I've noticed people citing polls/research where voters, even women, cited electablity concerns for female candidates, as evidence that Warren's candidacy was hampered by electability concerns. Some of that perception was powered by head-to-head polling that actually measured
lower name ID for Warren, but was erroneously said to reveal electability underperformance compared to the male candidates. This is why pollsters should be exceedingly cautious about using head-to-heads. Voters' concerns about Warren's electability are in large part driven by the
media narratives that got set by polls done in the late summer & early fall. In other words, Warren's electability deficit was caused, at least in part, by polling & media coverage of that polling. And today, this cycle, it was Warren & women, but in the future it will be
something else that pollsters think they're measuring when in reality, they're capturing low name ID effects. Only ex-VPs and previous contest frontrunners, and celebs like Trump have name ID appropriate for head to head polling in prez primaries. Period. I'd like to see the
industry reassess the use of head-to-head polls for this reason, bc like it or not, polls & the media coverage of them can do more than cover a prez nomination- they can impact them too. gen.medium.com/electability-p…
K.I.M. for all his $, only 50% of my VA voters named Bloomberg in the candidate recall test compared to 70%+ that named Biden & Sanders. Name ID is very, very difficult & analyst/journalists/pundits massively overestimate name ID saturation in these races.
