fivethirtyeight--2020-02-25--Why The Establishment Can’t Bank On ‘Moderate’ Voters Consolidating Against Sanders

At this point in the Democratic primary , none of the moderate alternatives to Sen. Bernie Sanders has risen above the rest .
Sanders has emerged from the first three voting contests as the race ’ s progressive front-runner , and voters who think Sanders is too liberal are still left with several choices .
It might seem like “ moderate ” voters could consolidate behind one alternative to thwart Sanders ’ s path to the nomination .
That ’ s possible , but one thing it assumes is that voters understand politics in ideological terms .
And many don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that most of the public does not fit into neat ideological boxes .
Rather , people often hold conflicting opinions on policy issues .
Fundamentally , many don ’ t think of politics as a battle between the left and the right .
For instance , a voter could be pro-choice on the question of abortion and in favor of Obamacare , while also against increased gun control and raising taxes .
Another voter might identify as a moderate and independent , even if they agree with Democrats on most policy issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of these two hypothetical voters could vote for President Trump simply because the economy is doing well , regardless of their other political beliefs .
[ Our Latest Forecast : Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary ? ]
There is some evidence that Americans are becoming more ideologically divided , but there is still a pretty big gap between rank-and-file voters and elected officials and party leaders .
Where voters do match the views of their party leaders , it is often because some people are changing their views on issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their party leaders .
We can ’ t use ideology , by itself , to perfectly predict which candidates voters will rally behind as the field winnows .
Which is why even if one moderate alternative were to emerge to Sanders , it doesn ’ t necessarily mean that candidate would benefit — Sanders could gain , too .
Ideology-driven politics is slowly on the rise Until recently , ideology played a limited role in American public opinion because the parties themselves were not that distinguishable on matters of ideology .
In 1956 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ positions on an issue and had a position on it themselves only 31 percent of the time .
But by 2012 that number had risen to 77 percent .
Likewise , the percentage of Americans that said they saw important differences between the parties rose , from 50 percent in 1952 to 83 percent in 2016 .
So Americans are becoming more ideologically aware and as such , recognize differences between the two parties .
As a result , more Americans know where to place themselves on a left to right scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluating how ideologically sophisticated voters are is to look at how Americans discuss the parties and candidates when asked about what they like and dislike about each side .
Historically this has shown few Americans use ideology or policy positions in describing their views .
But political scientist Martin Wattenberg recently found that the percentage of voters who explain their choices with ideological concepts and labels — such as “ liberal ” and “ conservative ” — is on the rise , up from 25 percent in 1972 to 35 percent in 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the number of voters who mentioned a few specific policy issues , such as being pro-choice or favoring tax increases as a way to justify whom they support , up from 3 percent in 1972 to 13 percent in 2012 .
Combined , nearly half of American voters now give reasons for their voting choices based on ideology or policy .
Wattenberg told me that voters used to voice generically positive views of their party , rather than talk about its positions or ideology .
You might hear “ the president brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a Democrat and so am I , ” but you ’ d rarely ever hear the terms liberal or conservative or a list of the parties ’ platform positions as a way to describe their views of their party .
As for what ’ s driving more Americans to think more like ideologues , Wattenberg points partially to increased education levels .
The most educated voters have long been the most likely to think about politics in ideological terms and hold consistent policy opinions , and now there are more of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans over the age of 24 had completed four years of college or more ; by 2018 , it was 35 percent .
But not all scholars are convinced that Americans are becoming more ideologically sophisticated .
Political scientists Donald Kinder and Nathan Kalmoe found that most people still have opinions that do not track as consistently conservative or liberal and many still call themselves moderates or independents .
For example , while most Democrats agree with mainly liberal policy positions , many Democrats overall still identify as moderates ( even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans might agree on ideological labels more than Democrats , but that doesn ’ t mean they hold more consistent policy positions .
In fact , one other possible explanation for what we ’ re seeing in the rise of ideology-driven politics is not that Americans are actually becoming more ideological ; instead , they ’ re just more likely to repeat what political candidates and officials say .
For example , Republican voters might now use the word “ socialist ” more often as an insult , but that does not mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connotation or contemporary policy positions .
Ideology could matter in 2020 , but we could be thinking about it wrong , too On the one hand , voters ’ increased ideological sophistication could enable the emergence of a more left-wing Democratic nominee in 2020 , like Sanders .
There is some evidence that his ideological language affected his voters in 2016 , too .
In Wattenberg ’ s data , Sanders ’ s supporters used language like “ progressive ” and “ socialist ” to describe their political views a lot more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this kind of appeal may resonate with only a minority of the Democratic Party .
After all , Sanders and Clinton voters did not differ much on their policy views , even though they were divided on whether they conceptualized politics in ideological terms .
But with many voters caring more about picking a candidate who can defeat Trump than a candidate who agrees with them on the issues , it ’ s hard to know whether a candidate ’ s ideological appeal will help them wield a competitive edge in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reason Sanders can ’ t win the primary with a mix of ideological and not-so-ideological voters .
Because even though Sanders does very well among very liberal voters , that doesn ’ t mean that his appeal is limited to them .
Many voters see Sanders as electable , and he polls pretty well in head-to-head polls against Trump .
And others might like Sanders ’ s consistency and authenticity , even if they don ’ t always agree with him .
Take Sanders ’ s message of fighting against corruption and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular idea , and one that Democratic nominees have run on previously .
However , this doesn ’ t apply just to Sanders .
The more moderate candidates will also need to widen their appeal beyond ideology .
The race has now shifted to states with more diverse electorates , and many of the Democrats who do not think about their candidate preferences in ideological terms are nonwhite .
Just as Sanders needs to recruit more than his ideological revolutionaries to build a majority , the more moderate candidates can not succeed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left .
They , too , will need to make non-ideological appeals .
Of course , once the general-election race begins , running an ideological campaign could be a risk because it could leave out less ideological swing voters , but Democrats , including Sanders , have an effective alternative .
Traditionally , Democrats have run campaigns that emphasize the groups that their party intends to help , including women , minorities , the poor , and especially the middle class .
Whoever the nominee , “ Who ’ s on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most popular message , appealing to both ideological and not-so-ideological voters .
Confidence Interval : “ I Think The Biden Campaign Is Doing Just Fine ”

At this point in the Democratic primary, none of the moderate alternatives to Sen. Bernie Sanders has risen above the rest. Sanders has emerged from the first three voting contests as the race’s progressive front-runner, and voters who think Sanders is too liberal are still left with several choices.
It might seem like “moderate” voters could consolidate behind one alternative to thwart Sanders’s path to the nomination. That’s possible, but one thing it assumes is that voters understand politics in ideological terms. And many don’t — political scientists have long found that most of the public does not fit into neat ideological boxes.
Rather, people often hold conflicting opinions on policy issues. Fundamentally, many don’t think of politics as a battle between the left and the right. For instance, a voter could be pro-choice on the question of abortion and in favor of Obamacare, while also against increased gun control and raising taxes. Another voter might identify as a moderate and independent, even if they agree with Democrats on most policy issues. What’s more, either one of these two hypothetical voters could vote for President Trump simply because the economy is doing well, regardless of their other political beliefs.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
There is some evidence that Americans are becoming more ideologically divided, but there is still a pretty big gap between rank-and-file voters and elected officials and party leaders. Where voters do match the views of their party leaders, it is often because some people are changing their views on issues like race and gender to better match their party leaders.
We can’t use ideology, by itself, to perfectly predict which candidates voters will rally behind as the field winnows. Which is why even if one moderate alternative were to emerge to Sanders, it doesn’t necessarily mean that candidate would benefit — Sanders could gain, too.
Ideology-driven politics is slowly on the rise
Until recently, ideology played a limited role in American public opinion because the parties themselves were not that distinguishable on matters of ideology. In 1956, Americans could identify the party nominees’ positions on an issue and had a position on it themselves only 31 percent of the time. But by 2012 that number had risen to 77 percent. Likewise, the percentage of Americans that said they saw important differences between the parties rose, from 50 percent in 1952 to 83 percent in 2016.
So Americans are becoming more ideologically aware and as such, recognize differences between the two parties. As a result, more Americans know where to place themselves on a left to right scale when asked.
One long-running method for evaluating how ideologically sophisticated voters are is to look at how Americans discuss the parties and candidates when asked about what they like and dislike about each side. Historically this has shown few Americans use ideology or policy positions in describing their views. But political scientist Martin Wattenberg recently found that the percentage of voters who explain their choices with ideological concepts and labels — such as “liberal” and “conservative” — is on the rise, up from 25 percent in 1972 to 35 percent in 2012. He found an even larger jump in the number of voters who mentioned a few specific policy issues, such as being pro-choice or favoring tax increases as a way to justify whom they support, up from 3 percent in 1972 to 13 percent in 2012. Combined, nearly half of American voters now give reasons for their voting choices based on ideology or policy.
