fivethirtyeight--2020-04-14--What Went Down In The Wisconsin Primary

What Went Down In The Wisconsin Primary

Last Tuesday , Wisconsinites went to the polls despite the raging coronavirus pandemic , but thanks to a court ruling that extended the deadline for absentee ballots , we didn ’ t get any results until Monday evening .
In what will go down as the final contested Democratic presidential primary of 2020 , former Vice President Joe Biden defeated Sen. Bernie Sanders 64 percent to 31 percent .
But since the result was expected ( and Sanders dropped out of the race the day after the election anyway ) , who won is actually less interesting than who voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern on Monday , 1.37 million votes have been cast so far in Wisconsin ’ s Democratic and Republican presidential primaries combined , which would be about 31 percent of the voting eligible population .
That number will likely increase a bit , but not nearly enough to match Wisconsin ’ s 49 percent turnout rate in the 2016 presidential primary .
But it would be a mistake to attribute the drop entirely to the coronavirus ; some of it was probably because the election simply had lower stakes .
In 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin ; this year , President Trump already had the GOP nomination sewn up , and the Democratic primary was competitive in name only , as Biden had already become the prohibitive favorite .
On the other hand , the coronavirus almost certainly contributed to the record number of people who voted absentee .
As of Monday morning , 1,098,489 absentee ballots had been returned , meaning absentees will probably account for about 80 percent of all votes in this election .
That ’ s an unheard-of proportion in Wisconsin , where voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , only 10 percent of Wisconsinites voted absentee in the 2016 presidential primary , and only 27 percent in the 2016 general election .
The numbers below are preliminary , but what ’ s clear is that turnout did not drop uniformly across the state .
Although no county matched its 2016 turnout ( so far ) , three of the ones that came closest were the so-called “ WOW ” counties — Waukesha , Ozaukee and Washington — in the well-to-do Milwaukee suburbs .
On the other end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the presidential primaries was 40 percent of 2016 turnout or less in Calumet , Green Lake and Sheboygan counties , three counties in east-central Wisconsin .
Turnout was also relatively low ( 59 percent of 2016 levels ) in Milwaukee County ; the City of Milwaukee ( which makes up most , but not all , of the county ) experienced extremely long lines after a shortage of poll workers forced it to consolidate 180 polling places into five .
Just because the presidential race was a snoozer , however , doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything interesting in the actual results .
The election for state Supreme Court turned out to be a barnburner : Liberal challenger Jill Karofsky defeated conservative incumbent Daniel Kelly 54 percent to 46 percent , cutting the conservative majority on the bench to 4-3 .
The result means it could take only a single justice to sway the outcome of several important cases that may come before the court in the next few years , such as whether the state must purge up to 209,000 voters from its rolls or what Wisconsin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next decade .
But these results may not be the last word on the election , which could face legal challenges due to cries of disenfranchisement .
There have been numerous reports of voters not receiving their absentee ballots in time to cast them , and hundreds of ballots have been found never to have been delivered at all ; the U.S .
Postal Service is currently investigating what happened .
Not to mention , some absentee ballots that were mailed back on time may not be allowed to count .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be postmarked by April 7 in order to count , but there are already reports of several hundred ballots not postmarked , which means they might not count .
In a meeting on Friday , members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission deadlocked on whether to count postmark-less ballots that arrived after April 7 , even if it was likely they were mailed on or before election day .
Election officials in Milwaukee said on Monday they would count at least 390 ballots without postmarks — potentially inviting a court fight .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents filed the first federal lawsuit seeking a new election in Wisconsin .
There may be even more lawsuits coming .
Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said on Monday , “ Every legal option is on the table.
” The only thing that ’ s clear at this point is that the Wisconsin election will continue to be litigated for at least a while longer .
Given the disorder and uncertainty that has surrounded the Wisconsin election at every turn , it stands as a cautionary tale for other states conducting upcoming @ @ @ @ @

Last Tuesday, Wisconsinites went to the polls despite the raging coronavirus pandemic, but thanks to a court ruling that extended the deadline for absentee ballots, we didn’t get any results until Monday evening.
In what will go down as the final contested Democratic presidential primary of 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden defeated Sen. Bernie Sanders 64 percent to 31 percent. But since the result was expected (and Sanders dropped out of the race the day after the election anyway), who won is actually less interesting than who voted and how.
As of 10 p.m. Eastern on Monday, 1.37 million votes have been cast so far in Wisconsin’s Democratic and Republican presidential primaries combined, which would be about 31 percent of the voting eligible population. That number will likely increase a bit, but not nearly enough to match Wisconsin’s 49 percent turnout rate in the 2016 presidential primary. But it would be a mistake to attribute the drop entirely to the coronavirus; some of it was probably because the election simply had lower stakes. In 2016, both parties hosted competitive presidential primaries in Wisconsin; this year, President Trump already had the GOP nomination sewn up, and the Democratic primary was competitive in name only, as Biden had already become the prohibitive favorite.
On the other hand, the coronavirus almost certainly contributed to the record number of people who voted absentee. As of Monday morning, 1,098,489 absentee ballots had been returned, meaning absentees will probably account for about 80 percent of all votes in this election. That’s an unheard-of proportion in Wisconsin, where voting by mail is not very widespread. For example, only 10 percent of Wisconsinites voted absentee in the 2016 presidential primary, and only 27 percent in the 2016 general election.
The numbers below are preliminary, but what’s clear is that turnout did not drop uniformly across the state. Although no county matched its 2016 turnout (so far), three of the ones that came closest were the so-called “WOW” counties — Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington — in the well-to-do Milwaukee suburbs.
On the other end of the spectrum, the number of votes cast in the presidential primaries was 40 percent of 2016 turnout or less in Calumet, Green Lake and Sheboygan counties, three counties in east-central Wisconsin. Turnout was also relatively low (59 percent of 2016 levels) in Milwaukee County; the City of Milwaukee (which makes up most, but not all, of the county) experienced extremely long lines after a shortage of poll workers forced it to consolidate 180 polling places into five.
Just because the presidential race was a snoozer, however, doesn’t mean there wasn’t anything interesting in the actual results. The election for state Supreme Court turned out to be a barnburner: Liberal challenger Jill Karofsky defeated conservative incumbent Daniel Kelly 54 percent to 46 percent, cutting the conservative majority on the bench to 4-3. The result means it could take only a single justice to sway the outcome of several important cases that may come before the court in the next few years, such as whether the state must purge up to 209,000 voters from its rolls or what Wisconsin’s congressional map will look like for the next decade.
But these results may not be the last word on the election, which could face legal challenges due to cries of disenfranchisement. There have been numerous reports of voters not receiving their absentee ballots in time to cast them, and hundreds of ballots have been found never to have been delivered at all; the U.S. Postal Service is currently investigating what happened. Not to mention, some absentee ballots that were mailed back on time may not be allowed to count. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that absentee ballots must be postmarked by April 7 in order to count, but there are already reports of several hundred ballots not postmarked, which means they might not count.
