had pretty disappointing numbers for Biden ( between 10 and 14 percent ) .
Factor it all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so slightly ahead of Biden in our New Hampshire polling average , 13.1 percent to 12.7 percent .
Needless to say , a second consecutive fourth-place finish ( after Iowa ) could create real doubts about the viability of Biden ’ s campaign .
Overall , Sanders remains the most likely candidate to reach a majority of pledged delegates , according to our national forecast .
He has a 2 in 5 ( 44 percent ) chance of doing so .
The next most likely candidate is Biden , with a 1 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , a scenario in which no one achieves a pledged-delegate majority is even more likely , at 1 in 4 ( 25 percent ) .
However , these numbers are in a kind of suspended animation , as we haven ’ t seen any national polls that have been conducted since Feb. 5 , a time when the results out of Iowa were still very much in limbo ( in fairness , they still are ) .
Our model will likely react quite strongly to the next few national polls , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Iowa and , by that point , maybe New Hampshire , have affected the national race .

Just how close is the New Hampshire Democratic primary? The five latest polls of the state seem to disagree, but our forecast has Sen. Bernie Sanders as a modest favorite to win. He currently has a 2 in 3 (64 percent) chance of winning the most votes, while former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has a 3 in 10 (30 percent) chance. We actually have a pretty good idea of what’s happening in New Hampshire, too, as those five most recent polls actually agree more than they initially appear to. Let’s run through them:
At first glance, these polls appear to show a 10-point Sanders lead, a 7-point Sanders lead, a 4-point Sanders lead, a 3-point Sanders lead and a 2-point Sanders lead. How to reconcile this? This is where it comes in very handy to be familiar with what these pollsters have said in the past. And as it turns out, UNH, Emerson College and RKM have all tended to show higher numbers for Sanders than other pollsters have, and Suffolk University has historically tended to show lower numbers for Sanders than other pollsters have.
For example, based on the degree to which Emerson has overestimated Sanders in the past, our model treats his 30 percent in that poll as more like 25 percent once we adjust for house effects. And his 24 percent in that Suffolk poll is actually closer to 27 percent in our model.
So when you make these adjustments to the five polls above, a more consistent picture of the New Hampshire primary emerges: Sanders probably leads by about 5 points, although the RKM poll remains an outlier — it suggests that Buttigieg may actually be neck and neck with Sanders.
Sanders has a pretty consistent New Hampshire lead Results of the five most recent polls of the New Hampshire Democratic primary for Sanders and Buttigieg, adjusted by house effects Raw Results Adjusted Results Pollster Sanders Buttigieg Margin Sanders Buttigieg Margin Emerson 30% 20% Sanders +10 25% 20% Sanders +4 Suffolk 24 22 Sanders +2 27 22 Sanders +5 UNH 28 21 Sanders +7 26 21 Sanders +5 YouGov 29 25 Sanders +4 29 24 Sanders +5 RKM 23 20 Sanders +3 21 23 Buttigieg +2 Source: Polls
Of course, with still a few days left until the primary, 5 points wouldn’t be a safe lead for Sanders. But it’s notable that Buttigieg’s upward movement in the polls, which had been extremely evident in previous installments of the Emerson and Suffolk tracking polls, appears to have stalled out. From the Feb. 6-7 edition to the Feb. 7-8 edition of the Emerson poll, Buttigieg’s vote share, after days of steady increases, went from 24 percent to 20 percent. And in the Suffolk tracker, Buttigieg went from 11 percent in the Feb. 2-3 installment to a high of 25 percent in the Feb. 6-7 installment, only to fall back to 22 percent in this latest poll. Although these drops are all within the margin of error, we can at least say that Buttigieg’s climb has not continued. And Sanders’s vote shares have been quite consistent throughout the life of both tracking polls.
Another wild card is how far behind Warren is. Her 9 percent performance in the CNN/UNH poll was eyebrow-raising — but she got nearly double that support in the YouGov/CBS News and RKM polls. Here, house effects once again help explain some of the discrepancy, although not all of it. YouGov has been high on Warren all cycle, so our model thinks her 17 percent performance in that poll is more like 14 percent. Same with RKM — our model adjusts her 16 percent in that poll down to 15 percent. And UNH has slightly underestimated Warren in previous polls, so our model is treating her 9 percent in the UNH poll as closer to 10 percent.