Wattenberg told me that voters used to voice generically positive views of their party, rather than talk about its positions or ideology. You might hear “the president brought us jobs” or “he’s a Democrat and so am I,” but you’d rarely ever hear the terms liberal or conservative or a list of the parties’ platform positions as a way to describe their views of their party.
As for what’s driving more Americans to think more like ideologues, Wattenberg points partially to increased education levels. The most educated voters have long been the most likely to think about politics in ideological terms and hold consistent policy opinions, and now there are more of them — in 1980, only 17 percent of Americans over the age of 24 had completed four years of college or more; by 2018, it was 35 percent.
But not all scholars are convinced that Americans are becoming more ideologically sophisticated. Political scientists Donald Kinder and Nathan Kalmoe found that most people still have opinions that do not track as consistently conservative or liberal and many still call themselves moderates or independents. For example, while most Democrats agree with mainly liberal policy positions, many Democrats overall still identify as moderates (even a few as conservatives). Meanwhile, Republicans might agree on ideological labels more than Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they hold more consistent policy positions.
In fact, one other possible explanation for what we’re seeing in the rise of ideology-driven politics is not that Americans are actually becoming more ideological; instead, they’re just more likely to repeat what political candidates and officials say. For example, Republican voters might now use the word “socialist” more often as an insult, but that does not mean they associate the term with its historical connotation or contemporary policy positions.
Ideology could matter in 2020, but we could be thinking about it wrong, too
On the one hand, voters’ increased ideological sophistication could enable the emergence of a more left-wing Democratic nominee in 2020, like Sanders. There is some evidence that his ideological language affected his voters in 2016, too. In Wattenberg’s data, Sanders’s supporters used language like “progressive” and “socialist” to describe their political views a lot more than other Democrats.
On the other hand, this kind of appeal may resonate with only a minority of the Democratic Party. After all, Sanders and Clinton voters did not differ much on their policy views, even though they were divided on whether they conceptualized politics in ideological terms. But with many voters caring more about picking a candidate who can defeat Trump than a candidate who agrees with them on the issues, it’s hard to know whether a candidate’s ideological appeal will help them wield a competitive edge in 2020.
Then again, there’s no reason Sanders can’t win the primary with a mix of ideological and not-so-ideological voters. Because even though Sanders does very well among very liberal voters, that doesn’t mean that his appeal is limited to them. Many voters see Sanders as electable, and he polls pretty well in head-to-head polls against Trump. And others might like Sanders’s consistency and authenticity, even if they don’t always agree with him. Take Sanders’s message of fighting against corruption and socioeconomic inequality. It is a pretty popular idea, and one that Democratic nominees have run on previously.
However, this doesn’t apply just to Sanders. The more moderate candidates will also need to widen their appeal beyond ideology. The race has now shifted to states with more diverse electorates, and many of the Democrats who do not think about their candidate preferences in ideological terms are nonwhite. Just as Sanders needs to recruit more than his ideological revolutionaries to build a majority, the more moderate candidates cannot succeed by merely saying Sanders is too far to the left. They, too, will need to make non-ideological appeals.
Of course, once the general-election race begins, running an ideological campaign could be a risk because it could leave out less ideological swing voters, but Democrats, including Sanders, have an effective alternative. Traditionally, Democrats have run campaigns that emphasize the groups that their party intends to help, including women, minorities, the poor, and especially the middle class. Whoever the nominee, “Who’s on your side?” may remain Democrats’ most popular message, appealing to both ideological and not-so-ideological voters.
Confidence Interval: The Biden campaign is doing just fine


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-25--Confidence Interval: “I Think The Biden Campaign Is Doing Just Fine”

We ’ re starting a new video series , Confidence Interval , that presents viewers with a “ take ” @ @ @ @ @ ve been hearing floating around regarding the 2020 presidential election .
Then we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ that take could be accurate .
Then , we ’ ll tell you how much @ @ @ @ @ .
Is this an idea we would die on a hill for ?
Or is @ @ @ @ @ t believe in at all ?
First up : Micah Cohen , FiveThirtyEight ’ s @ @ @ @ @ why he believes the Biden campaign is doing just fine .
Watch the video above @ @ @ @ @ thoughts on why the Biden campaign is not in as much trouble as the media @ @ @ @ @ And then find out if Micah believes what he ’ s saying in the first @ @

Confidence Interval: “I Think The Biden Campaign Is Doing Just Fine”
We’re starting a new video series, Confidence Interval, that presents viewers with a “take” or a hypothesis we’ve been hearing floating around regarding the 2020 presidential election. Then we’ll provide some analysis supporting why that take could be accurate.
Then, we’ll tell you how much we believe in this take. Is this an idea we would die on a hill for? Or is it something we don’t believe in at all?
First up: Micah Cohen, FiveThirtyEight’s managing editor, telling us why he believes the Biden campaign is doing just fine.
Watch the video above to hear Micah give his thoughts on why the Biden campaign is not in as much trouble as the media might have you believe. And then find out if Micah believes what he’s saying in the first place.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-25--Election Update: Biden Holds A Narrow Lead Over Sanders In South Carolina (We Think)

With Nevada now in our rearview mirror , the Democratic nomination race quickly moves to South Carolina and its “ First in the South ” primary .
For Democrats , the South Carolina contest is principally about the preferences of black voters , who will make up a majority of the primary electorate there .
This makes the state especially important for former Vice President Joe Biden , who is counting on strong black support to shore up his position in the nomination race , though his standing among black voters has deteriorated since Iowa voted .
We ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls in the past few days , and Biden now leads our South Carolina polling average with about 30 percent , with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in second at 23 percent and billionaire activist Tom Steyer — who has been spending millions on ads in South Carolina — at 13 percent .
But we only have one new survey of the state conducted entirely after the Nevada caucuses , so South Carolina polling does not fully take into account Sanders ’ s dominant win this past Saturday .
( We don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week ’ s debate . )
So let ’ s run through the South Carolina surveys released over the past week to get a fresh look at where things stand five days out from Saturday ’ s contest ( starting with the most recent ones ) : • On Monday , Public Policy Polling provided us with our first post-Nevada survey in South Carolina , and it painted a rosy picture for Biden .
Biden led the field with 36 percent , Sanders was in a distant second at 21 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8 percent .
After we account for house effects — the tendency for pollsters to consistently have more favorable or unfavorable numbers for some candidates — this survey entered our model as one that gives Biden 34 percent and Sanders 23 percent .
• Late on Monday , NBC News/Marist College also released a new poll in South Carolina , albeit one conducted just before Nevada voted .
This poll showed a much tighter race , with Biden leading at 27 percent among likely voters , Sanders in second with 23 percent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • CBS News/YouGov released a poll on Sunday conducted up through Saturday — the same day as the Nevada caucuses — and also found Biden in the lead with 28 percent .
Sanders came in second at 23 percent , Steyer had 18 percent , Sen. Elizabeth Warren had 12 percent and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg had 10 percent .
CBS News/YouGov has typically shown favorable numbers for Warren , so the model treated this as about a 9 percent result for her .
• Winthrop University , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Committee has accepted for debate qualifying polls , released a new survey last Thursday that showed Biden with a narrow edge 5-point edge over Sanders , 24 percent to 19 percent .
The only other candidate in double figures was Steyer with 15 percent .
After accounting for house effects and the national trend , this poll went into our model as a tie between Biden and Sanders at 23 percent .
But one difficulty with this poll is that it was conducted over an 11-day period , from just before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feb. 19 .
• UMass-Lowell dropped its first South Carolina poll of the cycle last Wednesday , and also found Biden with a narrow 2-point lead , 23 percent to 21 percent , over Sanders .
Steyer came in at 13 percent while both Buttigieg and Warren attracted 11 percent support .
But the combination of the pollster ’ s house effects and the national trend led our model to view this as a 2-point lead for Sanders instead of Biden .
• Lastly , Change Research released a South Carolina poll on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Welcome Party and conducted right after New Hampshire voted on Feb. 11 .
Biden and Sanders tied for first with 23 percent while Steyer was just behind with 20 percent and Buttigieg received 15 percent .
Once we adjusted for house effects and the national trend , this survey went into our model with Biden leading by 4 points over Sanders .
While Steyer remained about the same , we also discounted Buttigieg ’ s support quite a bit down to 10 percent .
