538, early states: Warren +2.7 in IA & NH, Biden +3.9 in NV & +23 in SC

[highplainsdem]

Those are 538's own averages of recent state polls, in this article:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democratic-primary-looks-pretty-different-in-each-of-the-early-states/


They're pointing out that Warren's ahead in two, and Biden's ahead in two (though they also call Biden's nearly 4 point lead in NV a "three way tie," which I consider hilarious wording when they don't call Warrens 2.7 point lead in Iowa and NH a tie with Biden; that's typical, though, of the pro-Warren bias of a lot of media coverage....such as her getting a short-lived .2 lead in the RCP average nationally resulting in lots of headlines, while Biden's quickly regaining the lead got no headlines at all, as far as I've seen).


Anyway, beyond those poll averages, let's consider the delegates:


Iowa has 49 delegates, and New Hampshire has 33. (Numbers from Ballotpedia.) Nevada has 48, and South Carolina has 63.

So Warren's 2.7 points ahead in states with a total of 82 delegates. Biden's 3.9 points ahead in a state with 48 delegates and 23 points ahead in a state with 63 delegates. The two early states where Biden leads have a total of 111 delegates.

Yet the media coverage usually suggests that all that matters is Warren's slight lead in those two earliest, very unrepresentative states.

Even though Biden has a lead of 23 points in one state with more than 3/4 as many delegates as the two states combined where Warren has a 2.7 point lead.

IA and NH have a combined population of about 4.5 million.

NV and SC have a combined population of over 8 million.

Yet we're supposed to take Warren's slight lead in two small, almost entirely white states as proof that she's the frontrunner and the strongest candidate.

[evertonfc]

1. let's see but

Biden will perform much better in states with higher minority populations. I live in TN and he will win here and not have to spend a cent

[Peacetrain]

2. Also in Iowa no one is getting 100% of the delegates

they are proportionated out..

[sunonmars]

3. and that makes the difference, big wins in rich minority delegate states will help a lot.

[Peacetrain]

6. EXACTLY!!!

[Turin_C3PO]

4. I think Joe should

still be considered the front runner at this point. But we can’t write off IA and NH. The winner of those states may have more momentum going forward and the polls in the other states could reflect that. So I’m still hoping for Biden wins in the first two states in order to preserve his front runner status.

[NewJeffCT]

5. However

if she wins the first two states - Iowa and New Hampshire - she will have "momentum" on her side and maybe closes the gap in South Carolina. That's a big IF, though. Still a few months to go

[DownriverDem]

11. For real

Biden is our best chance to win the Electoral College and beat trump. trump does not want to run against Biden. That's a fact.

[bluewater]

7. Let's examine the supposed "pro_Warren media bias" in this article

though they also call Biden's nearly 4 point lead in NV a "three way tie," which I consider hilarious wording when they don't call Warrens 2.7 point lead in Iowa and NH a tie with Biden; that's typical, though, of the pro-Warren bias of a lot of media coverage....

Except, 538 didn't call it a "three way tie" in Nevada, did they?

No, they said this:

It’s a three-way race in Nevada

and it clearly is a three way race, not a "three way tie" as the OP purports.

Ok... how did 538 report Warren's lead in Iowa?
Like this:

Warren has edged ahead of Biden in Iowa

um, that sounds very accurate and not biased for Warren at all, right? 538 said she "edged ahead" -- that doesn't sound like exaggerating Warren's lead now, does it? Nope.

And finally, 538 said this about Warren's lead in New Hapmshire:

Warren surged in New Hampshire, but Biden gained too

Which again seems fair since Warren went +9 and Biden went +2.7 in second place. And notice that 538 made a point of highlighting that Biden gained in the polling too. Again, I can't see any "pro-Warren media bias" in that either.


So, sorry, but I just do not see any "pro-Warren media bias" in this 538 article at all.



People can read it for themselves and see that for themselves, of course, like I just did.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democratic-primary-looks-pretty-different-in-each-of-the-early-states/

[highplainsdem]

8. You should have read more carefully:

But in our next two early-voting states — Nevada and South Carolina — the picture gets a little fuzzier because we don’t have as many polls. Biden continues to lead the pack in both states (although in Nevada, the race looks more like a three-way tie), but there just hasn’t been as much consistent polling in either state. And that’s a problem, because even though both states come later in the calendar, they are much more racially and ethnically diverse than either Iowa or New Hampshire. So these states could offer important insight as to how other more-diverse states may be leaning, as New Hampshire and Iowa look less and less like the Democratic Party.

Emphasis added, in case you might overlook it again.

[bluewater]

12. they said "the race looks more like a three way tie", that was cut out in the OP

and significantly misrepresented the point 538 was making in the article.

So, 538 didn't say it was a 3 way tie in Nevada, they said "the race looks more like a three way tie" when they were saying the picture was fuzzier because that state had fewer polls.

Reading that, 538 clearly qualified it by saying "looks more like" when describing that race.

Including that more complete quotation certainly changes the emphasis, doesn't it? Yes, it does.

Again the heading 538 used for Nevada portion of the article itself was extremely fair:

It’s a three-way race in Nevada

538 described Iowa as being an extremely close race, using the phrasing "edged ahead" describing that:

Warren has edged ahead of Biden in Iowa

And, again, 538 took pains to point out that Biden gained in New Hampshire also:

Warren surged in New Hampshire, but Biden gained too

So, again, where is the supposed "pro-Warren media bias" in this 538 article?



There is none.

[qazplm135]

9. so if she wins both NH and IA

your theory is that won't change the polls in NV and SC at all?

That in that scenario, Biden's 3.9 lead in NV might not be in danger?

And if she wins the first three, well, no effect on SC?

At least this is progress, we went from "Biden's leading everywhere" to now, Biden's leading in two out of four states and they have more population and delegates!(Of course all four states combined don't even amount to 10 percent of all delegates)

[Thekaspervote]

10. IA & NH have given little insight over the past few years. Got a crystal ball?? About as helgful

NH 08 winner HRC
IA 08 prez Obama

NH 16 winner Sanders with a 22% margin of victory
IA 16 HRC over Sanders by a very narrow margin

And just to throw in some other stats about N.H. & IA showing who will win the nomination

IA GOP 2016 caucus winner Ted Cruz
IA gop caucus 08 Huckabee by 10%
NH gop 08 caucus winner McCain
NH gop 16 dotard

So, toss a coin, tie a bow on your pinky, walk and chew gum.

[frazzled]

13. SC obviously the one to watch

Warren is up by a tiny smidgen in very white Iowa and NH. But Biden's 23 point lead in SC reflects the first real African American vote. No one can win (the primary, or more important, the general) without substantial black turnout and votes. It's got to be Obama-level participation, which ain't easy.

[Thekaspervote]

14. Indeed! SC will be telling as it is the bellwether for the AA voter

I do think it will be pretty obvious by Super Tuesday how it will play out, regardless of those that think not

[Indykatie]

15. The Media Also Fails to Note that Biden and Warren Will Emerge with Similar Numbers of Delegates

in IA, NH and NV since none of the contests are winner take all. Another problem for candidates not named Biden in SC is that some top tier candidates could fail to get any delegates in Congressional Districts if they don't reach the 15% threshold.

[PhoenixDem]

16. Warren winning NH is no big deal - that is assumed

She is from Massachusetts for heaven's sake!

I think that regardless of the polls, Iowa will be a tie like last time. Tie doesn't give Warren much momentum.

[highplainsdem]

17. kick