In a meeting on Friday, members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission deadlocked on whether to count postmark-less ballots that arrived after April 7, even if it was likely they were mailed on or before election day. Election officials in Milwaukee said on Monday they would count at least 390 ballots without postmarks — potentially inviting a court fight. And on Monday, a group of Milwaukee-area residents filed the first federal lawsuit seeking a new election in Wisconsin. There may be even more lawsuits coming. Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said on Monday, “Every legal option is on the table.”
The only thing that’s clear at this point is that the Wisconsin election will continue to be litigated for at least a while longer. Given the disorder and uncertainty that has surrounded the Wisconsin election at every turn, it stands as a cautionary tale for other states conducting upcoming elections in this environment.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-13--Politics Podcast: These Are Our Priors For The General Election

Now that Democrats have settled on a presumptive nominee , the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team discuss their priors for the @ @ @ @ @ seven months — and an unfolding crisis — separate us from Election Day , the @ @ @ @ @ similar patterns to 2016 ’ s — for now .
The crew also look at @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 crisis and how the debate over when to reopen the economy is playing out @ @ @ @ @ the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or @ @ @ @ @ , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to @ @ @ @ @ listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover @ @ @ @ @ a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for @ @ @ @ @ polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments @

Now that Democrats have settled on a presumptive nominee, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team discuss their priors for the 2020 presidential contest. While seven months — and an unfolding crisis — separate us from Election Day, the 2020 election appears to have similar patterns to 2016’s — for now. The crew also look at where we are in the COVID-19 crisis and how the debate over when to reopen the economy is playing out.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Our 2020 Election Priors
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-13--The COVID-19 Blame Game Is Going To Get Uglier

The 2020 election will be the COVID-19 election .
Voters will almost certainly be asked to condemn or endorse President Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic — and quite possibly while the virus is in the midst of a fall relapse .
Any year would have been a bad year for a pandemic .
But a presidential election year makes it even worse .
As elected officials at all levels of government scramble for resources and weigh complex decisions on how to respond , the electoral implications introduce a thorny calculus : How will it all play in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : If Democrats can successfully associate the substantial harm wreaked by COVID-19 with Trump , they win in November .
But if Trump and the Republicans can deflect enough blame elsewhere and Trump gets credit for making things less bad than they could have been , Trump will win .
Democrats have done the obvious so far : Pin all the blame on Trump by highlighting how he initially downplayed the virus and blasting his subsequent stumbles .
They ’ ve also tried to position themselves as the party of good governance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , announced the formation of a new select committee that will oversee how the Trump administration manages the $ 2 trillion economic stimulus package , with a focus on waste , fraud and abuse .
It ’ s also possible that some traditional Democratic constituencies will be simply hit harder by the virus , too , which could make the fallout of the virus more personal and a stronger point to campaign on .
For instance , in blue states and cities like New York City , the virus has hit especially hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhoods .
And as the harm becomes clearer , we will almost certainly see echoes of Hurricane Katrina , with its disparate racial and class impacts , but on a much larger scale .
These inequalities might reverberate with Democrats ’ long-standing criticisms that Trump is a racist — and could yield record turnout along with a persuasive fundraising message .
And don ’ t underestimate the power of negative partisanship .
In 2016 , many Republicans held their noses and voted for Trump because they wanted to keep Hillary Clinton out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could apply in 2020 .
If Democrats hit Trump hard enough , unified disdain for Trump might matter more than anything former Vice President Joe Biden promises , bringing Democratic voters together after another fractious primary .
Though negative partisanship has been building up now for several election cycles , it thrives on frustration and anger , and 2020 will likely offer plenty .
For Trump and Republicans , much of their 2020 strategy seems to be focused on putting the blame elsewhere — Democrats , the “ mainstream media , ” China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors .
Let ’ s start with one of Trump ’ s favorite punching bags : the media .
In what may be a preview of a Republican electoral strategy to come , Sen. Marco Rubio recently tweeted that “ Some in our media can ’ t contain their glee & delight in reporting that the U.S. has more # CoronaVirus cases than # China.
” This argument probably sounds familiar , as many conservative pundits have pushed it since the beginning of the outbreak in the U.S.
It ’ s still possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current worst-case scenarios .
If so , Republicans could eventually point to the high predictions as fearmongering .
But many experts still think the situation could grow much worse , so it ’ s also a very risky strategy at this point .
( Ironically , if the death toll is lower than predicted , it may be because the higher projections themselves scared politicians and citizens into following social-distancing guidelines . )
As for pinning the blame on Democrats , Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have argued that impeachment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in February .
( Never mind that he was reportedly first briefed on the spread of a deadly virus in China in November or that , after his acquittal in the Senate on Feb. 5 , Trump spent much of February downplaying the threat of a pandemic . )
Trump and his allies have also found a scapegoat in China , arguing the Chinese government engaged in a massive cover-up that allowed the virus to spread , which blindsided the Trump administration .
The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence that China underreported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with voters , especially considering both Democrats and Republicans agree that the Chinese government bears some responsibility for the spread of the pandemic .
And if Republicans do pursue this strategy , it builds on a persistent theme of Trump-era Republican campaigns : Blame the outsider .
After all , in 2018 Republican campaign strategists ran an aggressive anti-immigration campaign because they believed it was an issue that would help them win .
So expect a possible replay of this in 2020 , with China replacing the “ migrant caravan.
” Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for failing to stockpile their own supplies .
The political gambit appears to boil down to this : Trump thinks he could benefit electorally if he pushes governors — particularly Democratic governors — to say what a great job he ’ s doing .
Consider Trump ’ s tussle with Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan , who complained her state wasn ’ t getting the medical supplies she needed from the federal government .
Trump responded , “ I don ’ t know if she knows what ’ s going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there and blame the federal government … We don ’ t like to see complaints.
” Michigan , after all , is likely to be a key swing state in 2020 .
This could certainly backfire , but this is the kind of high-stakes political gamesmanship that a pandemic in a presidential election year engenders .
Then finally , we come to the most dangerous hot potato of all : the administration of the election itself .
In order to ensure a safe and fair election , jurisdictions across the country will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and/or expand early voting .
But Trump and Republicans have already indicated they will be loath to support such measures , as they argue it would hurt Republicans at the ballot box .
Democrats , meanwhile , have said that expanding vote-by-mail efforts is the only way to mitigate risks from in-person voting .
Political scientists haven ’ t found any clear partisan advantage to voting by mail ( if anything , it seems to encourage participation among more habitual voters ) .
But Wisconsin ’ s beleaguered primary — which saw partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — could be a harbinger of the difficulties to come .
And if that is the case , November will be a mess in states that don ’ t get their act together soon — especially in battleground states with divided governments , like Wisconsin .
( Other likely swing states have divided governments , including Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , Minnesota and New Hampshire . )
It ’ s unclear where this fight is headed , but it is likely to be a high-stakes battle that echoes long-standing partisan grievances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting .
And given the logistical difficulties of implementing electoral changes , delays could actually be an effective tactic .
If it ’ s relatively clear how ugly the tone of the 2020 COVID-19 blame campaign will be , it ’ s much harder to say how all this will impact the actual outcome of the 2020 election .
Trump ’ s approval rating has remained remarkably flat over the last three years despite the ups and downs of his presidency , largely because of how polarized American politics has become .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the needle on public opinion anymore .
