How the Democratic field is narrowing

By J.E.F. | WASHINGTON, DC

ON SEPTEMBER 12th, ten Democratic presidential candidates will face off in Houston, Texas, in the first debate to take place on a single evening. The previous two debates split the 20-candidate field across two nights each. For this round, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) imposed stricter standards. Ten candidates failed to meet the DNC’s threshold of 2% support in four DNC-approved polls and at least 130,000 unique donors. Three candidates—Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson—had enough donors but failed to poll high enough. None had the opposite problem.

Another five have dropped out since the last debate. John Hickenlooper will take his centrist pragmatism to Colorado’s Senate race, where he hopes to see off Cory Gardner, perhaps the most vulnerable Senate Republican. Jay Inslee will run for, and probably win, a third term as Washington’s governor. Kirsten Gillibrand ran as a committed feminist, but in a field with at least two superior women candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, her message proved unpersuasive. Seth Moulton and Mike Gravel also quit. How might the Democratic field yet change?

First, a caveat: polls this early are far from dispositive. On September 1st, the Washington Post reminded readers that 428 days away from Election Day in 2008, polls forecast a Hillary Clinton-Rudy Giuliani race, rather than Barack Obama versus John McCain. At a similar point in 2012, Rick Perry led the Republican field. But neither are polls at this stage always wrong: before the 2016 election Mrs Clinton and Donald Trump both enjoyed solid leads.

Our poll aggregator shows Joe Biden atop the field, as he has been all year. Elizabeth Warren surpassed Bernie Sanders for second place in July; since then she has widened her lead. These three sit well above the rest. Kamala Harris surged briefly after a strong showing in the first round of debates; she has since reverted to around 8%, just ahead of Pete Buttigieg’s 5%, and Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker, both at 3%.

Around another dozen or so other candidates are polling at 2% or less. They are free to stay in the race as long as their pride and money will allow. For independently wealthy candidates such as John Delaney, that may be until the Iowa caucuses in February. Tim Ryan and Amy Klobuchar, both solid but uninspiring Midwestern candidates, may face a reckoning sooner. For the entire field, there are three big questions.

First, how solid is Joe Biden’s lead? Your correspondent caught him at the Iowa State Fair last month; he looked fit but sounded old: tired, meandering, slightly bored and prone to taking odd tangents. But Mr Biden has always been a poor campaigner—undisciplined, gaffe-prone, at times ill-tempered and combative—and his supporters seem unmoved at his inexhaustible supply of gaffes. In that sense, his support looks solid enough: he has retained the support of a plurality of voters. Last week Monmouth University released a poll showing him tied with Ms Warren; soon afterward Monmouth’s polling director noted it was an “outlier,” and offered no reason why anyone should take it as anything other than anomalous.

But much of Mr Biden’s appeal rests on the premise that he is the most “electable” candidate—the one best positioned to claw back upper-Midwest Obama-Trump voters. That sort of argument has thrown up candidates on both sides who went on to lose: John Kerry and Mrs Clinton for the Democrats; Mitt Romney and Bob Dole for Republicans. Ms Warren’s supporters want her to be president; Mr Sanders’s supporters are equally devoted to their candidate. If a substantial number of Mr Biden’s are attached not to him, but to the aura of his electability, then as soon as that aura is punctured—by, say, losses in one or more of the four early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada), or perhaps another abysmal debate performance—he risks losing support.

Second, why is Ms Harris struggling, and what can she do about it? Ms Harris made a tactical gamble that has not yet paid off. She tried to appeal to progressives, by touting some progressive policy ambitions; centrists, by touting her establishment credentials as a senator and former attorney-general of California; and both at once, through sharp, electrifying debate performances. But a fine line separates being something to everyone and nothing to anyone (or, to put it in voting terms, between being everyone’s third choice and nobody’s first).

A good ground game could still deliver Ms Harris strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, followed by a win in South Carolina. And she will no doubt shine in the debates. But it is hard to see her suddenly rising to the top. In policy terms she aligns more neatly with Mr Biden than the progressives, but our poll aggregator shows that she is the second choice for most Warren supporters, and third, behind Ms Warren, for Mr Biden’s fans. Banking on Ms Warren faltering seems a risky strategy.

Finally, who among the 15 or so candidates polling below 5% is likeliest to surge? Mr O’Rourke seems to have peaked; he has been impassioned and eloquent following two mass shootings in his state of Texas, but he has also appeared callow and unprepared. Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson have their hardcore supporters, but both are too odd and green to have mass appeal. Julian Castro was impressive in Iowa, but seems more a vice-presidential pick for Ms Warren, should she win, than a top-ticket candidate.

Cory Booker seems likeliest to break out of the pack. He has legislative and executive experience from Newark, where he was mayor, as well as from just over a full term in the Senate. He is thoughtful, charismatic and idealistic (if a little too idealistic-sounding at times). He shone in the second debate when Mr Biden annoyed him, and he got the knives out, but he mainly seems averse to the cut-and-thrust. Too bad: he does it well.