For the most part , the consensus among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow lead in South Carolina over Sanders , with Steyer somewhere not that far behind .
And in our latest South Carolina forecast , Biden has a 2 in 3 chance ( 64 percent ) of winning the most votes .
Sanders has a 1 in 3 chance ( 34 percent ) , and Steyer has a 1 in 50 chance ( 2 percent ) .
[ Our Latest Forecast : Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary ? ]
While Biden might hope that the Public Policy Polling survey is a sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period , the fact that Steyer ’ s overall support is so low in that poll , and Biden ’ s backing is so high among black voters — 50 percent — makes me a bit skeptical .
Again , other polls — nationally and in other states — have shown Biden losing quite a bit of ground among black voters since Iowa .
But we ’ ll see what other pollsters have to say over the next few days — we ’ re at an incredibly fluid moment in the race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( In fact , there ’ s a debate Tuesday night in South Carolina ! )
There ’ s still lots of time for things to change .
Outside of these South Carolina polls , we also have a couple of new national surveys to mention here as well , including one conducted right after Nevada : • The post-Nevada poll came from Morning Consult , which released a one-day survey conducted on Sunday .
The poll found Sanders leading with 32 percent , former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Buttigieg and Warren at 11 percent .
Compared to the pollster ’ s survey from right after the Las Vegas debate , no candidate had a shift outside the margin of error of plus-or-minus 2 percentage points .
Morning Consult has pretty sizable house effects for some candidates , decreasing all three of the leading candidates ’ totals to some extent , so the model considered it a 28 percent poll for Sanders , 17 percent for Bloomberg and 15 percent for Biden .
• Along with their South Carolina survey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national numbers of the cycle .
The poll found Sanders in first with 28 percent and Warren in second with 19 percent , then Biden at 17 percent , Bloomberg at 13 percent and Buttigieg at 10 percent .
However , Warren ’ s numbers once again shrunk after accounting for house effects down to 16 percent .
On the other hand , Bloomberg ’ s final number increased to 15 percent .
Speaking of the national picture : We definitely need more post-Nevada data , nationally and in South Carolina , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show Sanders is the unequivocal front-runner for the Democratic nomination .
He has nearly a 1 in 2 chance ( 46 percent ) of winning a majority of pledged delegates by the time voting wraps up on June 6 in the Virgin Islands .
The next-most likely outcome is that no single candidate wins a pledged delegate majority , which has about a 2 in 5 chance ( 41 percent ) of happening .
Tellingly , no other candidate has better than a 1 in 10 shot of winning a majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 1 in 12 chance ( 9 percent ) , while Bloomberg has a 1 in 30 shot ( 3 percent ) .
Both Warren and Buttigieg now have less than a 1 percent chance .
Now we ’ ll just have to see if Biden can turn things around with a win in South Carolina and make the nomination race more competitive or if Sanders can get a potentially decisive win in the Palmetto State .
Confidence Interval : “ I Think The Biden Campaign Is Doing Just Fine ”

With Nevada now in our rearview mirror, the Democratic nomination race quickly moves to South Carolina and its “First in the South” primary. For Democrats, the South Carolina contest is principally about the preferences of black voters, who will make up a majority of the primary electorate there. This makes the state especially important for former Vice President Joe Biden, who is counting on strong black support to shore up his position in the nomination race, though his standing among black voters has deteriorated since Iowa voted.
We’ve gotten a handful of new South Carolina polls in the past few days, and Biden now leads our South Carolina polling average with about 30 percent, with Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in second at 23 percent and billionaire activist Tom Steyer — who has been spending millions on ads in South Carolina — at 13 percent. But we only have one new survey of the state conducted entirely after the Nevada caucuses, so South Carolina polling does not fully take into account Sanders’s dominant win this past Saturday. (We don’t even have much polling conducted entirely after last week’s debate.)
So let’s run through the South Carolina surveys released over the past week to get a fresh look at where things stand five days out from Saturday’s contest (starting with the most recent ones):
On Monday, Public Policy Polling provided us with our first post-Nevada survey in South Carolina, and it painted a rosy picture for Biden. Biden led the field with 36 percent, Sanders was in a distant second at 21 percent, and no other candidate had more than 8 percent. After we account for house effects — the tendency for pollsters to consistently have more favorable or unfavorable numbers for some candidates — this survey entered our model as one that gives Biden 34 percent and Sanders 23 percent.
Late on Monday, NBC News/Marist College also released a new poll in South Carolina, albeit one conducted just before Nevada voted. This poll showed a much tighter race, with Biden leading at 27 percent among likely voters, Sanders in second with 23 percent and Steyer in third with 15 percent.
CBS News/YouGov released a poll on Sunday conducted up through Saturday — the same day as the Nevada caucuses — and also found Biden in the lead with 28 percent. Sanders came in second at 23 percent, Steyer had 18 percent, Sen. Elizabeth Warren had 12 percent and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg had 10 percent. CBS News/YouGov has typically shown favorable numbers for Warren, so the model treated this as about a 9 percent result for her.
Winthrop University, the only South Carolina-based pollster the Democratic National Committee has accepted for debate qualifying polls, released a new survey last Thursday that showed Biden with a narrow edge 5-point edge over Sanders, 24 percent to 19 percent. The only other candidate in double figures was Steyer with 15 percent. After accounting for house effects and the national trend, this poll went into our model as a tie between Biden and Sanders at 23 percent. But one difficulty with this poll is that it was conducted over an 11-day period, from just before the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9 to Feb. 19.
UMass-Lowell dropped its first South Carolina poll of the cycle last Wednesday, and also found Biden with a narrow 2-point lead, 23 percent to 21 percent, over Sanders. Steyer came in at 13 percent while both Buttigieg and Warren attracted 11 percent support. But the combination of the pollster’s house effects and the national trend led our model to view this as a 2-point lead for Sanders instead of Biden.
of Biden. Lastly, Change Research released a South Carolina poll on Wednesday, too, in partnership with The Welcome Party and conducted right after New Hampshire voted on Feb. 11. Biden and Sanders tied for first with 23 percent while Steyer was just behind with 20 percent and Buttigieg received 15 percent. Once we adjusted for house effects and the national trend, this survey went into our model with Biden leading by 4 points over Sanders. While Steyer remained about the same, we also discounted Buttigieg’s support quite a bit down to 10 percent.
For the most part, the consensus among these polls is that Biden holds a narrow lead in South Carolina over Sanders, with Steyer somewhere not that far behind. And in our latest South Carolina forecast, Biden has a 2 in 3 chance (64 percent) of winning the most votes. Sanders has a 1 in 3 chance (34 percent), and Steyer has a 1 in 50 chance (2 percent).
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
While Biden might hope that the Public Policy Polling survey is a sign of things to come in the post-Nevada period, the fact that Steyer’s overall support is so low in that poll, and Biden’s backing is so high among black voters — 50 percent — makes me a bit skeptical. Again, other polls — nationally and in other states — have shown Biden losing quite a bit of ground among black voters since Iowa. But we’ll see what other pollsters have to say over the next few days — we’re at an incredibly fluid moment in the race, with debates or primaries/caucuses every few days. (In fact, there’s a debate Tuesday night in South Carolina!) There’s still lots of time for things to change.
Outside of these South Carolina polls, we also have a couple of new national surveys to mention here as well, including one conducted right after Nevada:
The post-Nevada poll came from Morning Consult, which released a one-day survey conducted on Sunday. The poll found Sanders leading with 32 percent, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 19 percent, Biden at 18 percent and both Buttigieg and Warren at 11 percent. Compared to the pollster’s survey from right after the Las Vegas debate, no candidate had a shift outside the margin of error of plus-or-minus 2 percentage points. Morning Consult has pretty sizable house effects for some candidates, decreasing all three of the leading candidates’ totals to some extent, so the model considered it a 28 percent poll for Sanders, 17 percent for Bloomberg and 15 percent for Biden.
Along with their South Carolina survey, CBS News/YouGov also put out their first national numbers of the cycle. The poll found Sanders in first with 28 percent and Warren in second with 19 percent, then Biden at 17 percent, Bloomberg at 13 percent and Buttigieg at 10 percent. However, Warren’s numbers once again shrunk after accounting for house effects down to 16 percent. On the other hand, Bloomberg’s final number increased to 15 percent.