Even the coronavirus crisis has given Trump only a relatively small boost , compared to those of other world leaders and most governors .
Ultimately , the blame games might offset .
In our highly polarized era , most voters made up their mind long ago — hence Trump ’ s consistent approval numbers .
But in an escalating arms race of blame , one-sided disarmament would be folly .
So brace yourself .
In another world , or at another time in our history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have brought Americans together .
However , in this hyper-partisan presidential election year with so much blame to go around and so much pre-existing animosity to draw on , that might not be the case .
Instead , the months to come will test not only our health care system and our economy , but also our democracy and our ability to cooperate across party lines to win a novel kind of war against a novel kind of virus .
If the road feels bumpy now , the path ahead looks like nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Check out all the latest coronavirus polling we ’ ve collected .
How Close Are We To A COVID-19 Vaccine ?

The COVID-19 Blame Game Is Going To Get Uglier And the party that handles the pandemic best will most likely gain.
The 2020 election will be the COVID-19 election. Voters will almost certainly be asked to condemn or endorse President Trump’s handling of the pandemic — and quite possibly while the virus is in the midst of a fall relapse.
Any year would have been a bad year for a pandemic. But a presidential election year makes it even worse. As elected officials at all levels of government scramble for resources and weigh complex decisions on how to respond, the electoral implications introduce a thorny calculus: How will it all play in November?
Here is the crudest of calculations: If Democrats can successfully associate the substantial harm wreaked by COVID-19 with Trump, they win in November. But if Trump and the Republicans can deflect enough blame elsewhere and Trump gets credit for making things less bad than they could have been, Trump will win.
Democrats have done the obvious so far: Pin all the blame on Trump by highlighting how he initially downplayed the virus and blasting his subsequent stumbles. They’ve also tried to position themselves as the party of good governance. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for instance, announced the formation of a new select committee that will oversee how the Trump administration manages the $2 trillion economic stimulus package, with a focus on waste, fraud and abuse.
It’s also possible that some traditional Democratic constituencies will be simply hit harder by the virus, too, which could make the fallout of the virus more personal and a stronger point to campaign on. For instance, in blue states and cities like New York City, the virus has hit especially hard, including in poorer and less white neighborhoods. And as the harm becomes clearer, we will almost certainly see echoes of Hurricane Katrina, with its disparate racial and class impacts, but on a much larger scale. These inequalities might reverberate with Democrats’ long-standing criticisms that Trump is a racist — and could yield record turnout along with a persuasive fundraising message.
And don’t underestimate the power of negative partisanship. In 2016, many Republicans held their noses and voted for Trump because they wanted to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. That same logic could apply in 2020. If Democrats hit Trump hard enough, unified disdain for Trump might matter more than anything former Vice President Joe Biden promises, bringing Democratic voters together after another fractious primary. Though negative partisanship has been building up now for several election cycles, it thrives on frustration and anger, and 2020 will likely offer plenty.
For Trump and Republicans, much of their 2020 strategy seems to be focused on putting the blame elsewhere — Democrats, the “mainstream media,” China and even some of America’s governors.
Let’s start with one of Trump’s favorite punching bags: the media. In what may be a preview of a Republican electoral strategy to come, Sen. Marco Rubio recently tweeted that “Some in our media can’t contain their glee & delight in reporting that the U.S. has more #CoronaVirus cases than #China.” This argument probably sounds familiar, as many conservative pundits have pushed it since the beginning of the outbreak in the U.S. It’s still possible that the ultimate death toll undershoots the current worst-case scenarios. If so, Republicans could eventually point to the high predictions as fearmongering. But many experts still think the situation could grow much worse, so it’s also a very risky strategy at this point. (Ironically, if the death toll is lower than predicted, it may be because the higher projections themselves scared politicians and citizens into following social-distancing guidelines.)
As for pinning the blame on Democrats, Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have argued that impeachment was a major distraction during a critical time in February. (Never mind that he was reportedly first briefed on the spread of a deadly virus in China in November or that, after his acquittal in the Senate on Feb. 5, Trump spent much of February downplaying the threat of a pandemic.)
Trump and his allies have also found a scapegoat in China, arguing the Chinese government engaged in a massive cover-up that allowed the virus to spread, which blindsided the Trump administration. The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence that China underreported its outbreak, so this could resonate with voters, especially considering both Democrats and Republicans agree that the Chinese government bears some responsibility for the spread of the pandemic. And if Republicans do pursue this strategy, it builds on a persistent theme of Trump-era Republican campaigns: Blame the outsider. After all, in 2018 Republican campaign strategists ran an aggressive anti-immigration campaign because they believed it was an issue that would help them win. So expect a possible replay of this in 2020, with China replacing the “migrant caravan.”
Trump has also pointed his finger at Democratic governors for failing to stockpile their own supplies. The political gambit appears to boil down to this: Trump thinks he could benefit electorally if he pushes governors — particularly Democratic governors — to say what a great job he’s doing.
Consider Trump’s tussle with Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, who complained her state wasn’t getting the medical supplies she needed from the federal government. Trump responded, “I don’t know if she knows what’s going on, but all she does is sit there and blame the federal government … We don’t like to see complaints.” Michigan, after all, is likely to be a key swing state in 2020. This could certainly backfire, but this is the kind of high-stakes political gamesmanship that a pandemic in a presidential election year engenders.
Then finally, we come to the most dangerous hot potato of all: the administration of the election itself. In order to ensure a safe and fair election, jurisdictions across the country will have to rapidly transition to voting by mail and/or expand early voting.
But Trump and Republicans have already indicated they will be loath to support such measures, as they argue it would hurt Republicans at the ballot box. Democrats, meanwhile, have said that expanding vote-by-mail efforts is the only way to mitigate risks from in-person voting. Political scientists haven’t found any clear partisan advantage to voting by mail (if anything, it seems to encourage participation among more habitual voters). But Wisconsin’s beleaguered primary — which saw partisan fighting over whether to delay the election — could be a harbinger of the difficulties to come.
And if that is the case, November will be a mess in states that don’t get their act together soon — especially in battleground states with divided governments, like Wisconsin. (Other likely swing states have divided governments, including Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New Hampshire.) It’s unclear where this fight is headed, but it is likely to be a high-stakes battle that echoes long-standing partisan grievances over how best to ensure access to voting. And given the logistical difficulties of implementing electoral changes, delays could actually be an effective tactic.
If it’s relatively clear how ugly the tone of the 2020 COVID-19 blame campaign will be, it’s much harder to say how all this will impact the actual outcome of the 2020 election. Trump’s approval rating has remained remarkably flat over the last three years despite the ups and downs of his presidency, largely because of how polarized American politics has become. In other words, very few events move the needle on public opinion anymore. Even the coronavirus crisis has given Trump only a relatively small boost, compared to those of other world leaders and most governors.
Ultimately, the blame games might offset. In our highly polarized era, most voters made up their mind long ago — hence Trump’s consistent approval numbers. But in an escalating arms race of blame, one-sided disarmament would be folly. So brace yourself.
In another world, or at another time in our history, a common threat like a pandemic might have brought Americans together. However, in this hyper-partisan presidential election year with so much blame to go around and so much pre-existing animosity to draw on, that might not be the case.
