It May Be a Good Idea for Democratic Front-Runners Not to Look Back

Over the next and more intense period of campaigning in the early states, the story could be very different. The two will probably have to confront their vulnerabilities to a greater extent than they have to this point, and they face challengers who are well positioned to exploit them.

Pete Buttigieg’s lead in a recent Monmouth University poll of Iowa is as good a time as any to mark the beginning of a new phase of the race.

Until now, the front-runners in the topline poll numbers have shown few signs of weakness. Biden’s lead has been mostly steady in national polling averages over the last month. Though Warren’s rise in national polls has stalled, it has not seemed to reverse in a significant way.

But their weaknesses have been evident by other measures, including in more specific polling questions, for some time.

Biden has never emerged as a classic establishment front-runner, one with a large number of endorsements and strong fundraising. Now, as the race reaches the point when the establishment front-runner would typically be poised to deploy vast financial resources to fend off attacks and challenges, he finds himself likely to be outspent, even badly, by lesser-known rivals.

Biden may already be suffering the costs in Iowa, where Buttigieg is the clearest beneficiary of his weakness among the party’s elite. Buttigieg, the South Bend mayor, has raised more money than Biden and has steadily gained in Iowa polling, culminating in the Monmouth poll that put him in the lead. (Our New York Times Upshot/Siena poll, conducted earlier, showed Buttigieg rising. He was third, a point behind Bernie Sanders and four points behind Warren.)

The softness of Biden’s elite support may also create a new set of threats, like the new candidacy by Deval Patrick and a potential run by Michael Bloomberg. It’s not clear if either man would win substantial support. But if they do gain traction, it could easily come at Biden’s expense.

Tepid elite support and Buttigieg are not Biden’s only challenges in Iowa. He also has little support from political activists. This has contributed not only to his financial deficit but also threatens his support in a relatively lower-turnout environment like a caucus. Biden was a distant fourth in Upshot/Siena polling, with 13% to 14% of support among voters who were “almost certain” to attend the caucus or those who had attended before.

All of this is separate from another question: whether Biden’s performance on the stump and on the debate stage is strong enough to retain his support as voters tune in more intensively. Biden’s resilience in the polls to this point suggests that these concerns could be overstated, though he does seem to have lost more ground in Iowa, where voters are generally paying more attention than they are nationwide. Of course, it is possible that Buttigieg’s rise, not Biden’s performance onstage, is primarily responsible for the weakening in his support.

Buttigieg’s gain might also come at the expense of another candidate: Warren, who also appeals to the meritocratic-minded, well-educated voters who tend to admire Rhodes scholars or Harvard law professors.

Warren’s rise in the polls has been impressive, but there is no reason to assume it will be durable. In Iowa, 78% of her supporters said they could change their mind, more than with any of her top rivals, according to the Upshot/Siena poll.

She has vulnerabilities of her own, and she has come under greater scrutiny since she began to match Biden in national surveys. Her position on “Medicare for all” funding has given her rivals an avenue to attack, and her standing in national and state polls has seemed to slump over the last month.

Her rivals could also point to questions of electability: Although there is still a long way to go, state and national polls show her underperforming her top rivals in matchups against President Donald Trump.

A substantial share of Warren’s supporters in Iowa (60%) said that a woman would have a harder time defeating Trump and strongly agreed (41%) that sexism was a major factor in Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton. Warren’s own supporters were likelier to hold these views than supporters of Biden, Sanders or Buttigieg, in Upshot/Siena polling.

And Ms. Warren has another rival for support on her left flank: Sanders.

He has been holding steadily at third in national polls. After a health scare in October, he came back with a strong debate performance and a high-profile endorsement from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. His standing in the polls has ticked up since, and he remains highly competitive in Iowa and particularly in New Hampshire, where one recent poll gives him the edge.

According to the RealClearPolitics averages, Sanders is essentially even with his rivals in New Hampshire, and just four points out of the lead in Iowa.

His position — just behind the front-runners, without obvious momentum, and with little news media scrutiny — seems to confer tactical advantages heading into the final stretch. Few candidates have incentive to attack him, as his supporters are among the likeliest to say they won’t change their mind.

And Sanders has outraised all of his opponents so far this cycle, potentially giving him the resources to push to the front of the pack in the early states over the final stretch. Even if he falls short, it could sap Warren’s strength.

It’s unclear whether Sanders’ resources, or collateral damage among his rivals, will be enough for him to claim an early state win, or deny one to Warren.

It seems even harder to know what will happen when the campaign rapidly spreads past the early states to Super Tuesday and beyond.

This article originally appeared in

.