Speaking of the national picture: We definitely need more post-Nevada data, nationally and in South Carolina, but FiveThirtyEight’s latest overall forecast continues to show Sanders is the unequivocal front-runner for the Democratic nomination. He has nearly a 1 in 2 chance (46 percent) of winning a majority of pledged delegates by the time voting wraps up on June 6 in the Virgin Islands. The next-most likely outcome is that no single candidate wins a pledged delegate majority, which has about a 2 in 5 chance (41 percent) of happening. Tellingly, no other candidate has better than a 1 in 10 shot of winning a majority of pledged delegates. Biden is closest with a 1 in 12 chance (9 percent), while Bloomberg has a 1 in 30 shot (3 percent). Both Warren and Buttigieg now have less than a 1 percent chance.
Now we’ll just have to see if Biden can turn things around with a win in South Carolina and make the nomination race more competitive or if Sanders can get a potentially decisive win in the Palmetto State.
Confidence Interval: The Biden campaign is doing just fine


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-25--Will The South Carolina Debate Be All About Stopping Sanders?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : This is usually the point in the primary season where the field has started to winnow — candidates who ’ ve had poor performances in Iowa or New Hampshire drop out .
But no such luck this year .
The debate stage tomorrow is actually getting larger , not smaller , if you can believe it .
But even though the field remains crowded , there ’ s an increasingly clear front-runner : Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he won pretty handily — he won the final , realigned popular vote by 21.6 points , so Sanders ’ s odds are pretty good in our model : He ’ s got a 45 percent shot of winning the majority of pledged delegates .
[ Our Latest Forecast : Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary ? ]
However , South Carolina , which is where the primary moves next , could be a bit of a curveball for Sanders , as it ’ s Biden — not Sanders — who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really close , though , so it ’ s probably best thought of as a tie .
But it also means the stakes at tomorrow ’ s debate are pretty high .
Biden is banking on a strong performance and winning South Carolina , while other candidates like former Mayor of South Bend , Indiana , Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar need to demonstrate that they ’ re can build diverse coalitions , something they struggled to do in Nevada .
So what are you looking for going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack Sanders as the front-runner ?
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : Buttigieg ’ s post-Nevada speech was basically a series of attacks on Sanders .
Biden ’ s had some elements of that , too .
Former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg is coming after Sanders .
Tom Steyer , too .
Yes , I think this debate will have several people going hard after Sanders , looking really toward Super Tuesday .
natesilver ( Nate Silver , editor in chief ) : I think this whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ STOP BERNIE SANDERS ?
!
?
!
?
!
?
!
?
!
?
!
?
week and that theme is likely to feature heavily at the debate .
The thing about Sanders is that he ’ s a pretty steady ( if not always spectacular ) debater and not the easiest guy to knock off-kilter .
And if it seems like everyone is attacking him , well , that plays into his message in certain ways .
sarahf : Yeah , and to Perry ’ s point , Buttigieg really didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told supporters that Sanders is waging an “ inflexible ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats.
” But I ’ m struggling to wrap my head around how accurate that claim is .
Buttigieg came in third in Nevada — significantly behind Sanders .
So is Sanders ’ s “ revolution ” really leaving out most Democrats ?
Seems like a fair share of Democrats have been happy to vote for Sanders so far !
Buttigieg and the other moderates need to come up with something better , no ?
geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s possible they need something better , but things might look different if a couple of the more moderate candidates got out of the way .
Sanders might still lead the field — recent national polls suggest he would — but if a few folks dropped out , it would make it a lot clearer who the alternative to Sanders is .
At the moment , there isn ’ t really one obvious answer to that question .
Yet , there ’ s plenty of evidence that points to the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominee .
After all , Sanders only won between 25 to 34 percent of the initial popular vote in Iowa and Nevada ( so before realignment ) , and just 26 percent overall in New Hampshire — not exactly an overwhelming share of support .
natesilver : I don ’ t know … a lot of Democrats do want a more moderate nominee , at least in the abstract .
And many associate moderation with electability .
Calling Bernie out as being uncompromising is maybe not a bad line of attack either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
perry : Ten days of sustained attacks on Sanders could dip his numbers .
It would help if the other candidates maybe moved away from Medicare for All , which seems likely it ’ s decently popular among Democratic primary voters , and found ways to attack him on different issues , though .
natesilver : I do think there ’ s something about sustained vs. sporadic attacks that matters here .
Like , few things in politics are truly new .
Bernie has been around for a while .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was rising in the polls — Harris !
Warren !
Buttigieg !
Bloomberg !
— that was always more the center of attention , but now that ’ s changed with Sanders being truly at the center .
perry : Also , a big part of the next 10 days or so is the other candidates working to keep Sanders in the 25-to-33 percent range .
But if Democratic voters start falling in line and accepting Sanders as the inevitable nominee , and he gets closer to 40 percent in some states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others .
natesilver : Yeah , it sorta feels like part of what candidates may be hoping to do is to prevent him from rising further , rather than actually lowering his numbers .
Because he ’ s likely to get a bounce from Nevada , so even if he has a mediocre debate/the scrutiny hurts him a bit , it might just cancel that out — not actually make his numbers negative relative to where he stood , pre-Nevada .
geoffrey.skelley : I do wonder if the fact that the stage will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to some extent , Nate .
Because Steyer has made this debate , there ’ ll be seven participants this time around , so if you ’ re trying to stand out as the No.1 alternative to Sanders , that might be even harder .
Especially because I assume Bloomberg will still get a lot of attention , even though his standing may have taken a hit after the last debate .
natesilver : It ’ s kind of a big moment for Sanders , Bloomberg AND Biden , since Biden clearly needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do think we ’ re at the point now where it ’ s in the mutual interest of every other candidate for Sanders to struggle .
There are no longer tactical considerations that outweigh that .
If Sanders gets say , 26 percent of the vote on Super Tuesday instead of 34 percent , that ’ s a big deal and makes it much more likely that someone else wins .
perry : What was useful last week , in attacking Bloomberg , was that the candidates said interesting stuff — like Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were former employees of his company from non-disclosure agreements .
So a smart approach from at least one of the non-Sanders candidates would be to attack him in a way that goes beyond questions of electability and Medicare For All , etc .
sarahf : Is it enough for Biden to win South Carolina at this point if the margin between him and Sanders is really close , though ?
Or does Biden really need it to be as decisive as , say , Nevada was for Sanders ?
natesilver : Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the margins , but it ’ s mostly winning that counts .
Now , if Biden wins by 20 points , maybe we ’ re in a situation where “ it ’ s not clear who ’ s the favorite anymore ” vs. if he wins by 2 points , the story is , “ at least this is still interesting , but Sanders is still in the best position.
” If he LOSES by 2 points , though , it ’ s hard to see his campaign recovering , and it puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position .
perry : It would be ideal for Biden to win South Carolina and be the clear second-place finisher on Super Tuesday , so as to flush out the other candidates and get it down to a two-person race .
But if come next Wednesday , Biden has won South Carolina and Alabama ( two states that vote in the next 10 days that have large black Democratic electorates ) but finished say , third or worse in California and Texas , that is not ideal for him — or the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geoffrey.skelley : Obviously , an unexpectedly large margin would be good for Biden , and the media might be quite open to a comeback narrative , but it ’ s hard to know at this point how strong Biden ’ s lead is there .
One potential bit of good news for the Biden camp is that longtime South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn , who is the highest ranking African American in Congress , may endorse Biden on Wednesday .
This endorsement could be huge for Biden and would signal either that more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind Biden , or it ’ d be enough to push some undecided black voters into Biden ’ s camp .
perry : Yeah , the CBS/YouGov poll released on Sunday suggested a fairly close race in South Carolina : Biden at 28 percent , Sanders 23 percent , and Steyer 18 percent .
But maybe a big push by black , pro-Biden officials like Clyburn and a sustained week of attacks on Sanders makes it less close .
There is no big early voting drive in South Carolina like there was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week will matter .
natesilver : It ’ s a little hard to figure out where the conventional wisdom is on South Carolina .
Do people see it as a toss-up ?
Or still as Biden ’ s state to win ?
The polls are closer to a toss-up , although they slightly tilt toward Biden .
It ’ s important to note , though , that we don ’ t have any post-Nevada polling yet .
I would also note that there ’ s a tendency for the polls in South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black support — namely Obama in 2008 and Clinton in 2016 .
Anecdotally , there seems to be some evidence that black voters are more likely to tell pollsters they ’ re undecided , and that seems to be true in South Carolina as well .
In the Marist poll , for instance , 13 percent of black voters said they were undecided vs. 5 percent of whites .
geoffrey.skelley : Yeah , Nate , I realize this is anecdotal , but when I was down in South Carolina a week ago at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ church , a couple of voters told me they weren ’ t sure about supporting Biden , but they also didn ’ t really have another person they were considering .
perry : Sanders released his campaign schedule for this week , and at least as of right now , he is in Virginia on Saturday and South Carolina on Friday .
