Good thing "curatorial journalism" isn't real, otherwise I might observe that in mid-2019 Biden was, per NBC, supported by 52% of black Democrats and was +38 on his closest competitor, compared 43% and +21 now. It's a slow fade as we approach Election Day. thehill.com/homenews/campa…
PS/ Biden may win SC. What a fade tells us—Clinton underwent the same thing—is Biden could be in more trouble than some think if he can't win any of IA, NH or NV, and may have a smaller advantage than we suspect in diverse states that nevertheless have fewer black voters than SC.
PS2/ Keep in mind, too, that time "shifts" as candidates approach a primary, so the seven months between the NBC News polling of mid-'19 and today is roughly equivalent, in terms of how we might expect to see polls move, to the mere month or so between now and Election Day in SC.
PS3/ Any betting person—me included—would say Biden will win SC. They'd also say that if Biden can't win IA, NH or NV, then wins SC by single digits, it's not going to be the strong showing that "puts him back on the map" that he'll need or that his supporters will tell us it is.
PS4/ Anyone can/should for whichever Democrat they like. I think what's bothersome is that "Democratic strategists" lock onto a narrative many months before a state votes and then hold onto it like a dog with a bone even as/when the numbers begin to shift a bit. It's frustrating.
PS5/ 9 days ago, Biden was 48% and +28 with black SC voters; now, it's 43% and +20. Different polls? Sure. A large enough lead even a "slow fade" may not matter? Sure. But why do we never assume mainstream pols should be able to hold/add to polling leads? abcnews.go.com/Politics/vice-…
PS6/ Instead, we get the same article 20 times in 7 months—"Biden with massive lead over others in black vote in SC"—even as we see a tumble from 58% support to 52% to 48% to 43%. It's all treated as "unchanging" data—even as other movements of 3% to 5% are considered noteworthy.
PS7/ I've made my endorsement—but am not the sort who bemoans what other Dems do. I also like Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, and even—a bit—Bloomberg, so even if 99% of black SC voters were backing Biden I'd be fine with it. It is what it is—I just dislike disingenuous data analyses.
PS8/ A healthier thing in 2016, now, 2024, and the next 20 elections would be for us to admit that *any* pol with high name recognition and a national political background—e.g. being a nationally elected VP rather than state-elected U.S. senator—starts with a *massive* advantage.
PS9/ Instead, because Democratic strategists need to get on TV somehow, we get these intractable "conventional wisdom" narratives—e.g. black voters don't like Sanders and never will—that become fait accompli by being repeated so often, even as the hard data show signs of a shift.
PS10/ Steyer (Steyer!) is now getting 22% of the black vote in SC. Either you say it's meaningless (it isn't), or that Steyer has a natural appeal to black voters (not at all clear), or that cash can buy anything (it can't), or recognize polling is a matrix of many, many factors.