Instead, the months to come will test not only our health care system and our economy, but also our democracy and our ability to cooperate across party lines to win a novel kind of war against a novel kind of virus. If the road feels bumpy now, the path ahead looks like nothing but an obstacle course. Buckle up.
Check out all the latest coronavirus polling we’ve collected.
How close are we to a COVID-19 vaccine? l FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-10--New York’s Inequalities Are Fueling COVID-19

Dr. Royal S. Copeland , the field marshal in New York City ’ s battle against the 1918 influenza epidemic , knew his enemy was more than just a virus .
As health commissioner , he oversaw a medical crisis that would eventually kill some 30,000 New Yorkers over three waves of the disease .
In Copeland ’ s estimation , the problem was not only influenza but also the city ’ s crowded tenements and endemic poverty .
To modern eyes , the measures he took to stymie the spread might seem strange .
In an extensive interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of influenza had passed , Copeland touted the decision not to close New York ’ s public schools .
It was , he reasoned , best to keep them open to give the city ’ s children respite from crowded apartments and , if need be , a point of access to the medical system .
“ We have practically 1,000,000 children in the public schools , about 750,000 of them from tenement homes .
These homes are frequently unsanitary and crowded , ” he said .
“ The children ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved in keeping the wolf from the door .
No matter how loving they may be — and , of course , they are just as loving as any parents anywhere — they simply have not the time to give the necessary attention to the initial symptoms of disease.
” Even under normal circumstances , living in New York City requires a certain surrender of personal space : Subways are packed , apartments are small and bodegas get cramped with after-work shoppers .
But not all New Yorkers have to live in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact the COVID-19 pandemic has laid all too bare .
The city ’ s wealth inequality has always been apparent : financial safety nets , Whole Foods delivery and routine access to health care .
But the pandemic has added a new layer to what affluence can afford some New Yorkers , including routine access to personal space and the flexibility that white-collar work allows .
While over 100 years have gone by since the 1918 pandemic , some of Copeland ’ s worries about the difficult nature of city life — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfortably — remain chillingly relevant .
We know already that the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting people of color more than white Americans .
While the virus stalks the rich and poor — leading some to call it “ the great equalizer ” — those with lesser means have fewer places to hide from it .
Dr. Andrew Goodman , a professor of public health at New York University who used to work for the city ’ s Health Promotion and Disease Prevention unit , pointed to the pandemic as “ a more dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inequality and racial inequality in the U.S. ” Deaths from diseases that disproportionately affect minority communities , like diabetes and hypertension , “ usually get spread out over time , and it doesn ’ t seem as dramatic , ” Goodman said .
“ This is a more accelerated version.
” While there is a lot of uncertainty about the actual numbers of those infected — only a fraction of people who show symptoms are tested , so the rate of infection is almost certainly higher than what ’ s being reported — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ codes , one working class and one wealthy , gives us a glimpse into different ways of city living that might mean life or death in today ’ s New York .
According to a running ProPublica tally of confirmed positive COVID-19 cases , the ZIP codes with the highest rate of infection are in a certain corner of Queens : East Elmhurst .
One East Elmhurst ZIP code , 11370 , is home to the notorious Rikers Island correctional facility , and has the highest recorded positive test rate in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city ’ s average .
Jails like Rikers have become hotbeds for spreading the disease given their space constraints — well over 600 inmates and workers are infected with the virus at Rikers .
East Elmhurst ’ s other , non-Rikers ZIP code , 11369 , is a residential neighborhood and has the second worst positive test rate in the city , 121 percent greater than the average .
East Elmhurst has seen a high rate of individuals tested , and that might be in part because Elmhurst Hospital in neighboring Elmhurst , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epicenter , ” in the words of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio — has set up a testing tent outside the hospital .
According to 2018 data from the Census Bureau ’ s American Community Survey , 34,118 people live in the 1.1 square miles of East Elmhurst ’ s 11369 ZIP code .
Sixty-four percent of its residents are Latino , and the median household income is $ 54,121 , three-quarters of the median income in New York ’ s greater metro area .
On the neighborhood ’ s northern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that are mosques and diners , a baseball field and blocks and blocks of houses cramped together .
On those cramped blocks , the average household size is 3.2 people , 20 percent above the city average .
Nearly 11 percent of all households in ZIP code 11369 are also multigenerational , with three or more generations living under the same roof .
It ’ s possible that the grouping of young and old together in one house could have something to do with higher infection rates .
Researchers are still unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they have the virus , but early estimates were around 2 to 2.5 people .
The elderly are more susceptible , and in Italy , doctors believe that the country ’ s culture of intergenerational living and familial closeness has had disastrous effects during the pandemic ; Italy ’ s rate of death from COVID-19 is among the highest in the world .
Underlying conditions like asthma tend to be more prevalent in crowded environments , according to Dr. Y. Claire Wang , who specializes in public health and chronic disease prevention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The respiratory condition puts individuals at greater risk for COVID-19 complications , and households in city apartments with pests or mold , common problems in public housing units , often have higher rates of asthma , she said .
Things look different on the other side of the positive test rate list .
ZIP code 11215 in Park Slope , Brooklyn , has among the city ’ s lowest rates of COVID-19 , at 56 percent below average .
Park Slope is a different New York from East Elmhurst in many ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and at $ 123,583 , the median household income is one and a half times greater than that of the average in New York ’ s greater metropolitan area .
The neighborhood is named for its proximity to one of the city ’ s largest green spaces , Prospect Park , and it ’ s known for its gracious brownstones and tree-lined streets .
The average household size in Park Slope is 2.4 people , and only 1.8 percent of households are multigenerational .
The racial and ethnic differences between Park Slope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as both neighborhoods weather the pandemic .
Early statistical reports on the disease are already painting a picture of racial inequity .
Earlier this week New York State released preliminary numbers that showed Latinos have the highest rate of COVID-19 fatality in New York City .
A Kaiser Family Foundation report on initial pandemic data reveals that minorities are bearing the brunt of infection and death from the virus in many places .
Higher rates of chronic conditions in minorities put them at greater risk for serious complications from COVID-19 .
In Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up 45 percent of the total population , they account for 29 percent of confirmed cases and 59 percent of deaths .
In Michigan , black residents are 14 percent of the population , but represent 33 percent of confirmed cases and 41 percent of deaths .
“ We say something as simple as ‘ your ZIP code should not define your health ’ — [ but ] in New York City , that ’ s often the story , ” said Dr. Torian Easterling , the deputy commissioner of the Center for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city agency that addresses racial and social inequities in health .
He pointed to high rates of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension and a lack of access to healthy foods in minority communities as long-standing public health problems that have only been exacerbated by the onset of COVID-19 .
During the 1918 pandemic , the white population had a higher rate of infection , according to a 2007 study of the outbreak by Thomas A. Garrett , then an economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve .
But that , Garrett surmised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the black population in the U.S. was still largely rural ; the pandemic was a particular menace to cities .
“ [ T ] he nonwhite population in the United States has become much more urban .
… A modern-day pandemic may result in greater nonwhite mortality rates because a greater percentage of the nonwhite population in the United States lives in urban areas , ” he wrote .
