The polling aggregate:
Full disclosure: I get to cheat. Thanks to Civiqs, I get to see how the primary campaign is playing out throughout the country and in individual states. BUT, since we don’t release much of that information publicly (it’s a business, after all), I have to keep to the public data.
So, for example, we knew Elizabeth Warren got smacked in the court of public opinion after her rollout of her Medicare for All proposal. Without a solid base of support, that might’ve sunk her, a la Kamala Harris. Eventually, the public polling knew what those of us with access to Civiqs data knew literally overnight.
What’s my point? See that little uptick for Warren, that brown line in the graph above? All I’m going to say is that there’s a lot more of that happening, and public polling should be picking that up over the next couple of weeks. This last debate was just that good for her. But for now, given the data that is publicly available, we can safely stick with last week’s rankings.
1. Biden ⬇️ (Last cattle call: 1)
HIs debate performance was disastrous, perhaps his worst of the season, and he’s only had one good debate. He looked lost at time, stuttered, trailed off answers, seemingly uninterested in finishing his thoughts. If we want a battle of the addled in November, nominate this guy and prepare yourself for some of the worst presidential debates in history.
The sudden focus on a potential war with Iran served him poorly, reminding people of his avid support for George W. Bush’s Iraq War. In fact, it was Biden’s committee, one he chaired, which cleared the way for the invasion. It wasn’t the kind of past that Biden wanted to litigate.
But he did make one solid and correct point—he is currently and unambiguously the choice of Black Democrats, and that unwavering support has allowed him sustain his leads in the national polling and South Carolina, which is going to deliver his first victory of the campaign, and do so handily.
Some people questioned why Biden was left alone in the Iowa debate this past week. As frontrunner, shouldn’t he have been attacked more rigorously? The answer is simple: Biden isn’t competing in Iowa or New Hampshire in any real way. Obviously, he wants to place well, but given the diminished field, a top-three finish isn’t overly hard, and he should survive that loss fine with South Carolina ready to give him life. Bernie Sanders and Warren need an Iowa victory to bolster the case that they should represent a unified Left. Biden does not.
2. Bernie Sanders ⬆️ (Last cattle call: 2)
Polling shows him consistently placing in second place, not just nationally, but in key states. In Iowa, he’s got several number one placings. There’s no doubt that he’s a threat to win the state, in what is shaping up to be a jump ball with Warren and a fading Buttigieg (who has nothing to sustain him if he doesn’t win Iowa).
His spat with Warren, over whether he told her over dinner that a woman couldn’t be elected president is not a good look. Call me biased, and you will, and I am, but there’s nothing in Warren’s words or body language that suggests she’s lying. She was legitimately upset during their hot-mic moment, where she refused to shake his hand. That wasn’t an act. Now, people can interpret a conversation differently, and it may very well be that both candidates are telling the “truth” about the encounter as they see it, but nothing in Bernie’s response showed any understanding or humility toward a narrative that everyone knows exists. Women are told repeatedly that they cannot win, that America is not ready for a woman president. Heck, it was the single biggest challenge facing Kamala Harris as a Black woman! Her campaign did focus group testing in South Carolina, and the responses were always “this election is too important to screw up, so let’s pick the safest choice,” “safe” meaning white male.
Regardless of the merits, the optics were poor for Bernie, which explains why his strongest supporters on Twitter went on a virtual rampage the next day, littering Warren mentions with snake emojis and pushing a ridiculous “never Warren” narrative.
Reality is that Warren and Bernie occupy the same ideological lane, one that became cramped when she lost support over her proposal for a single-payer health care system. It’s only natural that tensions would emerge as we got close to voting. But snake emojis won’t convince anyone who isn’t already a supporter to vote for Bernie. When you’re attacking mild-mannered John Legend, because he picked the other liberal in the race, maybe you’re doing it wrong.
Bernie’s problem has always been an inability to grow his support beyond a narrow slice of the party base. And given that his supporters are younger, his base is the lowest-performing slice of the base. If they want to win, they have to do that in a way that builds alliances, not one that reflects this poorly on their chosen candidate.
3. Elizabeth Warren ⬆️ (Last cattle call: 3)
Warren was the undisputed winner of the last debate in Iowa, if you count pundits and polling. We’ll know in the next couple of weeks how much of an effect that has had on both national polling, and in Iowa.
Now, Iowa isn’t determinative of much. Lots of candidates will drop out afterward, but none of them matter anyway. And New Hampshire has proven time and time again that it’ll pick its own candidate no matter what Iowa thinks thank you very much. Also, given the muddled way the state will report its results, it could very well be that three candidates walk out all claiming victory, and doing so under legitimate metrics.
That said, a clear victory would bolster Warren’s case that the anti-Biden Left should rally around her. A muddled victory would justify her continued presence in the race. Anything below that would be devastating. So a strong debate performance two weeks out has real value—if it translates to actual committed support.
Some things we know: We know that Warren’s base is more female, more white, and more educated than the others’. Who votes at higher rates than other parts of the Democratic base? Educated white women. We are all fighting to make sure all parts of the party base vote at equally high levels, but given current trends, that bodes well for Warren.
We know that she is the second choice of more voters than any other candidate, which doesn’t just offer her hope as candidates drop out, and as people reassess their choices before they case votes, but also suggests she is the strongest unity candidate in the field. In fact, her rhetoric has emphasized that theme, that she can bring the various factions of the party together. That’s certainly not something either Biden or Sanders seem interested in doing.
It was an interesting moment in the debate, when asked about that dinner with Bernie. She could’ve deescalated, waved off the question, or pivoted to the “women can win” argument without directly implicating Sanders in a lie. But she didn’t. I’ll admit it, I was shocked.
But much of the female punditry came to Warren’s defense, because whatever the details of that dinner might be, the debate over whether to elect a woman truly does matter. As Brittney Cooper wrote in Time, “The experiences one gains from being marginalized because of racism and sexism offer invaluable perspectives that often make candidates inclined to be more egalitarian and inclusive, precisely because they know intimately what exclusion feels like.” That rings true, doesn’t it?
The rest ⬇️
They matter even less this week than last. Neither Amy Klobuchar nor Pete Buttigieg made a compelling case for their candidacy or had an impact in the debate. They’re background noise, with zero path forward after they lose in Iowa.