By contrast, all the recent polls have had pretty disappointing numbers for Biden (between 10 and 14 percent). Factor it all in, and Warren is now ever so slightly ahead of Biden in our New Hampshire polling average, 13.1 percent to 12.7 percent. Needless to say, a second consecutive fourth-place finish (after Iowa) could create real doubts about the viability of Biden’s campaign.
Overall, Sanders remains the most likely candidate to reach a majority of pledged delegates, according to our national forecast. He has a 2 in 5 (44 percent) chance of doing so. The next most likely candidate is Biden, with a 1 in 5 (20 percent) chance — however, a scenario in which no one achieves a pledged-delegate majority is even more likely, at 1 in 4 (25 percent).
However, these numbers are in a kind of suspended animation, as we haven’t seen any national polls that have been conducted since Feb. 5, a time when the results out of Iowa were still very much in limbo (in fairness, they still are). Our model will likely react quite strongly to the next few national polls, as we get a much clearer standing of how Iowa and, by that point, maybe New Hampshire, have affected the national race.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-08--Nevada Democrats Canceled Their Caucus App. But That Poses Its Own Problems.

A week ago , Nevada Democrats were planning to use an app for their caucuses on Feb. 22 .
The chaos in Iowa has put an end to that .
The Nevada Democratic Party confirmed to FiveThirtyEight that it has “ eliminated the option of using an app at any step in the caucus process , ” Molly Forgey , the party ’ s communications director , said Friday .
The app that was going to be used was reportedly developed by Shadow Inc. , the company that developed the infamous app for the Iowa Democratic Party .
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the woods .
Scrapping the app could also lead to some complications thanks to a new addition to the Silver State ’ s caucuses this year : early voting .
The Nevada Democratic Party hasn ’ t yet revealed what it plans to do instead — “ At this time , we ’ re considering all of our options , ” Forgey said — though using paper and phoning in results seems like an obvious solution .
But the party ’ s plan to introduce early voting this year — slated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a functioning app , and it ’ s unclear how those votes will now be incorporated during the in-person caucuses .
In a caucus system , voters gather to demonstrate support for their first choice candidate .
But if that candidate doesn ’ t clear a vote threshold in the first round , those supporters either have to join together , find a new candidate to support , or decide not to support anyone in a process called reallocation .
Under Nevada ’ s original plan , early voters would have their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That data would then be sent to their local precinct chair for caucus day , where their votes would be automatically tallied and , as needed , reallocated .
Now , without an app doing all the tabulations , it ’ s unclear how those early votes will be included .
It ’ s possible , of course , to conduct a caucus using a more analog system , and election experts said it ’ s also possible to incorporate the first round of early voting using paper .
The way this would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is by having the early voters fill out paper ballots with a rank-ordered list of up to five candidates , which would then be given to the volunteer running the caucus and incorporated into the process as if the people who had submitted the cards were actually there .
“ I think if they allocate resources properly they can do it , ” said Marian Schneider , president of Verified Voting , a nonpartisan group that advocates for fair elections .
“ I ’ m not suggesting it ’ s not a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they ’ re not going to use a mobile app .
They ’ ve got to do something , right ?
” But in order to integrate the early votes effectively , the party will have to start training its volunteers now .
Ruben Murillo Jr. , a precinct chair in Nevada , said all the early training focused exclusively on the app , and no backup plan was ever detailed .
“ They never did address what to do if the app wasn ’ t working , how you would incorporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding that he plans to seek further training now that the app has been scrapped .
If the number of people who vote early is small , folding the early votes into the process on caucus day should be fairly easy for the volunteers in charge of the caucuses to handle , according to Barry Burden , the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison .
But he said the addition of paper ballots would almost certainly slow down the process — and if the people responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they could inadvertently reproduce the small but widespread errors that have already been documented in Iowa .
“ There will be error at the caucus sites in counting the people who are present and counting these early ballots that come in , ” Burden said .
“ And there will be errors in the transmission , where people hear incorrectly , where someone has said or written something down incorrectly , transposed digits , all kinds of things that happen when humans are involved.
