| On Friday, the Democratic presidential candidates drew lots for the first round of debates, to be held later this month over two nights. Almost immediately, everyone seemed to agree that the second night is the heavyweight lineup and the first is much weaker. I'm here to say: It ain't necessarily so. And the whole thing exemplifies a big problem with political analysis.
To be sure, the second night – featuring Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders – has more candidates with high current polling numbers. By contrast, night one has Elizabeth Warren and a bunch of people below 5%. Nathaniel Rakich and Geoffrey Skelley have the numbers and, yes, by that measure it's lopsided.
But there's no reason to assume that current polling is a definitive ranking of the candidates' chances at this point. It's one possible way to rank them, but by no means the only way.
For example, what about endorsements? If we go by the FiveThirtyEight endorsement tracker, the two lineups are much better balanced. Night two still leads overall, with 194 endorsement points to 159, but the difference isn't nearly so glaring.
And what about money? It's hard to say definitively because Biden jumped in after the candidates reported their first quarter totals. But judging by the data through that point, the two lineups are basically even (in fact, night one has a small edge). Obviously adding Biden gives the second night a lead, but it's hardly the lopsided advantage that the polling suggests.
The point of all this is: If you're trying to understand what's happening in the 2020 nomination race, keep two things in mind. The first is that the polls this early are at best one of several metrics to use. And the second is that while pundits may advise caution about early polling, when it comes down to it that's often what they're relying on.
Regular readers know that I think support from party actors is probably the best way to assess a nomination race at this point. Endorsements are one proxy for that support, but others are useful too. For example, Buttigieg is lagging badly in endorsements, but he seems to be picking up other forms of party support. Likewise, Harris hasn't been adding endorsements from politicians recently, but she did get valuable support from a key South Carolina group. For the most part, what indications of party support are telling me right now is that it's still very early and still a wide-open race. If that's correct, then the two debate groups could actually be fairly well balanced.
I admit it: I read all the polls, even this early (and earlier!). I just don't accept the tyranny of polls. Although they may seem objective, we know that hardly any voters make final decisions this early, and all Democratic voters will be exposed to tons of new information over the next year. Sure, it's better to be polling well at this point than not. But beyond that? There are good reasons to look for other, more substantial, indicators of how well a candidate is doing.
1. Meredith Conroy and Lilly J. Goren at the Monkey Cage on women and the double bind.
2. Adam Serwer on conservatives and democracy.
3. Perry Bacon Jr. cautions against taking early polls seriously. Yup.
4. James Pethokoukis on Bernie Sanders and socialism.
5. Here at Bloomberg Opinion, Tobin Harshaw talks with Ilan Goldenberg about U.S.-Iran tensions.
6. And Heather Hurlburt on how Trump risks America's reputation with his Iran accusations.
Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. |
Post a Comment