Census estimates from 2019 show that the majority of New York City residents are people of color .
Park Slope and the East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dense , with roughly 32,000 and 31,000 people per square mile , respectively .
But life in the neighborhoods is different in other ways that might contribute to their divergent rates of apparent COVID-19 infection .
According to the latest Census Bureau count , the most prevalent jobs in East Elmhurst are clerical work , food service and construction .
In Park Slope , management , entertainment , education and business are the most common professions .
The typical East Elmhurst worker is required to leave home to perform their job , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Park Slope are adaptable to teleworking .
And Latinos — East Elmhurst ’ s dominant ethnic group — are more likely than all other Americans to consider COVID-19 a threat to their financial stability , according to a recent Pew Research Center survey .
We ’ ve already seen how socioeconomic circumstances can correlate with Americans ’ ability to stay at home .
A recent New York Times analysis of anonymized cellphone data tracked the movements of Americans and found that those in the top 10 percent income bracket have limited their movements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
What Copeland said in 1918 could very likely still hold true : “ I have no doubt that the most dangerous means of transmitting disease was the subway .
… Many a man who was sick must have felt that he had to go to work.
” Copeland ’ s struggle against the currents of poverty and influenza would continue into 1920 .
Updating the public on the state of the epidemic , which had reemerged , Copeland told The New York Times that the health department was working to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and described the struggle to attract nurses to the city ’ s hospitals , since wealthy individuals were offering them higher pay to work in private homes .
He pleaded for better ventilation on subways and buses and criticized coffin-makers who were price-gouging the city ’ s residents .
Even in death , New York was unrelenting .
And so it remains today .
Early this week , the city announced that hospital morgues around New York were overflowing with the dead .
An Associated Press report painted a grim picture of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate much lower than those in Queens , “ mounds of corpses ” had become so difficult to navigate that hospital staff were stepping over them .
The great equalizer isn ’ t COVID-19 — it ’ s death .
But in New York ’ s epidemic , death attends to the haves and have-nots differently : For the city ’ s poor , it hovers closely , and when it comes , it leaves them as crowded as ever .
How Close Are We To A COVID-19 Vaccine ?

Dr. Royal S. Copeland, the field marshal in New York City’s battle against the 1918 influenza epidemic, knew his enemy was more than just a virus. As health commissioner, he oversaw a medical crisis that would eventually kill some 30,000 New Yorkers over three waves of the disease. In Copeland’s estimation, the problem was not only influenza but also the city’s crowded tenements and endemic poverty.
To modern eyes, the measures he took to stymie the spread might seem strange. In an extensive interview with The New York Times after the first wave of influenza had passed, Copeland touted the decision not to close New York’s public schools. It was, he reasoned, best to keep them open to give the city’s children respite from crowded apartments and, if need be, a point of access to the medical system. “We have practically 1,000,000 children in the public schools, about 750,000 of them from tenement homes. These homes are frequently unsanitary and crowded,” he said. “The children’s parents are occupied with the manifold duties involved in keeping the wolf from the door. No matter how loving they may be — and, of course, they are just as loving as any parents anywhere — they simply have not the time to give the necessary attention to the initial symptoms of disease.”
Even under normal circumstances, living in New York City requires a certain surrender of personal space: Subways are packed, apartments are small and bodegas get cramped with after-work shoppers. But not all New Yorkers have to live in a stressful crowd all the time, a fact the COVID-19 pandemic has laid all too bare. The city’s wealth inequality has always been apparent: financial safety nets, Whole Foods delivery and routine access to health care. But the pandemic has added a new layer to what affluence can afford some New Yorkers, including routine access to personal space and the flexibility that white-collar work allows. While over 100 years have gone by since the 1918 pandemic, some of Copeland’s worries about the difficult nature of city life — and the inequities of who lives the most comfortably — remain chillingly relevant.
We know already that the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting people of color more than white Americans. While the virus stalks the rich and poor — leading some to call it “the great equalizer” — those with lesser means have fewer places to hide from it. Dr. Andrew Goodman, a professor of public health at New York University who used to work for the city’s Health Promotion and Disease Prevention unit, pointed to the pandemic as “a more dramatic example of the health-inequity side of income inequality and racial inequality in the U.S.” Deaths from diseases that disproportionately affect minority communities, like diabetes and hypertension, “usually get spread out over time, and it doesn’t seem as dramatic,” Goodman said. “This is a more accelerated version.”
While there is a lot of uncertainty about the actual numbers of those infected — only a fraction of people who show symptoms are tested, so the rate of infection is almost certainly higher than what’s being reported — life in two New York City ZIP codes, one working class and one wealthy, gives us a glimpse into different ways of city living that might mean life or death in today’s New York.
According to a running ProPublica tally of confirmed positive COVID-19 cases, the ZIP codes with the highest rate of infection are in a certain corner of Queens: East Elmhurst. One East Elmhurst ZIP code, 11370, is home to the notorious Rikers Island correctional facility, and has the highest recorded positive test rate in New York City — 127 percent worse than the city’s average. Jails like Rikers have become hotbeds for spreading the disease given their space constraints — well over 600 inmates and workers are infected with the virus at Rikers. East Elmhurst’s other, non-Rikers ZIP code, 11369, is a residential neighborhood and has the second worst positive test rate in the city, 121 percent greater than the average.
East Elmhurst has seen a high rate of individuals tested, and that might be in part because Elmhurst Hospital in neighboring Elmhurst, Queens — “the epicenter within the epicenter,” in the words of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio — has set up a testing tent outside the hospital. According to 2018 data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 34,118 people live in the 1.1 square miles of East Elmhurst’s 11369 ZIP code. Sixty-four percent of its residents are Latino, and the median household income is $54,121, three-quarters of the median income in New York’s greater metro area. On the neighborhood’s northern border is LaGuardia Airport, and south of that are mosques and diners, a baseball field and blocks and blocks of houses cramped together. On those cramped blocks, the average household size is 3.2 people, 20 percent above the city average.
Nearly 11 percent of all households in ZIP code 11369 are also multigenerational, with three or more generations living under the same roof. It’s possible that the grouping of young and old together in one house could have something to do with higher infection rates. Researchers are still unclear about how many others a person infects when they have the virus, but early estimates were around 2 to 2.5 people. The elderly are more susceptible, and in Italy, doctors believe that the country’s culture of intergenerational living and familial closeness has had disastrous effects during the pandemic; Italy’s rate of death from COVID-19 is among the highest in the world.
Underlying conditions like asthma tend to be more prevalent in crowded environments, according to Dr. Y. Claire Wang, who specializes in public health and chronic disease prevention at the New York Academy of Medicine. The respiratory condition puts individuals at greater risk for COVID-19 complications, and households in city apartments with pests or mold, common problems in public housing units, often have higher rates of asthma, she said.
Things look different on the other side of the positive test rate list. ZIP code 11215 in Park Slope, Brooklyn, has among the city’s lowest rates of COVID-19, at 56 percent below average. Park Slope is a different New York from East Elmhurst in many ways. Two-thirds of its population is white, and at $123,583, the median household income is one and a half times greater than that of the average in New York’s greater metropolitan area. The neighborhood is named for its proximity to one of the city’s largest green spaces, Prospect Park, and it’s known for its gracious brownstones and tree-lined streets. The average household size in Park Slope is 2.4 people, and only 1.8 percent of households are multigenerational.
