Summary
Tulsi Gabbard was the standout of the night. This conclusion is confirmed by ZettaCap’s Social Media Influence (SMI) and Google Search Trends. Additionally, she came in second according to two on-line surveys. (Coincidentally, these results are similar to the results of debate 2/1, where Marianne Williamson took first in SMI and Google Searches and second in on-line surveys.)
Andrew Yang finished a very close second place in SMI while winning the on-line surveys. Yang had a solid night overall.
After Gabbard and Yang, there is a significant dropoff for SMI and poll performance, and there does not appear to be others who stood out. It was a seemingly mediocre night for both Biden and Harris, two of the poll leaders who were expected by the consensus to be the key players during the debate.
The Data
There are three different types of data in Table 1 (below).
SMI uses social media data and calculates a proprietary influence rating. The next two entries, Heavy and Washington Examiner, are on-line surveys asking who won the debate. We specifically chose a left-leaning (Heavy) and right-leaning (Washington Examiner) survey sources to see if there was any difference. The last two refer to Google Search popularity during the debate and during a peak period from the next day to see how trends might have shifted post-debate when people search to find out more about a candidate.
It is important to state that SMI’s rankings are completely independent of the other forms of analysis — and that SMI provides similar yet unique insights.
Additionally, we should highlight that SMI made early and correct forecasts for the 2016 US Election, 2017 French Election, and 2018 Brazil Election – all considered extremely difficult elections to correctly forecast.
Comparative Rankings
The following table lays out the ranked finish of each of the ten candidates according to a variety of methods.
Table 1: Ranking by Candidate’s Debate Performance by a Variety of Methods (Debate 2/2)
| SMI | Heavy.com (Survey) | WashingtonExaminer.com (Survey) | Google Search, during debate | Google Search, next day | Avg. | |
| Gabbard | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.4 |
| Yang | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 2.6 |
| Castro | 3 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 6.6 |
| Inslee | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6.4 |
| Booker | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5.0 |
| Harris | 6 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5.0 |
| Gillibrand | 7 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6.2 |
| Biden | 8 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4.0 |
| Bennet | 9 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8.6 |
| de Blasio | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9.2 |
Source: ZettaCap, Heavy, Washington Examiner, Google Trends
Tulsi Gabbard put up impressive figures, scoring in the top two in each of the categories. Andrew Yang also had an impressive performance, though scoring only mediocre ratings in Google Searches.
Interestingly, there are some candidates whose SMIs do not match very well to their performance in other metrics. Castro, for instance, shows attractive SMI (having placed third) while placing close to last in Google Searches. On the other hand, Biden’s social media performance (having placed eighth in SMI) tended to do much better in other metrics.
Gabbard to be Taken Seriously?
According to our analysis on debate 1/1, Gabbard performed well, coming in second place in SMI, first place in the on-line surveys, and in the top two in Google Search.
Now, in debate 2/2, she again comes in the top two in every metric.
So, when will mainstream analysts and pundits begin to take Tulsi Gabbard seriously?
An extremely similar issue was noted for Marianne Williamson who, like Tulsi Gabbard, has performed well in the first two debates but has yet to receive the mainstream attention that their debate numbers warrant.
In both of these cases, their respective metrics tend to perform well during specific events such as debates or even important interviews, but then tend to slump back down afterwards. This is true as well for SMI.
A strong candidate will build off of short-term successes, such as a breakout debate performance. Both Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson are struggling to turn these impressive performances into sustainable gains.
Mainstream coverage is important at this stage. Yes, social media is important and even indispensable but these candidates require mainstream media coverage and exposure to move to top-tier status. Both are on the cusp and will likely receive better opportunities over the next 6 weeks in the run-up to debate 3. For them to be considered serious contenders, their respective SMIs will need to remain strong between debates and not just during debates.
Significant Decline of Overall Interest
Though still early in the campaign, a decline in relative interest for the Democratic race seems to be emerging.
ZettaCap’s social media activity metric measuring interest in the participating Democratic candidates declined by 31% from debate 1/1 (1st debate, 1st night) to debate 2/1.
Now, for debate 2/2 from debate 1/2, the social media activity metric declined an astonishing 45%.
These numbers are surprisingly negative.
According to Politico, the number of viewers for debate 1/2 was 18.1 million and dropped to 10.7 million for debate 2/2. This translates to a decline of 41%.
Such massive decreases in ZettaCap’s social media activity metric and in the number of TV viewers implies a sharp reversal in enthusiasm. As voter enthusiasm is generally a good indicator of voter turnout such a trend could spell trouble for Democrats.
Furthermore, the Democratic field is still wide open with four candidates polling (Real Clear Politics average) in double digits and five having a double digit chance of becoming the nominee (Predictit). This is not the time for the base to lose interest. In fact, it should be the time when candidates and supporters are ramping up their campaigns.