Ignoring the merits of any of the Democratic candidates, I think we should stop promoting match-up polls (“If the election were held today between X and Y, which would you vote for?”).

First, the election is eleven months away. Will candidate X make a fatal error in the meantime? Reputable pollsters don’t call the general election before the primaries have finished. And they don’t conduct match-up surveys.

Second, match-up polls are more whimsy than science. A ham sandwich has done well in early preference surveys, as has Deez Nuts.

Third, most people don’t vote on rational grounds (electability, if it could be measured, would be a rational criterion). Almost all people vote on the basis of affiliation — who seems to be most like the members of their circle. “Uncle Joe” has the advantage of familiarity. But a year ago, who would have thought that a gay mayor of a mid-sized city would rapidly become a major candidate (and fundraiser)? Five years ago, who would have thought that a crusty old white guy would resonate with young voters? Candidates are still building relationships with voters. From the analyses of the 2016 Democratic primary that I’ve seen (and who knows how accurate they are?), African-American voters did not prefer Clinton to Sanders because she seemed more electable nor because they preferred her policies, but because she seemed more relatable.

I think we do no one (even the candidates who do the best in early match-up polls) any favors by promoting match-up polls for decision making.