In these heady days of the 2020 U.S. presidential elections, it's hard to turn on the news shows and not be bombarded with false narratives. None of us have enough time to check everything. I'll be posting notes for things that rile me enough to verify. I hope you spot some yourself too.
But I'm not covering outright lies, for which there are fact-check services, and I won't be evaluating gut feelings, which are just opinions.
I will limit my comments to two categories of false narratives that exhaust my patience:
(a) story-time narratives: these are gut feelings garnished with data. The conclusion draws on a creative interpretation (or cherry-picking) of the data, which means someone else could easily produce other conclusions from other interpretations (or picking other cherries);
(b) inappropriate comparisons: context is extremely important when interpreting data, and comparing one number to another is a powerful way to add context. Sometimes, the wrong comparisons are offered, which muddies the data.
A good example of story time was early on during the slow drip of Iowa caucus results:
Because partial data showed Pete Buttigieg in the lead in most counties in Iowa, the CNN analyst keeps saying this proves that he can build a broad coalition across the country.
The data as stated is not false (although bear in mind population density). But the second part of the sentence is not a direct consequence of the cited data. Multiple hard-to-prove assumptions* are needed to bridge the gap. But the presence of the data makes the second part appear palatable, and if it's almost bed time, you might just have let your guards down. Hence story time.
What are these assumptions?
That the partial data selectively released are representative of the full data (see this post)
That in every county, the "leader" is significantly ahead of all other candidates (otherwise, there are several leaders)
That winning the Democratic primary in deep Republican counties suggests strength against a Republican opponent in the general election (if the proposed coalition were to contain moderate Republicans)
That the rural-urban dimension defines the coalition more than race (since Iowa's population is 90 percent white)
Notice that all of these assumptions can be checked against relevant historical data but the analyst basically demanded our blanket acceptance.
***
The second type of false narratives rests upon a poor choice of comparables. Take the following line from a recent column by Frank Bruni in the New York Times (link):
[Bernie Sanders] essentially tied Pete Buttigieg in the Iowa caucuses, and is slightly favored to win the primary on Tuesday in New Hampshire, where he trounced Hillary Clinton four years ago.
(Overall, I liked Bruni's balanced assessment of Sanders' potential in the general election.) Similar misleading statements flooded the airwaves the last week. Just last night, a guest on CNN opined:
Sanders is likely to win in New Hampshire [the next day] by a small margin but in 2016, he beat Hillary Clinton by 22 points; that was a two-candidate race but still.
Someone else said:
He won 60% of the votes here in 2016 and he won't get anywhere near that this time.
I am about to say something silly but still!
***
Let's check the underlying data.
New Hampshire primaries results from Wikipedia, 2016
Sanders 60%
Clinton 38%
Others 2%
#1 - #2: Sanders's winning margin 22%
Emerson College Poll, New Hampshire, Feb 5- Feb 6, 2020
Sanders 32%
Buttigieg 23%
Warren 13%
Biden 11%
Klobuchar 9%
Top 5 = 88%
All others, including undecideds 12%
Assuming these percentages hold out on election day, the gap between the first two finishers is 9 percent. The commentators compare 9% to the Sanders-Clinton gap of 22%, suggesting that Sanders is weaker this year than four years ago. It's not a two-candidate race anymore but still!
Is it realistic for the winner of this year's contest featuring five competitive challengers to either (1) earn the 60 percent vote share that Sanders won four years ago or (2) produce the 22 percent vote margin that Sanders achieved four years ago?
Let's play around with some scenarios.
(A)
If the top dog gets 60%, and the vote margin is again 22%, then the #2 would have earned 38% of the votes, which leaves peanuts for any other viable candidate, so it is clearly an impossible target.
| Rank | Vote Share |
| #1 | 60% |
| #2 | 38% |
| #3 | 2% |
| #4 | |
| #5 | |
| Others |
#1-#2 vote margin 22%
(B)
If the top dog gets 60% and the "all other" candidates received 10% as predicted by the polls (rounded down for easy computation), then #2-#5 candidates would be splitting up 30% of the votes, that is, 7-8 percent each. In this scenario, the top dog's winning margin would be 52 percent. That's also absurd.
| Rank | Vote Share |
| #1 | 60% |
| #2 | 8% |
| #3 | 8% |
| #4 | 7% |
| #5 | 7% |
| Others | 10% |
***
Look at the 2016 results again. The 60/40 split is a comfortable win but actually not a blowout. In an even match, both candidates would get 50%. The 60/40 split is a 10-point shift from an even match. A 70/30 split is a 20-point swing from even, and so on.
I just went quickly to Wikipedia and learned for example, that on Super Tuesday 2016, out of 12 contests, 6 ended up with a margin greater than 65%. while 8 with a margin greater than 60%. So even the factual part of the statement - that the 60/30 win constituted some kind of big win - is wrong! It was a win but not a "trouncing", as Bruni wrongly claimed.
It felt like a huge win only because he and other analysts compared a 2-person contest to a 6-person contest! And some were unapologetic about it. But still!
Wait, did I just say it's a 6-person contest?
Yes, we can think of the top 5 contenders plus an invented sixth contestant, who captures "All Others." According to the above poll, this sixth person should get about 12% of the vote. The top five splits a pool of 88%, which means that if evenly matched, they each should win about 17% of the vote.
We can put the numbers in perspective, by computing the excess (or deficit) against the reference of an even match.
| Vote share | Excess | |
| Sanders | 32% | +15 |
| Buttigieg | 23% | +6 |
| Warren | 13% | -4 |
| Biden | 11% | -6 |
| Klobuchar | 9% | -8 |
| Others | 12% | -5 |
(There is a 2% imbalance due to rounding.)
This analysis suggests the top two candidates are the only two doing better than even. For anyone to get more vote share, s/he has to take share from one or more of the other candidates. This zero-sum property keeps these numbers from going extreme.
***
To sum up, Bernie Sanders did not trounce Hillary Clinton in 2016. He won comfortably but the winning margin was below average. Also, because we have a six-person contest in 2020, relative to a two-person contest, it is impossible for the winner to earn a vote share or margin even close to what happened four years ago. The counter-intuitive conclusion is: a blowout win in 2020 will require less vote share and smaller voting margin than in 2016!
Corrected narrative: Bernie Sanders's win in 2016 was comfortable but not a blow-out. The polls also indicate a comfortable win although a tie or narrow loss is within the margin of error. He might get a blowout win even if his vote share or margin is much lower than in 2016 because this contest has at least four other viable candidates.
Comments