Thread by @SethAbramson

(THREAD) This thread compiles state-by-state polling for each of the Democratic presidential candidates using the Real Clear Politics average, ranking each candidate's placements from best to worst. I hope you will RETWEET this snapshot of where the race stands pre-Super Tuesday.

NOTES FOR MEDIA:

1⃣ KLOBUCHAR is done. She's only better than sixth (or tied for fifth) in her home state.
2⃣ STEYER has no strength anywhere but SC.
3⃣ BUTTIGIEG has little strength except in states bordering those he already ran in.
4⃣ WARREN is more competitive than you say.

BERNIE SANDERS

NATIONAL: 1⃣

CA: 1⃣
CO: 1⃣
IL: 1⃣
MA: 1⃣
ME: 1⃣
NC: 1⃣
NY: 1⃣
TX: 1⃣
UT: 1⃣
VA: 1⃣
WA: 1⃣
WI: 1⃣

MN: 2⃣
PA: 2⃣
SC: 2⃣

FL: 3⃣
OK: 3⃣

STATES WITH ONLY ONE POLL THIS YEAR:

MD: 1⃣
MI: 1⃣
NJ: 1⃣

GA: 2⃣

JOE BIDEN

NATIONAL: 2⃣

FL: 1⃣
PA: 1⃣
SC: 1⃣

NC: 2⃣
OK: 2⃣
TX: 2⃣
WA: 2⃣

CA: 3⃣
IL: 3⃣
NC: 3⃣
NY: 3⃣
VA: 3⃣
WI: 3⃣

MA: 4⃣
ME: 4⃣
MN: 4⃣

CO: 5⃣
UT: 5⃣

STATES WITH ONLY ONE POLL THIS YEAR:

GA: 1⃣

MD: 2⃣
MI: 2⃣

NJ: 3⃣

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

NATIONAL: 3⃣

OK: 1⃣

FL: 2⃣
IL: 2⃣
NY: 2⃣
UT: 2⃣
VA: 2⃣
WI: 2⃣

ME: 3⃣
NC: 3⃣
PA: 3⃣
TX: 3⃣
WA: 3⃣

CA: 4⃣
CO: 4⃣

MA: 5⃣

MN: 6⃣

SC: ❌

STATES WITH ONLY ONE POLL THIS YEAR:

GA: 2⃣
NJ: 2⃣

MD: 3⃣
MI: 3⃣

ELIZABETH WARREN:

NATIONAL: 4⃣

CA: 2⃣
CO: 2⃣
MA: 2⃣
UT: 2⃣

MN: 3⃣
WA: 3⃣

FL: 4⃣
NC: 4⃣
NY: 4⃣
PA: 4⃣
TX: 4⃣

ME: 5⃣
OK: 5⃣
SC: 5⃣
VA: 5⃣
WI: 5⃣

IL: 6⃣

STATES WITH ONLY ONE POLL THIS YEAR:

MI: 3⃣

GA: 5⃣
MD: 5⃣
NJ: 5⃣

PETE BUTTIGIEG

NATIONAL: 5⃣

ME: 2⃣

CO: 3⃣
MA: 3⃣

IL: 4⃣
OK: 4⃣
SC: 4⃣
UT: 4⃣
VA: 4⃣
WI: 4⃣

CA: 5⃣
FL: 5⃣
MN: 5⃣
NC: 5⃣
NY: 5⃣
PA: 5⃣
TX: 5⃣
WA: 5⃣

STATES WITH ONLY ONE POLL THIS YEAR:

GA: 4⃣
MD: 4⃣
NJ: 4⃣

MI: 5⃣

AMY KLOBUCHAR

NATIONAL: 6⃣

MN: 1⃣

IL: 5⃣
NY: 5⃣

CA: 6⃣
CO: 6⃣
FL: 6⃣
MA: 6⃣
ME: 6⃣
NC: 6⃣
OK: 6⃣
PA: 6⃣
SC: 6⃣
TX: 6⃣
UT: 6⃣
VA: 6⃣
WA: 6⃣
WI: 6⃣

STATES WITH ONLY ONE POLL THIS YEAR:

MD: 5⃣

GA: 6⃣
MI: 6⃣
NJ: 6⃣

STEYER

NATIONAL: 7⃣

SC: 3⃣

CA: 7⃣
FL: 7⃣
IL: 7⃣
NC: 7⃣
WA: 7⃣

MA: 8⃣
ME: 8⃣

CO: ❌
MN: ❌
NY: ❌
OK: ❌
PA: ❌
TX: ❌
UT: ❌
VA: ❌
WI: ❌

STATES WITH ONLY ONE POLL THIS YEAR:

GA: 7⃣
NJ: 7⃣

MD: ❌
MI: ❌

PS/ These data support the idea that unless Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Steyer break out in South Carolina, it'd be reasonable for all three to drop out pre-Super Tuesday. (Buttigieg is the closest call—but his few strengths seem to be residual glow from states he already ran in.)

PS2/ The other problem for Buttigieg is it's not clear there are many votes for him to pick up from others dropping out—as even if Klobuchar/Steyer drop out but Buttigieg doesn't, that's not a lot of votes for him to pick up. He remains relatively unpopular among nonwhite voters.

PS3/ The two candidates you'd expect most voters to already have made up their mind about—because they've both run for president before—are Sanders and Biden, so voters not in either of those camps seem likely to stay out of those camps for now (as they're out of them advisedly).

PS4/ Bloomberg's strength is almost entirely based on advertising—meaning his voters are fluid, as they're working mainly off name recognition from TV. It'd be little surprise to see him lose support in the next 3+ days, as Super Tuesday voters start paying much closer attention.