On the other hand , Biden is in South Carolina both days .
Sanders was also in Texas for the Nevada caucuses .
His team is super-focused on Super Tuesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells me that while they want to win South Carolina , they are not necessarily expecting a win , nor are they going to kill themselves to get one .
natesilver : According to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast , that strategy might be short-sighted , i.e.
, they ’ d be better off going for the kill in South Carolina because that makes it so hard for Biden to come back .
But maybe they aren ’ t super confident about their prospects in South Carolina and want to lower expectations .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African American voters as a monolith when the ones in South Carolina are liable to be far more conservative than the ones in , say , Nevada , among whom Bernie did fairly well .
perry : The other weird thing about South Carolina is Steyer .
I tend to think he will decline in the polls as the week goes forward , and that he will be closer to polling in the low teens than the high teens .
But I also don ’ t know who his support would go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he does really well .
He has spent a lot of time in the state , particularly in courting black voters .
sarahf : Where does South Carolina leave the other candidate who aren ’ t Biden or Sanders , though ?
As we ’ ve said , it ’ s important Biden wins there because he ’ s made so much of his campaign about his ability to win black voters .
But what if Buttigieg , Klobuchar and Warren all finish in the single digits again ?
Do they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though this will now be the second state where they ’ ve failed to build strong , diverse coalitions ?
natesilver : Our model doesn ’ t think Buttigieg has much of a path , although it ’ s worth noting that he ’ s had pretty good results so far ( 1st/2nd/3rd or 2nd/2nd/3rd if you prefer ) so it seems a little much for people to be asking that he should drop out .
His problem is that there aren ’ t any Midwestern states on Super Tuesday except for Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him .
But he ’ s closed strongly relative to his polling averages in most states so , I dunno , I guess he ’ s just hoping to do so again .
Warren has a — somewhat good !
— excuse to continue based on her post-debate polling looking stronger .
I don ’ t get what Klobuchar is doing .
Or Steyer , frankly .
geoffrey.skelley : Warren remains not that far behind Biden and Bloomberg in national polls .
Whereas , yeah , Klobuchar is at about 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steyer is at 2 percent .
Even if Steyer gets a strong third in South Carolina , I don ’ t see a path opening up for him in Super Tuesday states .
perry : Buttigieg , Klobuchar and Warren should be in South Carolina some this week to prevent being cast as ignoring black voters .
But they should try to do as little as possible there .
Super Tuesday just has better opportunities for them than a state in the South where the majority of the electorate is black .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for weeks .
natesilver : Having Super Tuesday SO close to South Carolina is sort of an important wrinkle in the scheduling .
And probably a flaw , I ’ d say .
natesilver : Because it doesn ’ t really give voters and the candidates time to react to South Carolina ?
Or , conversely , maybe you get a fleeting reaction that isn ’ t durable ?
perry : I agree with Nate .
The first state with a lot of black voters is scheduled when the candidates also have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , and it ’ s just difficult to manage .
sarahf : It seems as if campaigning in the Super Tuesday states has been really hard across the board , and only Sanders and Bloomberg have done an OK job of it , especially in California and Texas , which are delegate-rich .
natesilver : Well , maybe more advertising than campaigning in Bloomberg ’ s case .
There ’ s been some of the latter but a lot of the former , obviously .
And if Bloomberg continues to slump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a case where he finishes just UNDER 15 percent in most places , and therefore , receives few delegates of his own , but nonetheless takes away 13 to 14 percent of the vote from other moderates .
That would be very , very , very helpful to Sanders .
Conversely , if Bloomberg gets 20 percent , he would at least win some delegates and lower Sanders ’ s total , which isn ’ t as good for Bernie .
geoffrey.skelley : With that in mind , I wonder if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this debate and maybe not quite as much Sanders bashing as you ’ d expect .
Pushing Bloomberg down probably helps someone like Biden a fair bit , and obviously in the last debate he was the chief target of criticism .
sarahf : That ’ s a good point , Geoff .
But some of what happens next seems to hinge on Biden actually pulling off a strong victory in South Carolina .
With the field still so crowded it ’ s hard for me to understand how the “ moderates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this point , when they ’ re all still in the process of competing with each other .
It seems like the kind of chaos that Sanders mainly benefits from .
Is that fair ?
natesilver : For what it ’ s worth , I don ’ t think whether the chaos benefits Sanders is as clear as people assume .
If you have so much chaos that you wind up with a contested convention , that doesn ’ t necessarily benefit Sanders !
And he isn ’ t necessarily an underdog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He might be a favorite , in fact , in several of the matchups .
Would you rather bet on Sanders or Mayor Pete head-to-head , for instance ?
I ’ d take Bernie .
You could also wind up with a scenario — if last week ’ s debate had a big impact — where the three most viable candidates going forward are Sanders , Warren and Biden , which is a “ chaotic ” scenario that is not so great for Sanders .
geoffrey.skelley : Sanders may be aided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates won ’ t crack the 15 percent delegate mark statewide or in most districts .
That means , if say , Sanders wins 30 percent statewide and in most districts while another candidate wins 15 percent exactly , with the rest splitting the vote and finishing under 15 percent , then Sanders ends up with about two-thirds of the delegates that state has to offer .
In a place like California , that works out pretty well for him !
perry : I think the lane stuff is both relevant and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help Biden or Buttigieg if either were the only candidate against Sanders ?
Probably .
But I absolutely do not think that Sanders would keep just his current 25 to 30 percent and Biden would get the other 70 percent .
The reasons this field is so fractured and Sanders keeps winning are : 1 ) Sanders is pretty popular among Democrats , and 2 ) The center-left candidates all have some flaws ( Buttigieg ’ s weak numbers among black and Latino voters , for example ) .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): This is usually the point in the primary season where the field has started to winnow — candidates who’ve had poor performances in Iowa or New Hampshire drop out. But no such luck this year. The debate stage tomorrow is actually getting larger, not smaller, if you can believe it.
But even though the field remains crowded, there’s an increasingly clear front-runner: Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders won, and he won pretty handily — he won the final, realigned popular vote by 21.6 points, so Sanders’s odds are pretty good in our model: He’s got a 45 percent shot of winning the majority of pledged delegates.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
However, South Carolina, which is where the primary moves next, could be a bit of a curveball for Sanders, as it’s Biden — not Sanders — who is in the lead there. Things are really close, though, so it’s probably best thought of as a tie. But it also means the stakes at tomorrow’s debate are pretty high. Biden is banking on a strong performance and winning South Carolina, while other candidates like former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar need to demonstrate that they’re can build diverse coalitions, something they struggled to do in Nevada.
So what are you looking for going into tonight? Will the candidates finally attack Sanders as the front-runner?
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Buttigieg’s post-Nevada speech was basically a series of attacks on Sanders. Biden’s had some elements of that, too. Former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg is coming after Sanders. Tom Steyer, too. Yes, I think this debate will have several people going hard after Sanders, looking really toward Super Tuesday.
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I think this whole week is gonna be CAN ANYONE STOP BERNIE SANDERS?!?!?!?!?!?!? week and that theme is likely to feature heavily at the debate.
The thing about Sanders is that he’s a pretty steady (if not always spectacular) debater and not the easiest guy to knock off-kilter.
And if it seems like everyone is attacking him, well, that plays into his message in certain ways.
sarahf: Yeah, and to Perry’s point, Buttigieg really didn’t mince words on Saturday when he told supporters that Sanders is waging an “inflexible ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats.” But I’m struggling to wrap my head around how accurate that claim is. Buttigieg came in third in Nevada — significantly behind Sanders. So is Sanders’s “revolution” really leaving out most Democrats? Seems like a fair share of Democrats have been happy to vote for Sanders so far!
Buttigieg and the other moderates need to come up with something better, no?
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): It’s possible they need something better, but things might look different if a couple of the more moderate candidates got out of the way. Sanders might still lead the field — recent national polls suggest he would — but if a few folks dropped out, it would make it a lot clearer who the alternative to Sanders is. At the moment, there isn’t really one obvious answer to that question. Yet, there’s plenty of evidence that points to the idea that many Democrats might not want Sanders as the nominee. After all, Sanders only won between 25 to 34 percent of the initial popular vote in Iowa and Nevada (so before realignment), and just 26 percent overall in New Hampshire — not exactly an overwhelming share of support.
natesilver: I don’t know … a lot of Democrats do want a more moderate nominee, at least in the abstract. And many associate moderation with electability.
