The significance of front-runner status at this point in the race

[LincolnRossiter]

I’ve posted this info in a couple of threads but thought it worth highlighting since I still see so many posts dismissing a polling lead as irrelevant at this stage of a primary. Obviously the past doesn't necessarily predict the future, but it’s worth considering when discussing possible outcomes.

According to Realclearpolitics, in the last five contested primaries (two in 2008, one in 2012, two in 2016), the candidate leading at the end of August in the preceding year (approx where we are now) won in 3/5 cases—the last three, in fact. Romney won in 2012, Clinton in 2016, and Trump in 2016. In 2008, Clinton and Giuliani led at this point in their respective primaries, but Obama and McCain ultimately captured the nominations of their respective parties.

In 4/5 cases (all but Giuliani, who had a bizarre strategy of not seriously contesting any primary until Florida) the late August leader went the distance and finished top 2. This includes the three aforementioned winners plus Hillary in 2008 (who actually received more raw votes than Obama in that year’s primary.

Again, this obviously doesn’t mean that being in the pole position early on guarantees ultimate success (as highlighted by Clinton and Giuliani in 2008), but it’s also not meaningless. A 60% rate of success and an 80% rate of “going the distance” is significant.

[highplainsdem]

1. Thanks! This is important information. And yet, even though Biden being in the lead now (let alone

having maintained that lead for so long despite very active campaigning by well-known rivals) is significant, we still keep seeing media stories about Biden's lead being "fragile" or "shaky," One recent story said he was "teetering" atop the field of candidates.

Whoops, that last one wasn't the story itself, but the Time magazine tweet about a story calling Biden's lead fragile:

Link to tweet

Poor Joe, with his shaky, fragile 10-month lead, usually with about twice as much support as his nearest rival...

[LincolnRossiter]

3. The media's priorities, as far as I can tell are...

1. Selling a horse race narrative to drive interest and polls

2. Showing love to Sen Warren. And before her supporters start screeching at me again, that’s not a knock on Warren. She can’t control the fact that most in the MSM seem to have a preference for her.

[wasupaloopa]

2. And I find it weird that people take events from past history

and frame them in a way that infers that the past predicts the future.

Since there is cause and effect to get a duplicate result you would need the same cause. And because the electorate is always changing outcomes are always changing.

The cause is the electorate and the outcome is the winning candidate. The fact that they were front runners is coincidence.

[LincolnRossiter]

4. Maybe you should read my disclaimer, which I twice highlighted.

FWIW, intelligent people, including economists, historians, political strategists, military strategists, etc. do often look to the past as they try to make sense of and/or handicap the future. Past events are just among the considerations taken into account, though. My confidence in Biden has more to do with his enduring lead and black support than what happened in the past. If my candidate were polling at 2% amongst the largest voting bloc in an entire region of the country (the South) I’d have concerns.

[wasupaloopa]

5. So you are saying A may happen but b could also happen.

A happened in some years .

That statement has no solution.

[LincolnRossiter]

6. No. I'm saying that being an early frontrunner has, at least in recent history, portended success in

in the process. And I’m sure that’s for a variety of reasons—more early endorsements, more early money, more exposure, a more robust organization, etc.

[Thekaspervote]

7. Indeed history does have something to predict... we are creatures of habit