The racial and ethnic differences between Park Slope and East Elmhurst might prove particularly important as both neighborhoods weather the pandemic. Early statistical reports on the disease are already painting a picture of racial inequity. Earlier this week New York State released preliminary numbers that showed Latinos have the highest rate of COVID-19 fatality in New York City.
A Kaiser Family Foundation report on initial pandemic data reveals that minorities are bearing the brunt of infection and death from the virus in many places. Higher rates of chronic conditions in minorities put them at greater risk for serious complications from COVID-19. In Washington, D.C., where black residents make up 45 percent of the total population, they account for 29 percent of confirmed cases and 59 percent of deaths. In Michigan, black residents are 14 percent of the population, but represent 33 percent of confirmed cases and 41 percent of deaths.
“We say something as simple as ‘your ZIP code should not define your health’ — [but] in New York City, that’s often the story,” said Dr. Torian Easterling, the deputy commissioner of the Center for Health Equity and Community Wellness, a city agency that addresses racial and social inequities in health. He pointed to high rates of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension and a lack of access to healthy foods in minority communities as long-standing public health problems that have only been exacerbated by the onset of COVID-19.
During the 1918 pandemic, the white population had a higher rate of infection, according to a 2007 study of the outbreak by Thomas A. Garrett, then an economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve. But that, Garrett surmised, had to do with the fact that the black population in the U.S. was still largely rural; the pandemic was a particular menace to cities. “[T]he nonwhite population in the United States has become much more urban. … A modern-day pandemic may result in greater nonwhite mortality rates because a greater percentage of the nonwhite population in the United States lives in urban areas,” he wrote. Census estimates from 2019 show that the majority of New York City residents are people of color.
Park Slope and the East Elmhurst ZIP code of 11369 are similarly dense, with roughly 32,000 and 31,000 people per square mile, respectively. But life in the neighborhoods is different in other ways that might contribute to their divergent rates of apparent COVID-19 infection. According to the latest Census Bureau count, the most prevalent jobs in East Elmhurst are clerical work, food service and construction. In Park Slope, management, entertainment, education and business are the most common professions. The typical East Elmhurst worker is required to leave home to perform their job, while the lines of work most common in Park Slope are adaptable to teleworking. And Latinos — East Elmhurst’s dominant ethnic group — are more likely than all other Americans to consider COVID-19 a threat to their financial stability, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.
We’ve already seen how socioeconomic circumstances can correlate with Americans’ ability to stay at home. A recent New York Times analysis of anonymized cellphone data tracked the movements of Americans and found that those in the top 10 percent income bracket have limited their movements more than those in the bottom 10 percent. What Copeland said in 1918 could very likely still hold true: “I have no doubt that the most dangerous means of transmitting disease was the subway. … Many a man who was sick must have felt that he had to go to work.”
Copeland’s struggle against the currents of poverty and influenza would continue into 1920. Updating the public on the state of the epidemic, which had reemerged, Copeland told The New York Times that the health department was working to stop the eviction of tenants during the outbreak and described the struggle to attract nurses to the city’s hospitals, since wealthy individuals were offering them higher pay to work in private homes. He pleaded for better ventilation on subways and buses and criticized coffin-makers who were price-gouging the city’s residents. Even in death, New York was unrelenting.
And so it remains today. Early this week, the city announced that hospital morgues around New York were overflowing with the dead. An Associated Press report painted a grim picture of one Brooklyn hospital. Even with an infection rate much lower than those in Queens, “mounds of corpses” had become so difficult to navigate that hospital staff were stepping over them.
The great equalizer isn’t COVID-19 — it’s death. But in New York’s epidemic, death attends to the haves and have-nots differently: For the city’s poor, it hovers closely, and when it comes, it leaves them as crowded as ever.
How close are we to a COVID-19 vaccine? l FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-10--How Could All Those Primary Postponements Change The Delegate Math?

With Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s exit from the race on Wednesday , former Vice President Joe Biden is now the presumptive Democratic nominee — but that doesn ’ t mean the presidential nomination process is over .
A number of states have yet to vote , and many will now vote much later than originally planned as a handful of states have postponed their primaries over the coronavirus epidemic .
So one thing I ’ ve looked into is whether these adjustment to the primary calendar will affect the number of pledged delegates — of which there were initially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic National Convention .
To be clear , the delegate changes we ’ re talking about here are not enough to alter the eventual outcome : Barring an act of God , Biden will be the nominee .
But understanding the delegate changes could affect the former vice president ’ s path to the nomination .
And any changes to the delegate numbers shifts the magic number ( currently 1,991 ) needed to clinch the nomination .
It could also signal how the Democratic National Committee might handle roadblocks to the nomination process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of different ways by which the delegate total could change .
First , there ’ s the bonus delegates the DNC apportions to states .
Bonuses are awarded for two reasons : holding a primary or caucus later in the election cycle , or concurrent with neighboring states .
States who hold contests in April receive a 10 percent delegate bonus and states with contests in May or later receive a 20 percent bonus .
There is an additional 15 percent bonus for states that hold contests after March and on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighboring states .
Granted , due to the timing of the coronavirus epidemic , most of the states that moved their primaries or caucuses to later dates on the primary calendar already benefited from these timing and/or clustering bonuses .
However , the three jurisdictions that postponed March primaries — Georgia , Ohio and Puerto Rico — could potentially gain new bonus delegates .
All of the other states that postponed their primaries were already scheduled to vote after March , so their bonuses would transfer and , in some cases , increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of every state .
There are actually a handful of states that would lose bonus delegates under the new calendar .
Take Connecticut , New York and Rhode Island , for example .
Both Connecticut and Rhode Island shifted their contests from April 28 to June 2 .
New York , on the other hand , chose to consolidate its presidential primary with its primary for state and local offices , which was already scheduled for June 23 .
So while the timing bonus for Connecticut and Rhode Island would increase from 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose the 15 percent clustering bonus they received as part of the six-state “ Acela primary ” grouping because , with New York voting three weeks later , they no longer share a primary date with two adjoining states .
Delaware , Maryland and Pennsylvania , the three remaining “ Acela primary ” states , would all see their timing bonuses increase from 10 to 20 percent while maintaining their 15 percent clustering bonus .
However , the 22 bonus delegates those states would gain as a cluster is less than the 34 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puerto Rico would pick up by pushing their primaries into bonus-eligible territory .
That said , the overall change to the delegate math is minimal .
In total , we ’ re talking about an additional 55 delegates ( including the three delegates lost under this new primary calendar ) .
That hardly makes a difference when you consider that there are 3,979 pledged delegates at stake .
But delegate bonuses are not the only way the delegate calculus might change under the coronavirus threat .
Some states could be impacted by penalties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ window rule , ” which specifies that all states must have conducted their primaries and caucuses by June 9 this cycle .
Three states have blown past that deadline in rescheduling their primaries : Louisiana ( June 20 ) , plus Kentucky and New York ( June 23 ) .
Those three states are now open to sanctions from the national party .