Calling Bernie out as being uncompromising is maybe not a bad line of attack either, since Democrats tend to like compromise.
perry: Ten days of sustained attacks on Sanders could dip his numbers. It would help if the other candidates maybe moved away from Medicare for All, which seems likely it’s decently popular among Democratic primary voters, and found ways to attack him on different issues, though.
natesilver: I do think there’s something about sustained vs. sporadic attacks that matters here.
Like, few things in politics are truly new. Bernie has been around for a while. But there’s always been some shinier object that was rising in the polls — Harris! Warren! Buttigieg! Bloomberg! — that was always more the center of attention, but now that’s changed with Sanders being truly at the center.
perry: Also, a big part of the next 10 days or so is the other candidates working to keep Sanders in the 25-to-33 percent range. But if Democratic voters start falling in line and accepting Sanders as the inevitable nominee, and he gets closer to 40 percent in some states, that would be bad for the others.
natesilver: Yeah, it sorta feels like part of what candidates may be hoping to do is to prevent him from rising further, rather than actually lowering his numbers.
Because he’s likely to get a bounce from Nevada, so even if he has a mediocre debate/the scrutiny hurts him a bit, it might just cancel that out — not actually make his numbers negative relative to where he stood, pre-Nevada.
geoffrey.skelley: I do wonder if the fact that the stage will be even more crowded plays into that to some extent, Nate. Because Steyer has made this debate, there’ll be seven participants this time around, so if you’re trying to stand out as the No.1 alternative to Sanders, that might be even harder. Especially because I assume Bloomberg will still get a lot of attention, even though his standing may have taken a hit after the last debate.
natesilver: It’s kind of a big moment for Sanders, Bloomberg AND Biden, since Biden clearly needs to win South Carolina.
But I do think we’re at the point now where it’s in the mutual interest of every other candidate for Sanders to struggle. There are no longer tactical considerations that outweigh that.
If Sanders gets say, 26 percent of the vote on Super Tuesday instead of 34 percent, that’s a big deal and makes it much more likely that someone else wins.
perry: What was useful last week, in attacking Bloomberg, was that the candidates said interesting stuff — like Warren demanding on stage that Bloomberg release women who were former employees of his company from non-disclosure agreements. So a smart approach from at least one of the non-Sanders candidates would be to attack him in a way that goes beyond questions of electability and Medicare For All, etc.
sarahf: Is it enough for Biden to win South Carolina at this point if the margin between him and Sanders is really close, though? Or does Biden really need it to be as decisive as, say, Nevada was for Sanders?
natesilver: Our model says that the margin matters at the margins, but it’s mostly winning that counts.
Now, if Biden wins by 20 points, maybe we’re in a situation where “it’s not clear who’s the favorite anymore” vs. if he wins by 2 points, the story is, “at least this is still interesting, but Sanders is still in the best position.”
If he LOSES by 2 points, though, it’s hard to see his campaign recovering, and it puts Sanders in a very, very good position.
perry: It would be ideal for Biden to win South Carolina and be the clear second-place finisher on Super Tuesday, so as to flush out the other candidates and get it down to a two-person race. But if come next Wednesday, Biden has won South Carolina and Alabama (two states that vote in the next 10 days that have large black Democratic electorates) but finished say, third or worse in California and Texas, that is not ideal for him — or the people who want Sanders to be defeated.
geoffrey.skelley: Obviously, an unexpectedly large margin would be good for Biden, and the media might be quite open to a comeback narrative, but it’s hard to know at this point how strong Biden’s lead is there.
One potential bit of good news for the Biden camp is that longtime South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, who is the highest ranking African American in Congress, may endorse Biden on Wednesday. This endorsement could be huge for Biden and would signal either that more black voters are ready to line up behind Biden, or it’d be enough to push some undecided black voters into Biden’s camp.
perry: Yeah, the CBS/YouGov poll released on Sunday suggested a fairly close race in South Carolina: Biden at 28 percent, Sanders 23 percent, and Steyer 18 percent.
But maybe a big push by black, pro-Biden officials like Clyburn and a sustained week of attacks on Sanders makes it less close. There is no big early voting drive in South Carolina like there was in Nevada, so the events of this week will matter.
natesilver: It’s a little hard to figure out where the conventional wisdom is on South Carolina. Do people see it as a toss-up? Or still as Biden’s state to win?
The polls are closer to a toss-up, although they slightly tilt toward Biden. It’s important to note, though, that we don’t have any post-Nevada polling yet.
I would also note that there’s a tendency for the polls in South Carolina to underrate the candidate who has more black support — namely Obama in 2008 and Clinton in 2016. Anecdotally, there seems to be some evidence that black voters are more likely to tell pollsters they’re undecided, and that seems to be true in South Carolina as well. In the Marist poll, for instance, 13 percent of black voters said they were undecided vs. 5 percent of whites.
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, Nate, I realize this is anecdotal, but when I was down in South Carolina a week ago at a Biden event at a historically black church, a couple of voters told me they weren’t sure about supporting Biden, but they also didn’t really have another person they were considering.
perry: Sanders released his campaign schedule for this week, and at least as of right now, he is in Virginia on Saturday and South Carolina on Friday. On the other hand, Biden is in South Carolina both days. Sanders was also in Texas for the Nevada caucuses.
His team is super-focused on Super Tuesday, which is smart. But it also tells me that while they want to win South Carolina, they are not necessarily expecting a win, nor are they going to kill themselves to get one.
natesilver: According to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast, that strategy might be short-sighted, i.e., they’d be better off going for the kill in South Carolina because that makes it so hard for Biden to come back.
But maybe they aren’t super confident about their prospects in South Carolina and want to lower expectations. There’s this tendency to look at African American voters as a monolith when the ones in South Carolina are liable to be far more conservative than the ones in, say, Nevada, among whom Bernie did fairly well.
perry: The other weird thing about South Carolina is Steyer. I tend to think he will decline in the polls as the week goes forward, and that he will be closer to polling in the low teens than the high teens. But I also don’t know who his support would go to. But maybe I’m wrong, and he does really well. He has spent a lot of time in the state, particularly in courting black voters.
sarahf: Where does South Carolina leave the other candidate who aren’t Biden or Sanders, though? As we’ve said, it’s important Biden wins there because he’s made so much of his campaign about his ability to win black voters. But what if Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren all finish in the single digits again?
Do they power through to Super Tuesday, even though this will now be the second state where they’ve failed to build strong, diverse coalitions?
natesilver: Our model doesn’t think Buttigieg has much of a path, although it’s worth noting that he’s had pretty good results so far (1st/2nd/3rd or 2nd/2nd/3rd if you prefer) so it seems a little much for people to be asking that he should drop out. His problem is that there aren’t any Midwestern states on Super Tuesday except for Minnesota, where Klobuchar is a big problem for him. But he’s closed strongly relative to his polling averages in most states so, I dunno, I guess he’s just hoping to do so again.
Warren has a — somewhat good! — excuse to continue based on her post-debate polling looking stronger.
I don’t get what Klobuchar is doing. Or Steyer, frankly.
geoffrey.skelley: Warren remains not that far behind Biden and Bloomberg in national polls. Whereas, yeah, Klobuchar is at about 5 percent in our national polling average, and Steyer is at 2 percent. Even if Steyer gets a strong third in South Carolina, I don’t see a path opening up for him in Super Tuesday states.
perry: Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren should be in South Carolina some this week to prevent being cast as ignoring black voters. But they should try to do as little as possible there. Super Tuesday just has better opportunities for them than a state in the South where the majority of the electorate is black. Not to mention, Steyer has camped there for weeks.
natesilver: Having Super Tuesday SO close to South Carolina is sort of an important wrinkle in the scheduling.
And probably a flaw, I’d say.
sarahf: Wait, why a flaw, Nate?
natesilver: Because it doesn’t really give voters and the candidates time to react to South Carolina? Or, conversely, maybe you get a fleeting reaction that isn’t durable?
perry: I agree with Nate. The first state with a lot of black voters is scheduled when the candidates also have a lot of incentive to focus on Super Tuesday, and it’s just difficult to manage.
sarahf: It seems as if campaigning in the Super Tuesday states has been really hard across the board, and only Sanders and Bloomberg have done an OK job of it, especially in California and Texas, which are delegate-rich.
natesilver: Well, maybe more advertising than campaigning in Bloomberg’s case. There’s been some of the latter but a lot of the former, obviously.
And if Bloomberg continues to slump in the polls, we could be looking at a case where he finishes just UNDER 15 percent in most places, and therefore, receives few delegates of his own, but nonetheless takes away 13 to 14 percent of the vote from other moderates. That would be very, very, very helpful to Sanders.