” And introducing a new method for tallying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more room for slip-ups .
Supporters of the various candidates are also likely to have their ears pricked for problems or inconsistencies , given the closeness of the race .
Douglas Jones , a computer science professor at the University of Iowa , expressed concerns about the Iowa app back in January .
He now says that even if Nevada does have a strong backup system in place , it ’ s worrying if the caucus volunteers haven ’ t been trained in how to carry it out — not to mention that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced what the backup plan actually is .
“ It doesn ’ t increase my confidence to hear them saying , ‘ We ’ re still figuring out what we ’ re going to do , ’ ” he said .

A week ago, Nevada Democrats were planning to use an app for their caucuses on Feb. 22. The chaos in Iowa has put an end to that.
The Nevada Democratic Party confirmed to FiveThirtyEight that it has “eliminated the option of using an app at any step in the caucus process,” Molly Forgey, the party’s communications director, said Friday. The app that was going to be used was reportedly developed by Shadow Inc., the company that developed the infamous app for the Iowa Democratic Party.
But that doesn’t mean Nevada is out of the woods. Scrapping the app could also lead to some complications thanks to a new addition to the Silver State’s caucuses this year: early voting.
The Nevada Democratic Party hasn’t yet revealed what it plans to do instead — “At this time, we’re considering all of our options,” Forgey said — though using paper and phoning in results seems like an obvious solution. But the party’s plan to introduce early voting this year — slated to start on Feb. 15 — relied heavily on a functioning app, and it’s unclear how those votes will now be incorporated during the in-person caucuses.
In a caucus system, voters gather to demonstrate support for their first choice candidate. But if that candidate doesn’t clear a vote threshold in the first round, those supporters either have to join together, find a new candidate to support, or decide not to support anyone in a process called reallocation.
Under Nevada’s original plan, early voters would have their ranked choices recorded in the app. That data would then be sent to their local precinct chair for caucus day, where their votes would be automatically tallied and, as needed, reallocated. Now, without an app doing all the tabulations, it’s unclear how those early votes will be included.
It’s possible, of course, to conduct a caucus using a more analog system, and election experts said it’s also possible to incorporate the first round of early voting using paper. The way this would likely happen, experts told us, is by having the early voters fill out paper ballots with a rank-ordered list of up to five candidates, which would then be given to the volunteer running the caucus and incorporated into the process as if the people who had submitted the cards were actually there.
“I think if they allocate resources properly they can do it,” said Marian Schneider, president of Verified Voting, a nonpartisan group that advocates for fair elections. “I’m not suggesting it’s not a lot of work, but they’ve said they’re not going to use a mobile app. They’ve got to do something, right?”
But in order to integrate the early votes effectively, the party will have to start training its volunteers now. Ruben Murillo Jr., a precinct chair in Nevada, said all the early training focused exclusively on the app, and no backup plan was ever detailed.
“They never did address what to do if the app wasn’t working, how you would incorporate those early votes,” Murillo said, adding that he plans to seek further training now that the app has been scrapped.
If the number of people who vote early is small, folding the early votes into the process on caucus day should be fairly easy for the volunteers in charge of the caucuses to handle, according to Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
But he said the addition of paper ballots would almost certainly slow down the process — and if the people responsible for the caucus aren’t well trained, they could inadvertently reproduce the small but widespread errors that have already been documented in Iowa.
“There will be error at the caucus sites in counting the people who are present and counting these early ballots that come in,” Burden said. “And there will be errors in the transmission, where people hear incorrectly, where someone has said or written something down incorrectly, transposed digits, all kinds of things that happen when humans are involved.”
And introducing a new method for tallying votes at the last minute just creates more room for slip-ups. Supporters of the various candidates are also likely to have their ears pricked for problems or inconsistencies, given the closeness of the race.
Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa, expressed concerns about the Iowa app back in January. He now says that even if Nevada does have a strong backup system in place, it’s worrying if the caucus volunteers haven’t been trained in how to carry it out — not to mention that the state party hasn’t yet announced what the backup plan actually is.
“It doesn’t increase my confidence to hear them saying, ‘We’re still figuring out what we’re going to do,’” he said.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-08--What Went Down In The New Hampshire Democratic Debate

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