The default penalty is a 50 percent delegation reduction for any state in violation .
But if the DNC were to penalize these three states , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none would still qualify for their bonus delegates .
( The cut-off for states to hold their contest and receive bonus delegates is June 16 . )
That means these three states would lose their bonus delegates first , and then the 50 percent penalty would be applied to the original delegate total .
Moreover , since that 50 percent penalty is levied on every category of pledged delegates — district , at-large and PLEO ( pledged party leader and elected officials ) — and not on the sum of pledged delegates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of its baseline delegate total .
And on top of all that , each state ’ s superdelegates would lose all of their voting privileges at the convention , not just on the roll call votes .
In total , New York Democrats would lose nearly two-thirds of their delegation ( 64 percent ) while both Kentucky ( 62 percent ) and Louisiana ( 57 percent ) would lose more than half .
If this were to happen , the total number of pledged delegates at stake in the Democratic presidential nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3,876 , as the delegate penalties would outweigh any additional delegates added by timing and/or clustering bonuses .
Here ’ s the thing , though : While all of this is true according to the rules the DNC laid out for the 2020 cycle , it may all end up being nothing more than a fun thought experiment .
Much of it has to do with the unprecedented impact the coronavirus pandemic has had not just on the primary calendar but also on the delegate selection process .
Two-thirds of all pledged delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district and state conventions across the country in April and May .
But those are the exact types of gatherings prohibited by the stay-at-home orders expanding across the U.S. , and they all fall during the period in which the spread of the virus is expected to peak .
To say that has sent both the DNC and state Democratic parties scrambling is an understatement .
State party draft delegate selection plans were submitted to the DNC in May 2019 , but those carefully laid plans have been blown up by the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by state parties to run by the national party ’ s Rules and Bylaws Committee for approval .
That task is hard enough in the lead-up to primary season , much less in the thick of it .
Given these unique challenges , what should we expect from the DNC with respect to any additional bonus delegates or penalties ?
Probably not much .
In my conversations with DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee members , I have been told that recalculating the bonus delegates is not a high priority .
And that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Take Ohio , for example .
District delegate slates were nominated there in January .
So now all that ’ s left is plugging in the results of the April 28 primary to determine the share of delegates each candidate receives .
This makes it hard to add delegates on the fly .
The same is true of delegate penalties .
In New York , district delegate candidates have already filed to be on the June 23 primary ballot .
And while it ’ s true that delegate candidates with the lowest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could lose their spots as part of a delegate penalty , that is just another complication that the DNC likely does not want to deal with .
Ultimately , the DNC ’ s top priority is to help state parties complete their delegate selection processes before the national convention in August .
( After all , there can be no convention if no delegates are selected . )
But if there are changes , they will come from the Rules and Bylaws Committee .
And while the group has signaled that holding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violation , it has also promised to work with state parties to complete their delegate selection processes .
So my best advice is to look for the delegate numbers to stay largely similar to what they are now .

With Sen. Bernie Sanders’s exit from the race on Wednesday, former Vice President Joe Biden is now the presumptive Democratic nominee — but that doesn’t mean the presidential nomination process is over.
A number of states have yet to vote, and many will now vote much later than originally planned as a handful of states have postponed their primaries over the coronavirus epidemic. So one thing I’ve looked into is whether these adjustment to the primary calendar will affect the number of pledged delegates — of which there were initially 3,979 up for grabs — at the Democratic National Convention.
To be clear, the delegate changes we’re talking about here are not enough to alter the eventual outcome: Barring an act of God, Biden will be the nominee. But understanding the delegate changes could affect the former vice president’s path to the nomination. And any changes to the delegate numbers shifts the magic number (currently 1,991) needed to clinch the nomination. It could also signal how the Democratic National Committee might handle roadblocks to the nomination process moving forward.
There’s a couple of different ways by which the delegate total could change. First, there’s the bonus delegates the DNC apportions to states. Bonuses are awarded for two reasons: holding a primary or caucus later in the election cycle, or concurrent with neighboring states. States who hold contests in April receive a 10 percent delegate bonus and states with contests in May or later receive a 20 percent bonus. There is an additional 15 percent bonus for states that hold contests after March and on the same day as at least two other neighboring states.
Granted, due to the timing of the coronavirus epidemic, most of the states that moved their primaries or caucuses to later dates on the primary calendar already benefited from these timing and/or clustering bonuses. However, the three jurisdictions that postponed March primaries — Georgia, Ohio and Puerto Rico — could potentially gain new bonus delegates. All of the other states that postponed their primaries were already scheduled to vote after March, so their bonuses would transfer and, in some cases, increase.
But this isn’t true of every state. There are actually a handful of states that would lose bonus delegates under the new calendar. Take Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island, for example. Both Connecticut and Rhode Island shifted their contests from April 28 to June 2. New York, on the other hand, chose to consolidate its presidential primary with its primary for state and local offices, which was already scheduled for June 23. So while the timing bonus for Connecticut and Rhode Island would increase from 10 to 20 percent, both states would lose the 15 percent clustering bonus they received as part of the six-state “Acela primary” grouping because, with New York voting three weeks later, they no longer share a primary date with two adjoining states.
Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania, the three remaining “Acela primary” states, would all see their timing bonuses increase from 10 to 20 percent while maintaining their 15 percent clustering bonus. However, the 22 bonus delegates those states would gain as a cluster is less than the 34 bonus delegates that Georgia, Ohio and Puerto Rico would pick up by pushing their primaries into bonus-eligible territory.
Delegate bonuses could grow — or shrink Jurisdictions that rescheduled their primaries, and how their delegate totals might change based on DNC rules on timing and clustering bonuses pledged delegate total Contest new primary date old new diff Puerto Rico TBD* 51 55 +4 Ohio 4/28/20 136 148 +12 Hawaii 5/22/20 24 26 +2 Connecticut 6/2/20 60 58 -2 Delaware 6/2/20 21 22 +1 Maryland 6/2/20 96 103 +7 Pennsylvania 6/2/20 186 200 +14 Rhode Island 6/2/20 26 25 -1 Georgia 6/9/20 105 123 +18 States that hold their contest in April receiving a timing bonus of 10 percent, and states that hold their contest in May or later receive a 20 percent bonus. States that contests after March on the same as at least two other neighboring states receive a clustering bonus of 15 percent. *Puerto Rico’s primary is indefinitely postponed, but as long as it is rescheduled before June 9, it would be eligible for a delegate bonus. The table assumes a 10 percent timing bonus. Source: Democratic National Committee
That said, the overall change to the delegate math is minimal. In total, we’re talking about an additional 55 delegates (including the three delegates lost under this new primary calendar). That hardly makes a difference when you consider that there are 3,979 pledged delegates at stake.
But delegate bonuses are not the only way the delegate calculus might change under the coronavirus threat. Some states could be impacted by penalties for violating Rule 12.A, the DNC’s “window rule,” which specifies that all states must have conducted their primaries and caucuses by June 9 this cycle.
Three states have blown past that deadline in rescheduling their primaries: Louisiana (June 20), plus Kentucky and New York (June 23). Those three states are now open to sanctions from the national party. The default penalty is a 50 percent delegation reduction for any state in violation.