Conversely, if Bloomberg gets 20 percent, he would at least win some delegates and lower Sanders’s total, which isn’t as good for Bernie.
geoffrey.skelley: With that in mind, I wonder if we see a lot of Bloomberg bashing again in this debate and maybe not quite as much Sanders bashing as you’d expect. Pushing Bloomberg down probably helps someone like Biden a fair bit, and obviously in the last debate he was the chief target of criticism.
sarahf: That’s a good point, Geoff. But some of what happens next seems to hinge on Biden actually pulling off a strong victory in South Carolina. With the field still so crowded it’s hard for me to understand how the “moderates” mount a credible threat to Sanders at this point, when they’re all still in the process of competing with each other. It seems like the kind of chaos that Sanders mainly benefits from. Is that fair?
natesilver: For what it’s worth, I don’t think whether the chaos benefits Sanders is as clear as people assume.
If you have so much chaos that you wind up with a contested convention, that doesn’t necessarily benefit Sanders!
And he isn’t necessarily an underdog if the race comes down to 1-on-1. He might be a favorite, in fact, in several of the matchups. Would you rather bet on Sanders or Mayor Pete head-to-head, for instance? I’d take Bernie.
You could also wind up with a scenario — if last week’s debate had a big impact — where the three most viable candidates going forward are Sanders, Warren and Biden, which is a “chaotic” scenario that is not so great for Sanders.
geoffrey.skelley: Sanders may be aided by a crowded field in that, many candidates won’t crack the 15 percent delegate mark statewide or in most districts. That means, if say, Sanders wins 30 percent statewide and in most districts while another candidate wins 15 percent exactly, with the rest splitting the vote and finishing under 15 percent, then Sanders ends up with about two-thirds of the delegates that state has to offer. In a place like California, that works out pretty well for him!
perry: I think the lane stuff is both relevant and not perfect. Do I think it would help Biden or Buttigieg if either were the only candidate against Sanders? Probably. But I absolutely do not think that Sanders would keep just his current 25 to 30 percent and Biden would get the other 70 percent. The reasons this field is so fractured and Sanders keeps winning are: 1) Sanders is pretty popular among Democrats, and 2) The center-left candidates all have some flaws (Buttigieg’s weak numbers among black and Latino voters, for example).


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-28--Super Tuesday Preview: Biden And Sanders Are Vying For First In North Carolina And Virginia

In the lead-up to Super Tuesday ’ s delegate-rich array of contests , FiveThirtyEight is digging into our primary forecast to explore what the race looks like in the 14 states and one territory that will cast ballots .
Nathaniel Rakich already previewed Maine , Massachusetts and Vermont , so I ’ m looking at what our forecast has to say about North Carolina and Virginia .
Unlike the three New England states , where Sen. Bernie Sanders is favored across the board , these two states are shaping up to be pretty competitive contests .
In both states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden will battle it out for first place .
Sanders ’ s breadth of support in both states puts him in the best position to maximize his delegate haul , while the math is a little fuzzier for Biden .
For one thing , Biden ’ s fortunes seem to be more inextricably linked to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ’ s performance .
But remember , things could still shift in these states depending on how things play out in South Carolina .
After all , North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so South Carolina ’ s results could be indicative of voting patterns in many parts of these states .
North Carolina and Virginia have fairly analogous outlooks in part because they contain some similar regions , including affluent and highly educated urban-suburban pockets , sizable African American populations and large rural areas .
First up , North Carolina .
Our forecast has Biden as a very slight favorite to win the state , with about a 1 in 2 ( 49 percent ) chance , while Sanders has about a 3 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory .
Bloomberg has about a 1 in 5 ( 19 percent ) chance of winning .
Other candidates ’ overall chances of winning are slight : Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a 1 percent chance and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg has less than a 1 percent shot .
Thirty-eight of North Carolina ’ s 110 pledged delegates will be allocated based on the statewide results .
Our model forecasts Biden to get 26 percent and Sanders to get 23 percent of the statewide vote , on average .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ third at 20 percent .
Warren , Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are all further back , with projected vote shares of 10 percent , 8 percent and 5 percent , respectively .
( Philanthropist Tom Steyer and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard are forecast to win just 4 and 1 percent apiece . )
Our forecast for North Carolina ’ s 13 congressional districts — which together award 72 delegates — has Biden ahead in eight districts and Sanders up in three , though they ’ re running neck and neck in about half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win at least 15 percent of the vote both statewide and in individual districts to win delegates .
As things stand now , it looks like only Biden , Sanders and Bloomberg are likely to finish above that mark in most districts , though we can ’ t count out Warren or Buttigieg .
Much of the district-level variation is due in part to the demographic factors we outlined earlier .
For instance , Biden tends to have an advantage in districts with large numbers of African American .
Two of his three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is in eastern North Carolina and 43 percent black , and the 12th Congressional District , which is home to Charlotte and 36 percent black .
( North Carolina ’ s population as a whole is about one-fifth African American . )
Sanders tends to do best in whiter areas , but he ’ s decently strong everywhere regardless of demographic differences .
Warren also doesn ’ t have much variation in her support , though with her relatively high support among college-educated voters , you ’ d think her best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Triangle , covered by the 2nd and 4th districts .
Buttigieg also does better with college-educated voters , so it ’ s not surprising that the only districts in which he clears 10 percent are the 2nd and 4th .
On election night , keep an eye on how Biden and Bloomberg are doing relative to each other .
Their district-level forecasted vote share is stronger than their statewide vote share in many of the same districts , so if one underperforms , we ’ d expect the other to overperform in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ support tends to come from more moderate voters and African American voters , with some overlap there ) .
That could have ramifications for delegate hauls , too , because should one gain at the other candidate ’ s expense , the underperformer could fall below 15 percent and out of the running for delegates in those districts .
To the north , Virginia is another highly competitive piece of the Super Tuesday puzzle .
Our forecast gives Biden a slight edge in the Old Dominion , with almost a 1 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning .
Meanwhile , Sanders has a roughly 2 in 5 ( 37 percent ) shot and Bloomberg has a 1 in 7 ( 14 percent ) chance .
Again , the overall chances someone else wins Virginia outright are low : Both Buttigieg and Warren have about a 1 in 100 ( 1 percent ) shot .
Thirty-four of Virginia ’ s 99 pledged delegates will be allocated based on the statewide results .
Our model forecasts Biden ( 26 percent ) and Sanders ( 25 percent ) to each win about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on average .
Bloomberg is a close third — he ’ s projected to receive 19 percent .
Buttigieg , Warren and Klobuchar are farther back at 11 percent , 9 percent and 6 percent , respectively .
( Steyer and Gabbard are projected to win 1 percent . )
Meanwhile , our forecast for Virginia ’ s 11 congressional districts — together worth 65 delegates — suggests that it ’ s possible that Virginia could have four candidates who meet the 15 percent threshold in at least a district or two , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , Biden and Bloomberg are at or above 15 percent in each of Virginia ’ s districts , according to our average forecasted vote share , but Buttigieg is around the 15 percent mark in three districts , too .
Notably , Biden ’ s forecasted vote share varies more across Virginia districts than in North Carolina .
His estimates range from 19 percent in the 10th Congressional District , which contains some highly affluent suburbs of Washington , D.C. , to 36 percent in the 3rd Congressional District , a majority-minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the southeast .
And just as in North Carolina , Biden is strongest in the two seats with large shares of African American voters — the 3rd and 4th districts are more than 40 percent black .
Once again , Bloomberg tends to mirror Biden ’ s strength in individual districts but with a slightly lower floor .
Biden and Bloomberg don ’ t do as well in the 8th , 10th and 11th districts , which cover most of northern Virginia near the nation ’ s capital , and this seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates for Buttigieg .
More than half of these districts ’ adult residents hold bachelor ’ s degrees or higher , and they all have median household incomes north of $ 100,000 , placing them among the 10 richest districts in the country .
However , Sanders is in an enviable position , averaging between 21 and 28 percent everywhere .
The breadth of his support across a demographically diverse set of Virginia districts — similar to North Carolina — gives Sanders the best chance of getting at least a slice of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s support is fairly consistent across much of Virginia , though her best chance of cracking 15 percent appears to come in the highly-educated and affluent territory in which Buttigieg also looks strong , so that might be a bit of a delegate melee .
As the returns come in , be sure to once again watch Biden and Bloomberg .
And keep an eye on the wealthy and highly educated suburbs of Washington , D.C .
If Buttigieg , Warren or even Klobuchar hope to outperform their forecasted vote shares statewide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s where we ’ d expect to see them make major gains .
At the same time , if that trio of candidates fragment the vote in those districts , they could help Sanders — as well as Biden or Bloomberg to some extent — by reducing the number of candidates who win delegates and helping maximize the delegate haul for candidates who do win more than 15 percent .
