** The following commentary was published following the 4th Democratic debate and data mentioned below is from that period. It highlights the winners and losers as based on a variety of metrics, including ZettaCap’s SMI. It follows the same analysis format that was used for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round of debates.
==================================
Summary
The three winners of the 4th Democratic debate were Yang, Sanders, and Gabbard. Social Media Influence (SMI), our main election forecasting tool, put them in the top three, as did the average of the various alternative metrics highlighted in Table 1.
Buttigieg, Warren, and Biden performed well enough to stay relevant but not well enough to standout. This should be particularly worrying for Democrats as there is an approximate 79% chance, according to the betting or prediction site Predictit.org, that one of them will become the nominee.
The bottom half of the candidates (Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Castro, Harris, Booker, and Steyer) were unable to obtain sufficient traction on our social media metrics, on-line voting, or search trends. Without a significant turnaround, these candidates will not remain relevant for much longer in the race.
The Data
There are three different types of data in Table 1 (below).
SMI uses social media data to measure on-line influence. 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 twelve candidates according to a variety of methods.
Table 1: Ranking by Candidate’s Debate Performance by a Variety of Methods
| SMI | Heavy.com (Survey) | WashingtonExaminer.com (Survey) | Google Search, during debate | Google Search, next day | Avg. | |
| Yang | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 3.0 |
| Sanders | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3.8 |
| Gabbard | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2.4 |
| Buttigieg | 4 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Warren | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3.8 |
| Klobuchar | 6 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 7.4 |
| Biden | 7 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5.2 |
| O’Rourke | 8 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 9.4 |
| Castro | 9 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | 11.4 |
| Harris | 10 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 9.2 |
| Booker | 11 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9.6 |
| Steyer | 12 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 8 | 8.6 |
Source: ZettaCap, Heavy, Washington Examiner, Google Trends
Andrew Yang was the clear SMI winner of the debate. His candidacy, however, is difficult for many to interpret. He has a simple yet different message with his Universal Basic Income (UBI) platform of providing $1,000 / month to Americans. His talking points also vary significantly from other Democratic candidates, making him an outlier for media coverage.
Regardless, SMI has him winning the last two Democratic debates (the most recent as well as the September debate). In contrast, polls (realclearpolitics.com poll average) have him in 7th place and prediction markets (predictit.org) have him in 5th place.
A similar situation has appeared for Tulsi Gabbard. In the most recent debate, SMI placed her in 3rd, whereas the average of the various metrics presented in Table 1 has her in the top position. SMI also had her winning the July debate. In contrast, polls and betting markets currently have her in 11th place.
The divergence between performing well during debates and weak traditional metrics (as well as the reverse) has become a characteristic of the 2020 Democratic race, which we will touch on later.
Relying on traditional metrics, Warren and Biden are the two favorites. However, neither one performed well during the last two debates. According to both SMI and on-line surveys regarding debate performance, both candidates appear to be registering mediocre performances.
Sanders seems to be doing a bit better. His debate performances, including in the most recent debate, are relatively strong but has yet to provide a standout performance. He appears to be doing well enough to be one of the front-runners but not well enough to take the lead.
Short-Term Boosts but Lacking Longer Term Traction
Essentially, according to SMI as well as to alternative data metrics, the Democratic field has been producing various short-term winners, none of whom has been able to obtain significant longer term traction.
We have seen Harris, Buttigieg, Castro, O’Rourke, Williamson, Gabbard, and Yang all make significant short-term SMI gains – but all such moves proved fleeting.
Furthermore, according to SMI, Harris, Castro, Williamson, Gabbard, and Yang have all won a 2020 Democratic debate. None, except for Harris for a brief flash, was able to translate a debate win into a significant poll increase.
Importantly, according to SMI, the leaders of traditional metrics, Biden, Warren, and Sanders, have yet to win a debate.
Normal Pattern vs Current Pattern
The 2020 Democratic race varies significantly from other elections we have covered.
The normal pattern, in general terms, includes one or perhaps two candidates standing out in terms of SMI from early in the campaign and then:
In a situation similar to the one described, such candidates naturally pull ahead of the others and, assuming there are no major changes, win the election. We have seen this pattern (or one very similar) play out in a variety of elections in multiple countries.
The current environment in the 2020 Democratic race diverges greatly from the ‘normal’ pattern described.
First, almost every major candidate has stood out via SMI at some point during 2019. So, instead of SMI highlighting one or perhaps two strong candidates, it has highlighted almost all of the major candidates for brief periods.
Second, candidates have broadly been unable to sustain SMI improvements. So, instead of gains in SMI leading to further gains, they mostly are followed by a short-term peak and then a return to approximately the previous level. In more than a few cases, pre-fabricated ‘moments’, or purposeful attempts to create viral soundbites, have worked as triggers for SMI surges. But, these have not resulted in longer term traction.
Third, winners of debates have been broadly unable to translate those wins into sustainable SMI gains or into sustainable improvements in polls or betting markets. This is in contrast to most elections where debate wins, as measured by SMI and/or other alternative metrics, result in improvements in traditional metrics.
Fourth, the candidates leading in traditional metrics have not won any debates (based on SMI) and those same candidates have not shown sustainable SMI leadership. This is extremely unusual based on our experience analyzing other elections.
The key term that explains this unusual pattern could be ‘Electability’.
Electability and the 2020 Democratic Race
The 2020 battlecry for Democrats is electability.
Democrats so badly want to win in 2020 that they have focused, almost exclusively, on the perceived ability of a candidate to win the general election.
The focus on electability … continue reading.