Despite candidates rising & falling - there's been one constant: Biden's led universally nationally

[Drunken Irishman]

There has not been one national poll, going back to the start of the year, according to RCP, that Biden has not either been tied for the top spot, or sat at the top. This is remarkably steady and indicates Biden's overall staying power, since there have been multiple candidates rise and fall over that same stretch.

It's not just nationally, either.

Currently, in Iowa, Biden's average lead is 9%.

Since December, Biden has led in every poll calculated in RCP's average.

In New Hampshire, Biden's lead is far more narrow, but, since announcing his campaign (April), Biden has led in 7 of the last 8 polls. Prior to announcing, the top spot flipped between Warren and Sanders most polls.

There's a good amount of people who continue to undersell Biden. By historic standards, I do not believe he is a weak front-runner.

Believe it or not, he's in a very similar spot than Trump found himself in at this point in 2016.

Going based on front-runner strength, Trump was a pretty strong primary front-runner in 2016, leading in the national polls at this point - as well as Iowa (by an average of roughly 8%) and New Hampshire (by an average of roughly 13% - so, a bit stronger). Of course, he'd go on to lose Iowa but won New Hampshire in a romp.

Hillary was also a strong front-runner in 2016. Of course, that was really a two-person race, which helped her (and, in some ways, hurt her). It helped her because the vote didn't split and she was able to sustain above 50% for most the pre-primary polling season. It hurt her, though, because her opponent, Sanders, was able to consolidate his support - something that he has been unable to do this go around with Warren in the race. So, what happened, is that Hillary sustained her support (in an average of Iowa polls from Aug. 16, Hillary had 50.5% of the support) - but she was unable to expand that support. With no additional candidates in the race to peel off support from Sanders, he surged. Hillary 'won' Iowa with 49.8% of the vote - roughly exactly her polling average on Aug. 16, 2015. Sanders, though, was able to surge from 26.3% on Aug. 16, 2015, in the polls to 49.6% in the final results. Clinton and Sanders were also essentially tied in New Hampshire at this point four years ago - with Hillary having an average of 40.7% and Sanders 39.7%. Again, we have a situation where Hillary's support didn't change much. She won 41.2% in New Hampshire - almost identical to her polling average in August. Where things changed is that Sanders gobbled up all the other undecideds. No such chance of that happening this go around.

But again, Hillary remained a pretty strong front-runner. She, like Trump, was a front-runner in August, 2015 and eventually won the nomination.

Contrast that with 2012, where Romney was a weak front-runner. Romney struggled, throughout spring and summer of 2011, getting above 25% in the RCP average. While he did lead nationally, his lead evaporated roughly at this point in 2011, with Perry overtaking him in the average of national polls on Aug. 24th. Romney would briefly regain the lead in October, but lose it again until early January, but even in February, he lost the lead for a spell to Rick Santorum.

But call Romney a weak front-runner, not just because of his slipping nationally in the late summer of 2011, but also because his struggle in Iowa. Romney, of course, lost Iowa in 2008, as well, to Mike Huckabee and it all but ended his campaign as John McCain was then bolstered by winning New Hampshire, which Romney led in up until his Iowa loss.

On Aug. 16, 2011, Romney actually trailed Michele Bachmann in an RCP average of Iowa polls. In fact, Romney barely ever led in Iowa leading up the caucus, only seizing the lead in the average of polls days before the caucus ... and he actually lost Iowa to Santorum - who was third in polls behind Romney and Paul.

Romney losing Iowa was proof he would have a fight on his hands and he did. He struggled wrapping up the nomination. He eventually did, but it was a battle and it dinged him heading into the general. Of course, Obama beat Romney in an electoral landslide.

But, again, Romney was a weak front-runner.

In 2008, Hillary was also a (fairly) weak front-runner.

But how?!? She led significantly nationally in 2008!

This is true. On Aug 16, 2007, Hillary led Obama by roughly 17 points. That's huge!

Yet there were signs he campaign was struggling. Unlike today, the only direct competition she had was Obama and Edwards. There was no other significant primary threat, and even then, Edwards was a very distant third. Obama was her closest competition nationally, despite the field being quite large. There wasn't a lot of vote splitting, as you're seeing today, which, as was the case in 2016, kind of hurt Hillary. Nationally, despite only receiving a fight from, really, only Obama, she never broke 50% in an average of polls.

In Iowa, though, things were considerably closer. Again, this was a state where there were only three real, viable candidates.On Aug. 16, 2007, Hillary had an average lead of just 2.3 points against Obama and 6.3 points against Edwards. Only Bill Richardson registered more than 10% in the average. Her lead in Iowa was nowhere near her lead nationally. Of course, Iowa proved the game-changer. If Obama doesn't win the caucus, he doesn't win the nomination. Even with Hillary being a (fairly) weak front-runner, she nearly almost won the nomination anyway - and again, this turned into a two-person race really quickly. There's no sign of 2020 turning into a two-person race at this point.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani was a weak front-runner. He may actually have been the weakest front-runner in the history of primary politics. Despite holding an average lead of 10 points nationally on Aug. 16, 2007, Giuliani trailed by nearly ten-points on average to Mitt Romney in Iowa. He also trailed by ten points on average at that same time in New Hampshire.

The point here? Biden is well-positioned to win the nomination. It's not a slam dunk by any means, but he is currently what I would call a strong front-runner - someone who has a significant lead nationally, but also a sizable lead in Iowa and a lead in New Hampshire.

Now can this change? Absolutely! Will it? Well, we've been told it'll change for months now and yet, Biden's lead continues to persist.

[WheelWalker]

1. I enjoy reading your thoughts.

[Thekaspervote]

2. Great post! Enjoyed your comments as well

[caraher]

3. It really can't change until the field narrows

We haven't had a race like this in a long time - maybe 2004? Joe has an inside track from being the VP of a very popular president, and for many that, and the perception that he may do better in key battleground states, that is enough. As the field narrows shifts become more likely, and I'm sure Joe will do well in attracting his share of support from "centrist" candidates. But it's hard to see supporters of the more "progressive" candidates flocking to Biden; I expect a lot of Sanders and Warren supporters have second-choices that are not Joe.

So while on one hand Biden has maintained a pretty steady level of support and clearly leads the race at this point, there are far more Democratic supporters of other candidates, and most of those folks are really looking for a change rather than a promise to return to something resembling pre-Trump America.

All of which is to say that this really isn't terribly surprising to me, at least, and also doesn't mean Biden is the presumptive nominee the way many took Hillary to be a shoo-in at this stage of 2016 (or even 2008). Indeed, in some ways this feels a bit like 2008, except that rather than a single figure like Obama emerging early as the obvious alternative to the early leader, we have a bunch of viable candidates.

[Kurt V.]

4. i think the poll numbers have been steady for all the candidates except two.

biden is still riding name recognition for now but that doesn't mean he can't close the deal.

[Skya Rhen]

5. Excellent analysis!

[peggysue2]

6. Kick!

Because the analysis deserves it, DI.

[highplainsdem]

7. K&R! Thanks for posting this great analysis!

[colsohlibgal]

8. Long Way To Go

Name recognition and familiarity have served Joe well. But that doesn’t always carry all the way through. The next thinned down debates should be quite important.

I still like Warren’s chance to win in the end but I don’t think anything is a lock for anyone this far out, I think of Gary Hart and George Romney.