North Carolina and Virginia have the third- and fourth-most pledged delegates up for grabs on March 3 , behind only California and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks close in each state and a number of candidates potentially could grab at least a few delegates across the states ’ 24 districts .

In the lead-up to Super Tuesday’s delegate-rich array of contests, FiveThirtyEight is digging into our primary forecast to explore what the race looks like in the 14 states and one territory that will cast ballots. Nathaniel Rakich already previewed Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont, so I’m looking at what our forecast has to say about North Carolina and Virginia.
Unlike the three New England states, where Sen. Bernie Sanders is favored across the board, these two states are shaping up to be pretty competitive contests. In both states, it seems as if Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden will battle it out for first place.
Sanders’s breadth of support in both states puts him in the best position to maximize his delegate haul, while the math is a little fuzzier for Biden. For one thing, Biden’s fortunes seem to be more inextricably linked to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s performance. But remember, things could still shift in these states depending on how things play out in South Carolina. After all, North Carolina and Virginia are also in the South, so South Carolina’s results could be indicative of voting patterns in many parts of these states. North Carolina and Virginia have fairly analogous outlooks in part because they contain some similar regions, including affluent and highly educated urban-suburban pockets, sizable African American populations and large rural areas.
First up, North Carolina. Our forecast has Biden as a very slight favorite to win the state, with about a 1 in 2 (49 percent) chance, while Sanders has about a 3 in 10 (30 percent) shot at victory. Bloomberg has about a 1 in 5 (19 percent) chance of winning. Other candidates’ overall chances of winning are slight: Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a 1 percent chance and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has less than a 1 percent shot.
Thirty-eight of North Carolina’s 110 pledged delegates will be allocated based on the statewide results. Our model forecasts Biden to get 26 percent and Sanders to get 23 percent of the statewide vote, on average. Bloomberg, however, is a close third at 20 percent. Warren, Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are all further back, with projected vote shares of 10 percent, 8 percent and 5 percent, respectively. (Philanthropist Tom Steyer and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard are forecast to win just 4 and 1 percent apiece.)
Our forecast for North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts — which together award 72 delegates — has Biden ahead in eight districts and Sanders up in three, though they’re running neck and neck in about half the districts. Remember, candidates must win at least 15 percent of the vote both statewide and in individual districts to win delegates. As things stand now, it looks like only Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg are likely to finish above that mark in most districts, though we can’t count out Warren or Buttigieg.
It’s a three-way race across North Carolina Average forecasted vote share for the top six Democratic presidential candidates in North Carolina congressional districts, according to the FiveThirtyEight model as of 2:00 p.m. on Feb. 28 District Biden Sanders Bloomberg Warren Buttigieg Klobuchar NC-01 34% 19% 24% 7% 6% 3% NC-02 22 24 17 11 11 7 NC-03 28 21 22 8 8 5 NC-04 23 24 18 10 11 7 NC-05 25 25 22 11 8 4 NC-06 28 24 20 10 7 4 NC-07 25 23 21 10 9 5 NC-08 29 23 22 10 7 4 NC-09 25 25 20 11 9 5 NC-10 27 23 22 11 7 4 NC-11 22 25 20 12 9 6 NC-12 30 22 20 9 7 4 NC-13 26 25 22 11 7 4 State 26 23 20 10 8 5
Much of the district-level variation is due in part to the demographic factors we outlined earlier. For instance, Biden tends to have an advantage in districts with large numbers of African American. Two of his three strongest seats are the 1st Congressional District, which is in eastern North Carolina and 43 percent black, and the 12th Congressional District, which is home to Charlotte and 36 percent black. (North Carolina’s population as a whole is about one-fifth African American.)
Sanders tends to do best in whiter areas, but he’s decently strong everywhere regardless of demographic differences. Warren also doesn’t have much variation in her support, though with her relatively high support among college-educated voters, you’d think her best chances lie in the well-educated and university-laden Research Triangle, covered by the 2nd and 4th districts. Buttigieg also does better with college-educated voters, so it’s not surprising that the only districts in which he clears 10 percent are the 2nd and 4th.
On election night, keep an eye on how Biden and Bloomberg are doing relative to each other. Their district-level forecasted vote share is stronger than their statewide vote share in many of the same districts, so if one underperforms, we’d expect the other to overperform in those areas (especially as both candidates’ support tends to come from more moderate voters and African American voters, with some overlap there). That could have ramifications for delegate hauls, too, because should one gain at the other candidate’s expense, the underperformer could fall below 15 percent and out of the running for delegates in those districts.
To the north, Virginia is another highly competitive piece of the Super Tuesday puzzle. Our forecast gives Biden a slight edge in the Old Dominion, with almost a 1 in 2 (47 percent) chance of winning. Meanwhile, Sanders has a roughly 2 in 5 (37 percent) shot and Bloomberg has a 1 in 7 (14 percent) chance. Again, the overall chances someone else wins Virginia outright are low: Both Buttigieg and Warren have about a 1 in 100 (1 percent) shot.
Thirty-four of Virginia’s 99 pledged delegates will be allocated based on the statewide results. Our model forecasts Biden (26 percent) and Sanders (25 percent) to each win about a quarter of the statewide vote, on average. Bloomberg is a close third — he’s projected to receive 19 percent. Buttigieg, Warren and Klobuchar are farther back at 11 percent, 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively. (Steyer and Gabbard are projected to win 1 percent.)
Meanwhile, our forecast for Virginia’s 11 congressional districts — together worth 65 delegates — suggests that it’s possible that Virginia could have four candidates who meet the 15 percent threshold in at least a district or two, which could muddle the delegate situation. Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg are at or above 15 percent in each of Virginia’s districts, according to our average forecasted vote share, but Buttigieg is around the 15 percent mark in three districts, too.
Four candidates could pick up delegates in Virginia Average forecasted vote share for the top six Democratic presidential candidates in Virginia congressional districts, according to the FiveThirtyEight model as of 2:00 p.m. on Feb. 28 District Biden Sanders Bloomberg Buttigieg Warren Klobuchar VA-01 25% 25% 19% 11% 9% 6% VA-02 28 26 21 9 9 4 VA-03 36 21 23 7 6 3 VA-04 35 21 23 8 7 4 VA-05 29 23 23 9 8 5 VA-06 27 26 23 8 9 4 VA-07 26 26 20 11 9 5 VA-08 21 27 15 14 11 8 VA-09 27 25 24 8 9 4 VA-10 19 28 15 15 11 9 VA-11 20 28 15 14 11 8 State 26 25 19 11 9 6
Notably, Biden’s forecasted vote share varies more across Virginia districts than in North Carolina. His estimates range from 19 percent in the 10th Congressional District, which contains some highly affluent suburbs of Washington, D.C., to 36 percent in the 3rd Congressional District, a majority-minority seat centered on Newport News and Norfolk in the southeast. And just as in North Carolina, Biden is strongest in the two seats with large shares of African American voters — the 3rd and 4th districts are more than 40 percent black.
Once again, Bloomberg tends to mirror Biden’s strength in individual districts but with a slightly lower floor. Biden and Bloomberg don’t do as well in the 8th, 10th and 11th districts, which cover most of northern Virginia near the nation’s capital, and this seems to have opened a possible path to delegates for Buttigieg. More than half of these districts’ adult residents hold bachelor’s degrees or higher, and they all have median household incomes north of $100,000, placing them among the 10 richest districts in the country.
However, Sanders is in an enviable position, averaging between 21 and 28 percent everywhere. The breadth of his support across a demographically diverse set of Virginia districts — similar to North Carolina — gives Sanders the best chance of getting at least a slice of the delegate pie across the commonwealth. Warren’s support is fairly consistent across much of Virginia, though her best chance of cracking 15 percent appears to come in the highly-educated and affluent territory in which Buttigieg also looks strong, so that might be a bit of a delegate melee.
As the returns come in, be sure to once again watch Biden and Bloomberg. And keep an eye on the wealthy and highly educated suburbs of Washington, D.C. If Buttigieg, Warren or even Klobuchar hope to outperform their forecasted vote shares statewide and at the district level, that’s where we’d expect to see them make major gains. At the same time, if that trio of candidates fragment the vote in those districts, they could help Sanders — as well as Biden or Bloomberg to some extent — by reducing the number of candidates who win delegates and helping maximize the delegate haul for candidates who do win more than 15 percent.
North Carolina and Virginia have the third- and fourth-most pledged delegates up for grabs on March 3, behind only California and Texas. The race to win overall looks close in each state and a number of candidates potentially could grab at least a few delegates across the states’ 24 districts.