PS5/ There's no doubt Warren is in fourth—but there's also no doubt media has been *killing* her by either *not mentioning her at all* or—as John King did today, on CNN—saying she's as much on the "cusp" as Klobuchar. Look at the data above and explain to me how/why he said that.

PS6/ If—as the data suggests they should, post-South Carolina—Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Steyer drop out, it doesn't spread around a *lot* of votes, but *does* free up votes that seem slightly more likely to go to Warren than Sanders, Biden, or Bloomberg, for the reasons I've said.

PS7/ More importantly, if this were a 4-person race—between Sanders, Biden, Bloomberg and Warren—it's hard not to see Warren emerging as a unity pick, given that Sanders/Bloomberg are wholly unacceptable to different wings of the party and Biden—a good man—seems... a little lost.

PS8/ In a 4-way race in which the media narrative remains—as it is now—"Who's the alternative to Sanders?", it seems unlikely the polarizing/underwhelming Bloomberg would be the media darling, or the known but underwhelming Biden. Whereas Warren...why *isn't* she a media darling?

PS9/ Warren would be impressive under *any* circumstances. But her status—remembering that HRC was historically unpopular in 2016, whereas Warren is one of America's most popular politicians—as perhaps the most electable female POTUS candidate *ever* seems to have escaped media.

PS10/ In a hypothetical four-way race in which Warren was the only candidate not an old white man—and in which her dynamism contrasted powerfully to the public personas of the other candidates—it's likely we'd be having a very different conversation than the one we're having now.

PS11/ Out of TWENTY-ONE states, Buttigieg—who has a far better argument than Klobuchar or Steyer for staying in the race after tomorrow—is in the top three in only THREE states. And TWO of those states border New Hampshire—suggesting that his New Hampshire primary ads penetrated.

PS12/ Likewise, it's worth noting that Bloomberg has gotten in 2020 the same sort of (un)earned media that another billionaire got in 2016—Trump—and yet he's only in first place in ONE state out of TWENTY-ONE states (and he *lost that spot* in the most recent poll in that state).

PS13/ As for Biden, he's in first in FOUR states out of TWENTY-ONE—which isn't great but also not bad. Yet one of the states is his home state (Pennsylvania), one votes tomorrow (South Carolina), and one he *just* moved to the front of (Florida), so he's not exactly a juggernaut.

PS14/ The data suggest a simple fact: Sanders is cleaning up, and there are only 3 credible claimants for the position of being able to give him any sort of run for his money. Biden is peaking at the right time—but not a strong candidate. Bloomberg is a weak candidate with money.

PS15/ Today—like *right now*—media is deciding how to cover Super Tuesday. And it's decided, contra the evidence, to say that Warren and Klobuchar are similarly situated (they're not—at all), Buttigieg is stronger than he is, and Biden and Bloomberg are Sanders' only competition.

CONCLUSION/ I'm sorry, but the simple fact is that media coverage of this election has been straight-up misogynistic—something I don't say lightly. The only reason for media to lump Warren with Klobuchar despite their *wildly* difference circumstances is that they're both women.

CONCLUSION2/ Coverage of the election has also been straight-up *classist*—as Michael Bloomberg has gotten attention and respect *wildly* out of proportion with his political skills/general attractiveness as a presidential candidate. Media *gave* him more than even his ads could.

CONCLUSION3/ As for Biden, I don't know what to say. Media has downplayed the fact that he keeps running for POTUS and losing; it's downplayed the fact that his gaffes have become truly troubling mental lapses; it's downplayed how much of his success comes from name recognition.

CONCLUSION4/ There are 3 candidates with—admittedly very different—*exquisite* political skillsets: Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg. Warren has been either sidelined or ignored, for still-unclear (but likely misogynistic) reasons; Buttigieg has gotten the Sanders 2016 treatment.

CONCLUSION5/ In 2016, all the signs Sanders *didn't* have a "race" problem but a "name recognition" problem were ignored—even as young nonwhite voters flocked to his campaign and he performed well in some diverse states. The same narrative was thrown at Buttigieg, hard and early.

CONCLUSION6/ There are 3 strong candidates on the Democratic side (putting aside some *great* ones or *potentially* great ones—given more time—the media chased from the race, like Harris, Castro, O'Rourke, and Booker): Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg. I think many people see that.

CONCLUSION7/ I wrote such a long thread on all this today because today is the last chance for media to properly frame the 2020 presidential election campaign after months of miscasting it in irresponsible ways and for apparently irresponsible reasons. The alternative is madness.

CONCLUSION8/ I say it's "madness" because media is pushing Democrats toward seeing as Sanders' only challengers two straight old white men who at this moment in their lives have virtually no political chops. One has money, one has establishment support—*that's it*. Many see this.

CONCLUSION9/ I supported Sanders in 2016; I see and believe in his value, even if I far prefer Warren in 2020. But I'm also seeing that sports betting websites have... Nina Turner... as his most likely VP candidate. And friends, that 2020 ticket won't lose—it'll get *destroyed*.

CONCLUSION10/ With Sanders' health as it is, his VP pick might be the most important one of the last *40 years*. And if he picks a former state senator from Ohio who many are likely to see as unready to assume the presidency, it will be a *disaster* for the Democrats—and America.

CONCLUSION11/ My point is that I'd almost *like* the four top candidates to pick their running mates *now*, as I think it would bring into higher relief everything I'm saying.

I really do fear that media is pushing us over the cliff with narratives not backed by data *or* sense.

CONCLUSION12/ I don't love polls—readers of this feed know that. But the media builds narratives and *then* uses misreadings of polls to support those narratives. What's driving the narratives in the first instance is a latent corporate-media, establishment, and Wall Street bias.