Campaign 2016: The Numbers That Matter

With the first Democratic debate upon us, now’s a good time to take stock of what’s been a thoroughly entertaining US presidential race. These five facts explain which numbers you need to pay attention to and which you don’t. This piece has been repurposed from my column in TIME.

Rise of the Outsiders

The media loves “outsider” candidates. That’s understandable; they are the closest we get to an underdog story in politics. This time around we have an embarrassment of riches with four true outsiders: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders. There’s always the temptation to write these candidates off—but in 2016, the American electorate seems more confused than ever over what it wants in its presidential candidates.

Six months ago, 43 percent of Americans said they valued “new ideas and a different approach” in candidates; 50 percent said they preferred “experience and a proven record.” Today, 55 percent prefer new ideas, with just 37 percent wanting a leader with a proven track record. Republicans seem particularly conflicted; in March, 36 percent of Republicans said they valued new ideas over experience; by September, that number had jumped to 65 percent.

Given the swing in these figures, it remains unclear whether these outsider candidates have staying power. What is clear is that even if these anti-establishment candidates don’t have a realistic shot of winning the nomination, they are the ones currently setting the agenda.

(Pew Research Center, graphic h/t Pew Research Center)

Fundraising: Individual Contributions

Compared to constantly fluctuating opinion polls, campaign fundraising numbers provide a more comprehensive snapshot of a candidate’s potential. That’s why you’ll hear a lot about Sanders raising $25.7 million in Q3—for outsider candidates, these numbers suggest their campaigns are no flash in the pan. But in presidential politics, you’re not just measured relative to your peers but relative to expectations. Hillary Clinton still leads the field with a $28 million Q3 haul, but that’s down 41 percent from the $47.5 million she raked in in Q2.

That said, Q3 fundraising numbers in the year before an election have been terrible predictors for who’s going to win a party’s nomination. In 2003, Howard Dean raised more than three times the amount John Kerry raised; in 2007, Mitt Romney raised more than 3 times the amount eventual GOP nominee John McCain did, and Hillary Clinton raised $6 million more than Barack Obama. In 2011, Rick Perry outraised Romney by $3 million. All campaigns will be required to release their Q3 fundraising figures this week, and the media will make a lot of noise over them. You’d be wise not to overestimate their significance.

(International Business Times, Real Clear Politics, NBC News, graphic h/t The Washington Post)

Fundraising: Mega Donors

Another reason not to take these Q3 fundraising numbers too seriously? The rise of super PACS, which dwarf the amount of money that campaigns receive from individual donations. In the first six months of 2015, super PACs raised almost $255 million, or nearly double the amount that individual campaigns had raised to that point. According to The New York Times, 158 families have provided nearly half the money for efforts to capture the White House to date and have done so primarily using super PACs. Things look to get worse as the campaign season rolls on; the famous Koch brothers have already established a donor network of more than 200 wealthy conservatives who intend to spend almost $900 million on the 2016 elections.

Super PACs have raised more than $234 million in support of GOP candidates. That’s 68.7 percent of the $341.3 million total donated to GOP campaigns so far. Jeb Bush has been the biggest beneficiary to the tune of nearly $110 million. Democrats have been far less reliant on this source of funding with only 12.7 percent of its $137 million haul coming from super PACs—and virtually all of that money has gone to Clinton. Bernie Sanders has raised more than $41 million to date without accepting a cent from a super PAC. Who else hasn’t accepted super PAC money? Trump, who is financing himself.

(The News & Observer, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, graphic h/t The Washington Post)

Traditional Media & Endorsements

Media analysts point to Trump’s immense personal wealth as a driving force of his popularity; they should be pointing at themselves instead. That’s because political talking heads can’t stop talking about the man, in turn pushing him higher up the polls. Trump has drawn 43 percent of all GOP coverage on network news this year. A top Republican pundit estimates the value of that media attention at roughly $100 million—and Trump has only spent $2 million so far. Politics can be a lot like high school—it’s not just how popular you are but how hard you have to try. By that measure, Trump looks to be the most popular candidate by far.

But that popularity has yet to translate to political endorsements for Trump. That matters; since 1980, the single best predictor for determining who will win a party’s nomination has been political endorsements from party elites—the party’s governors, senators, congressmen and former heavyweights. Trump currently has none. Jeb Bush has 23 endorsements to date, followed by Rand Paul (11), Ted Cruz (8), Mike Huckabee (7) and Chris Christie (7). In other words, the GOP nomination race remains wide open.

(MSNBC, FiveThirtyEight, graphic h/t The Washington Post, graphic h/t MSNBC)

Social Media Growth

The internet is nothing new to American politics; viral videos have been sinking campaigns ever since Howard Dean’s surprise rise (and fall) in 2003. But in the last decade we’ve seen the rise of social media, a truly disruptive force in politics. In February 2005, just 8 percent of Americans used social networking sites—by September 2013, that figure had jumped to 73 percent. Unsurprisingly, older voters have seen the most dramatic increases. In August 2006, about 5 percent of 50-64 year olds logged on to social media, as did just 1 percent of people over the age of 65. By September 2013, those figures had jumped to 65 percent and 46 percent, respectively.

So who’s winning the social media race to date? Hillary Clinton leads all candidates with 4.44 million Twitter followers; Trump is just a hair behind with 4.41 million. No other presidential candidate has cracked a million Twitter followers. Facebook tells a different story: Ben Carson leads all candidates with 4.2 million followers, followed again by Trump (4 million), Rand Paul (2.1 million), Sanders (1.7 million), and Clinton (1.5 million).

However, these numbers still don’t tell us much; we’re a long way away from “likes” translating into actual votes. But if anyone cracks the code, we should all start preparing for the inevitable #DraftKatyPerry movement (76.4 million twitter followers).

(Pew Research Center (a), Pew Research Center (b), Twitter, Facebook, graphic h/t Pew Research Center)

Banner photo h/t: Peter Stevens