Summary
The 9th Democratic debate was a milestone in many ways. Though it has ruffled feathers over the short-term, Democrats should be pleased with the result as indicators of interest have returned, implying a potentially stronger turnout come the general election. Of all the analysis and news items coming out of the debate, this is likely the most important.
Bernie Sanders won the night using a variety of alternative metrics. Our core SMI put Sanders in front, as did most on-line post-debate snap polls. Indicators of interest in candidates, such as Google search trends, put Sanders in second.
This makes the third debate that Sanders has won in a row, clearly highlighting his current momentum.
Bloomberg’s first debate performance was mixed. He placed a close second in SMI while winning various interest metrics, including Google search trends during and the morning following the debate. However, his results according to on-line post-debate snap polls were disappointing to say the least, with most placing him in the bottom half. His performance was good enough to keep him as the consensus front-runner of the moderates but not good enough to push anyone out of the race.
Pete Buttigieg logged a reasonable debate. His third place SMI finish was matched by third place finishes in multiple snap polls (refer to Table 1) and in Google Trends during the debate. Buttigieg has for some time scored like the ‘attractive alternate’, in the sense that he tends to perform consistently well but not well enough to breakout. If our data could talk, it is as if the electorate enjoys keeping him around and likes having him as a back-up but don’t want to fully commit to him as the front-runner. This might actually play out well for him in the case of a brokered convention where a compromise candidate is sought.
Elizabeth Warren had one of her best performances in some time. A fourth in SMI does not appear that attractive but in fact she did finish very close to third and such placement does show improvement over other recent debate finishes. Also, many on-line snap polls placed her in second, right behind Sanders. Her performance, based on a variety of alternative metrics, was reasonably strong, especially for a candidate who had lost so much momentum. This debate seemingly has provided her a lifeline.
Amy Klobuchar under-performed. During the previous three debates, she somewhat unexpectedly finished second, but this streak was brought to an end in the 9th debate. Her second to last place finish was confirmed by a variety of metrics — everything from social media, search, snap polls, and betting market performances confirm her poor performance.
Joe Biden’s slide continued as he finished last in SMI as well as according to many metrics we track. For months prior to Iowa, our data highlighted Biden as a mediocre candidate, not the front-runner. What we have seen more recently in early voting states and in declines in traditional metrics (like national polls and betting markets) are just confirmations of our earlier negative observations concerning his campaign.
We continue to expect rapid movement in the moderate lane prior to Super Tuesday, though that time window is starting to close. Sanders’ strength is real, at this point it has been confirmed via traditional and alternative metrics. If moderates do not thin the field further or quickly coalesce around a single candidate, Sanders will win.
The Data
There are three different types of data in Table 1 (below).
SMI uses social media data to measure on-line influence of the candidates during the debate.
The next two entries, Heavy and Washington Examiner, are on-line post-debate snap polls asking who won the debate, with data taken the day following the debate.
The last two data points refer to Google Search popularity during the debate and during a peak period from the day following the debate (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 six candidates participating in the debate 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. | |
| Bernie Sanders | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1.4 |
| Mike Bloomberg | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2.6 |
| Pete Buttigieg | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.2 |
| Elizabeth Warren | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Amy Klobuchar | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.2 |
| Joe Biden | 6 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5.6 |
Source: ZettaCap, Google Trends, heavy.com, WashingtonExaminer
Clearly, Bernie Sanders won the debate — following his victories in the previous two debates.
His metrics are fairly impressive as he scored well across a wide range of indicators. Perhaps his most impressive category was on-line post-debate snap polls. Of the five distinct snap polls we follow, Sanders won all five, and some by a significant margin. Sanders even won the snap poll from the Drudge Report, one of the farther right-leaning sites.
As for interest in a candidate, Bloomberg edged out Sanders. In terms of our internal social media based interest indicators, of on-line search measures, and even Google trends, Bloomberg won the night.
From the electorate’s perspective, Bloomberg is just simply interesting. And, this shows via a spike in the aforementioned indicators.
His lower ratings in on-line snap polls likely reflect a lack of core following. The problem is the tight time frame, that is as he entered the race so much later than other candidates he does not yet (it appears) have a core group of individuals.
The data imply that his support is very wide but more shallow in comparison to other candidates. In other words, Bloomberg will need to quickly transform that superficial level of interest into a intense following.
Debate rankings for Buttigieg are consistent, placing him right around third. In fact, Buttigieg ranks from second to fourth place throughout our SMI ratings going back to Debate 1. Various other candidates have surged into first place, but Buttigieg always seems to rest in the top handful — just not the lead. The same pattern played out in Debate 9 as Buttigieg ranked third in many metrics. He seems to be the preferred alternate.
Interest and Enthusiasm Indicators Surging
ZettaCap had highlighted from early in the nomination process that there were definite signs of deteriorating enthusiasm. From as early as after the second debate, we posted our concerns. These trends played out pretty much across the board, in social media, search, snap polls, debate viewership and other areas.
With such intact, it looked like enthusiasm had drained from the Democratic Party. The implication was that voter turnout would suffer in the general election.
The 9th debate reversed these trends. SMI improvement returned to its highest level since the second debate, as did average participation in on-line post-debate snap polls. Previously, the downward trends of these indicators were red flags for decreasing voter interest in the Democratic nomination process. The reversal due to the 9th debate shows that interest has returned.
Other indicators have also turned around as well. Perhaps the most tangible was the spike in debate viewership as measured by Nielson. The number of viewers is estimated to have hit a high for this election cycle during the 9th debate, which Democrats should celebrate as positive news.
The Democrats are not out of the woods yet. There are still many unknowns in the nomination process — not least of which is what a brokered convention might produce.
As for this week, however, Democrats should be hopeful as the increased interest shown in the nomination process has greatly improved their chances of producing the necessary voter turnout in the general election.