We Asked Democratic Activists Who They're Backing -- And Who They'd Hate To See Win

[Celerity]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we-asked-democratic-activists-who-theyre-backing-and-who-theyd-hate-to-see-win/

We’re still months away from the first nominating contest in Iowa, but I’m still regularly checking in with early-state Democratic Party activists to see what the party’s most engaged members think about the pre-primary race so far. In this installment, more activists are saying they have chosen a candidate to support, and some are now considering candidates who were previously flying under the radar. We’re also getting a better sense of some of the divisions within the party by asking activists who they won’t support.

As part of my ongoing book research, I’ve been in touch with roughly 60 Democratic activists in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and Washington, D.C.,1 asking them about their preferences for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. About 35 people from the respondent pool participated in each wave of interviews. I’m interested in learning about whether these activists are committed to a candidate or whom they’re considering if they still haven’t made up their mind.

This time around, I also asked respondents who they didn’t want as the nominee. After all, when a party is deciding between candidates, it needs to decide not only who is broadly liked, but also who is considered unacceptable by many factions within the party. I’m trying to get a sense of which candidates look like traditional party nominees (broadly, if not enthusiastically, accepted by most wings of the party) and which look like factional candidates (the enthusiastic choice of some segments of the party but highly problematic for others).

At this stage, most of the activists I spoke to are considering at least a few candidates, but I did see a modest increase in the number committed to just one candidate: the total who’d made up their mind jumped from nine in February to 11 in April. (Since each wave of interviews has gotten responses from a different subset of respondents, it’s important to keep in mind that some of these shifts may reflect changes in the respondent pool rather than changes in opinion.) Among the group of activists who’ve decided on one candidate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was tied for the lead, with four activists backing him, essentially unchanged from the previous round of interviews.2 New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who now shares the lead, went from one declared supporter in February to four in April. And still-undeclared candidate former Vice President Joe Biden actually lost at least one supporter.3 A woman who had been backing Biden told me that her concerns over his unwanted touching of women caused her to re-evaluate her decision. While she said that she is still considering Biden, she is now considering other candidates too.

snip

[DCofVA]

1. The enthusiasm of Democratic activist is something we can't afford to ignore.

[Celerity]

3. I agree,and very happy to see my top 4 candidates are also top 4 there too (Stacey Abrams rounds out

my top five, but I hope she chooses to run against that rotter Perdue in GA for the Senate, as we so need the Senate back to truly do things that will help repair the damage from the orange shit nozzle.)

[Hortensis]

6. The stolid commitment of the typical quiet Democrat

who comes home from work instead of marching is incredibly more important and always trumps the noisy ones, to the eternal surprise of those who believe the stories the "if it bleeds it leads" press draw. Notice that the majority, "4," currently prefer someone who can't win.

This report on recent polling from Jennifer Rubin of the WaPo is interesting:

“A combined 58 percent of voters are either uncomfortable (37 percent) or have reservations about (21 percent) Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid. For Elizabeth Warren, it’s a combined 53 percent. And for Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke, it’s 41 percent of voters expressing either reservations or discomfort.”

These are total voters, Dem, Repub and other. Quick, flip a coin for which, Harris or O'Rourke, will be on top of the ticket and hold the election so we can get to work.

[Nanjeanne]

2. I cant seem to find who these activists are. Is there information on who somewhere.

Can’t take a poll of “activists” as any indication of anything without knowing more about what makes them activists and what they are advocating for.

[WeekiWater]

5. I believe this is as far as they have gone in defining that.

"These are people I connected with on the recommendation of political reporters in each state; they’ve been active volunteers or staffers for state parties or past presidential campaigns. Some are relatively new to the field, while others’ involvement dates back to George McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972."

[Nanjeanne]

7. Thanks. But not good enough to me to take this as serious research. Means nothing without knowing

what these people are activists for or which campaigns they were involved in.

[WeekiWater]

8. I agree. NT

[Algernon Moncrieff]

15. I'd at least like the ground rules for who qualifies as an "activist"

A fundraiser? Someone who has canvassed in previous campaigns? Skinner and 34 of his closest friends?

[Celerity]

9. you could ask the author, I am under the impression it is done anonymously

as many probably have not taken a public stance on who they will actually support and vote for.

Here is the authors e-mail, etc


Seth Masket

Professor

Sturm Hall, Room 469

Phone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

Twitter: https://twitter.com/smotus

Personal website

https://sites.google.com/site/smotusdenver/

[Nanjeanne]

10. Thanks. Not that interested. It's a comment on a meaningless poll. Anonymous is one

thing but no data on what campaigns they worked on or what issues they are advocating for is just useless. I think Seth probably knows it already or he would have given more detail on his participants.

[Celerity]

11. I think it has some validity due to the fluidity, as it shows they're not locked in to one candidate

and it certainly is more accurate in judging trends than some of these dodgy 'internal' polls (example) and online polls I have seen touted to push whatever candidate released them or came up roses in.

The 'will not support in the primaries' is the most accurate part in the 538 piece IMHO.

[Nanjeanne]

13. My point is this is a poll of 35 People. To headline it ACTIVISTS as if that means something

is misleading and disingenuous as it implies politically savvy people who’s opinion matters based on some inside knowledge. Without any indication of what these people advocate for or what campaigns they volunteer for - it is meaningless and possibly purposefully misleading.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. A whole 35 respondents. Lol. We have almost as many candidates.

Why even make this a graph? Silly.

[Celerity]

14. it was never adverted as a national survey, it only focused on a few small but influential (early

primary) states. That was made very clear in my OP.

[NurseJackie]

4. Fascinating. Thanks for posting this.