Interesting 538 piece on the current state of the race. Nothing definitive. Just some facts to chew

[LincolnRossiter]

on.

Is it really a three-candidate race?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-it-really-a-three-candidate-race/?ex_cid=2020-tracker

...All right, there’s lots to unpack here. For one thing, based on national polls alone, Biden is still really in a tier by himself. It’s not just that polling at 28 or 30 percent is quite a bit higher than 17 or 18 percent. It’s also that the difference between Biden’s polling and the candidates below him falls within a range that, empirically, has been something of an inflection point as to who eventually wins the nomination or not. Candidates who are sitting in the mid-to-high teens — such as Warren and Sanders — don’t have a fantastic track record. A candidate in Biden’s position will still lose more often than not, but they have a considerably better record of success historically.

Of course, there’s no reason you should limit yourself to looking only at national polls. If you were building a predictive model at this stage, it would probably consist of some sort of amalgam of national polling adjusted for name recognition, early-state polling and endorsements, which are historically fairly predictive of nomination outcomes. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden looks weaker and Warren and Sanders (and to some extent Buttigieg) look a lot more viable. But endorsements are another story and those don’t look especially good for Warren and Sanders. Instead, Biden and Harris are well out in front in endorsements, although many potential endorsers are sitting on the sidelines.

The prediction markets deviate a lot from the objective data in the cases of Warren and Biden. They actually had her as being more likely to win the nomination than him (as of Sunday evening), even though he’s ahead in national polls and endorsements, and at worst tied with her in Iowa and New Hampshire (and way ahead in South Carolina). That isn’t necessarily wrong; it’s an early enough stage of the primary that I’d say there’s some room for subjectivity. But there are also some reasons to be cautious. The conventional wisdom has repeatedly expected Biden to implode when it hasn’t really happened yet. And frankly, the people trading in these markets — mostly younger and well-educated — aren’t your prototypical Biden voters.

And none of this makes it any easier to divide the candidates into tiers. For me, at least, the lines between the top several candidates are blurry. I’m pretty sure that I still like Biden’s chances better than Warren — as I said, that’s certainly where a statistical model would come out. But I wouldn’t wager a huge amount of money on that proposition. I think Warren has a few things going for her that Sanders doesn’t — less voter concern about her age, more room to make peace with the establishment and slightly better polling. But you could argue that they should basically be treated as tied.

I’m also not quite sure what to do with Harris. A “Party Decides” rubric that heavily emphasized endorsements and the ability to build a broad coalition would treat her as one of the favorites, while the polling wouldn’t. Then again, she’s had moments where she was polling better, and she could be poised to benefit if Biden falters among black voters or Warren does among college-educated ones. One reason to be pessimistic about the chances of candidates such as Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke, in fact, is that if something did happen to one of the frontrunners, Harris would probably be first in line to benefit from that.

Overall, the best I can do is something like this:
Nate’s not-to-be-taken-too-seriously presidential tiers
For the Democratic nomination, as revised on Sept. 9, 2019

Tier
1. a. Biden

b. Warren

c. Sanders

d. Harris

2. Buttigieg

3. Yang, O’Rourke, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro

4. Everyone else

Note: Steve Bullock was demoted into the “everyone else” tier.
Even if you do have Biden, Warren and Sanders as your top three candidates (as I do), there’s no particular reason to draw a firm line at three candidates as opposed to some other number. If you’re just looking at national polls, then Biden’s still in a tier by himself. Prediction markets basically have it as a two-horse race between Warren and Biden. You can add Sanders to make it a top three… but factor in endorsements, and Harris probably also needs to join the group, which would leave us with four candidates. I don’t really put a lot of emphasis on money raised, as it hasn’t been a very predictive indicator historically, but if you did, you could add Buttigieg to the top tier and make it a top 5.
Perhaps this week’s debate will provide more clarity. If Warren has another strong debate and continues gaining in the polls, for instance, we might have a relatively clear two-way race between her and Biden. But the reality will probably be a lot messier.

[highplainsdem]

1. "Biden is still really in a tier by himself." Glad to see Nate acknowledge this.

It's something I've been pointing out for a while now, whenever candidate tiers were mentioned.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287144819#post5

[peggysue2]

2. Interesting angle

Which pretty much reinforces Josh Marshall's take on the state-of-the-race at the moment. Joe Biden is clearly in the lead, a position he's held from the moment he declared. And Elizabeth Warren is likely to be Biden's ultimate competitor as the primary proceeds.

Thursday night will be very interesting!

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Who has the best organization in Iowa?

[LincolnRossiter]

4. Not sure. I've heard that Warren and Buttigieg are organizing well and seeing a strong response.

Biden, Bernie, and Kamala also have robust organizations there as well.

[Bettie]

5. From what I've seen

Warren, Buttgieg, and Harris all have strong organizations here. Corey Booker does as well.

I hear regularly from organizers from these campaigns.

I hear from O'Rourke people as well, though his main organizer in my county has gone back to school and I haven't yet met the new one.

Had a bunch of Gabbard people show at two parades.

[qazplm135]

6. we have four months and multiple debates

the only thing settled at this point IMO is that the top four will remain the top four.

the order is not nearly as set...but the four folks there is more or less set.

I think you ultimately end up with Biden and the anti-Biden. That's most likely to be Warren.
Working in favor of Warren is enthusiasm, organization and policies. Working against her is Sanders is not dropping out.
Working for Biden is familiarity, a belief that he is "guaranteed" to beat Trump (which explains his AA numbers), and the presence of Sanders as a third option splitting the anti-Biden vote. Working against him are the gaffes and flubs, and the lack of enthusiasm, organization and concrete policies.

Suffice to say that either Biden or Warren are most likely to win the nomination, but literally anything can happen in four months. A serious gaffe, a health scare, an accusation, a heretofore unrevealed black swan can affect any of the top four which can shake up the primary in all sorts of ways.

A hit to Warren could solidify things for Biden. A hit to Sanders could help Warren. A hit to Biden could help Harris. A hit to Harris will send almost 10% of voters somewhere and whomever that beneficiary is will definitely see a rise. There's debates, speeches, forums, and four months of chances to shine or explode (in a good or bad way).

folks should simply look at this as the beginnings of a four-person race. Nothing more, nothing less. I'd say the same thing if Harris were in the lead.