But if the DNC were to penalize these three states, they’d lose even more delegates as none would still qualify for their bonus delegates. (The cut-off for states to hold their contest and receive bonus delegates is June 16.) That means these three states would lose their bonus delegates first, and then the 50 percent penalty would be applied to the original delegate total.
Moreover, since that 50 percent penalty is levied on every category of pledged delegates — district, at-large and PLEO (pledged party leader and elected officials) — and not on the sum of pledged delegates, a state could lose more than 50 percent of its baseline delegate total. And on top of all that, each state’s superdelegates would lose all of their voting privileges at the convention, not just on the roll call votes. In total, New York Democrats would lose nearly two-thirds of their delegation (64 percent) while both Kentucky (62 percent) and Louisiana (57 percent) would lose more than half.
Some states could lose delegates for primary shift States whose rescheduled primaries fall after June 9, and how their delegate totals might change based on a DNC penalty that reduces their delegation by 50 percent delegation total state new primary date Old new penalty Louisiana 6/20/20 61 26 -35 Kentucky 6/23/20 60 23 -37 New York 6/23/20 320 114 -206 Loss of timing and clustering bonuses also reflected. Under Rule 21.C.1.a, the 50 percent penalty applies to every category of pledged delegates — district, at-large and PLEO (pledged party leader and elected officials). New counts are rounded before summed. Superdelegates lose their voting rights as well. Source: Democratic National Committee
If this were to happen, the total number of pledged delegates at stake in the Democratic presidential nomination process would actually fall from 3,979 to 3,876, as the delegate penalties would outweigh any additional delegates added by timing and/or clustering bonuses.
Here’s the thing, though: While all of this is true according to the rules the DNC laid out for the 2020 cycle, it may all end up being nothing more than a fun thought experiment.
Why?
Much of it has to do with the unprecedented impact the coronavirus pandemic has had not just on the primary calendar but also on the delegate selection process. Two-thirds of all pledged delegates were slated to have been chosen in district and state conventions across the country in April and May. But those are the exact types of gatherings prohibited by the stay-at-home orders expanding across the U.S., and they all fall during the period in which the spread of the virus is expected to peak.
To say that has sent both the DNC and state Democratic parties scrambling is an understatement. State party draft delegate selection plans were submitted to the DNC in May 2019, but those carefully laid plans have been blown up by the coronavirus. Alternate plans are hastily being drafted by state parties to run by the national party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee for approval. That task is hard enough in the lead-up to primary season, much less in the thick of it.
Given these unique challenges, what should we expect from the DNC with respect to any additional bonus delegates or penalties?
Probably not much. In my conversations with DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee members, I have been told that recalculating the bonus delegates is not a high priority. And that is mainly because of the problems it introduces.
Take Ohio, for example. District delegate slates were nominated there in January. So now all that’s left is plugging in the results of the April 28 primary to determine the share of delegates each candidate receives. This makes it hard to add delegates on the fly.
The same is true of delegate penalties. In New York, district delegate candidates have already filed to be on the June 23 primary ballot. And while it’s true that delegate candidates with the lowest number of votes in a given district could lose their spots as part of a delegate penalty, that is just another complication that the DNC likely does not want to deal with.
Ultimately, the DNC’s top priority is to help state parties complete their delegate selection processes before the national convention in August. (After all, there can be no convention if no delegates are selected.) But if there are changes, they will come from the Rules and Bylaws Committee. And while the group has signaled that holding a contest after June 9 constitutes a rules violation, it has also promised to work with state parties to complete their delegate selection processes. So my best advice is to look for the delegate numbers to stay largely similar to what they are now.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-10--Most Americans Like How Their Governor Is Handling The Coronavirus Outbreak

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
Because they have the power to institute “ stay at home ” orders , buy hospital equipment and coordinate other vital tasks in their states , governors have been at the forefront of the governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.
They ’ ve been getting credit for their leadership , too .
In the past month , for example , The New York Times called New York ’ s Democratic governor , Andrew Cuomo , the “ politician of the moment ” and “ the Trump whisperer.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeWine , has received accolades for acting early to curtail the spread of the virus while President Trump was still downplaying its risks .
It ’ s not just the media , either ; the public is also appreciating its governors .
Recent state-level polling shows that a majority of Americans in each state approve of the way their governor has handled the COVID-19 crisis so far .
For comparison , just under half of Americans approve of Trump ’ s response to the novel coronavirus .
And the three national polls we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — one from Morning Consult , one from Monmouth University and one Quinnipiac University — also found people were much more likely to approve of their governor ’ s response than Trump ’ s .
Of course , not all of that difference is necessarily explained by how governors are handling the pandemic — many governors were simply more popular than Trump to begin with .
For example , the Morning Consult poll found a 21 percentage point difference in the share of people who approved of their governor ’ s response versus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the end of last year , before the coronavirus emerged in the U.S. , governors were about 9 percentage points more popular than Trump was .
So while some of the difference between governors ’ and Trump ’ s approval ratings on the COVID-19 crisis may be related to governors ’ preexisting popularity , there ’ s still a 12-point gap that ’ s not explained by pre-coronavirus approval ratings alone .
Some governors are getting especially high marks .
There aren ’ t a ton of state-specific polls yet about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response ( the Morning Consult , Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls don ’ t break out individual states ) , but the polls we have so far show Cuomo , DeWine and especially California Gov .
Gavin Newsom getting an overwhelmingly positive response .
Governors like Cuomo and DeWine are getting far higher marks for their response to the virus than , for example , Ron DeSantis of Florida .
DeSantis has been criticized for failing to close down Florida ’ s beaches during spring break and for waiting until April to issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of most governors ’ pandemic response is higher than their baseline approval ratings , suggesting they ’ re doing something to impress even people who don ’ t normally approve of them .
Newsom , for example , isn ’ t especially popular overall , but he ’ s getting higher marks for his coronavirus response than just about any other governor for which we have data .
Meanwhile , Charlie Baker , the Republican governor of Massachusetts , is also getting good marks for his handling of the virus , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of his constituents .
Baker was , at one point , the most popular governor in America according to Morning Consult ’ s numbers ( and according to PARG — our “ Popularity Above Replacement Governor ” — metric ) .
How Close Are We To A COVID-19 Vaccine ?
It isn ’ t clear yet if , or how much , the crisis will affect the electoral prospects of each governor .
Of those we have data for , only three are up for reelection this coming November : Democrat Jay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of North Carolina and Republican Chris Sununu of New Hampshire .
How they handle the coronavirus response could make a bigger electoral difference to Sununu and Cooper than Inslee , a Democratic governor in an already very Democratic state .
As for the remaining governors , we either don ’ t have a pandemic-related approval polling yet or they are not up for reelection this year .
In any case , the COVID-19 crisis , and all its fallout , is still incredibly fluid .
Many of these numbers can and likely will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans are happier with how their governors are handling the crisis than their president .
• While the governors are getting high approval ratings for their coronavirus responses , there is one person getting even higher marks : Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
Both Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls showed Fauci to be the most trusted official when it comes to the response to the outbreak .
The Quinnipiac poll found that 78 percent of Americans approve of the way Fauci is handling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disapprove .
• About a quarter of Americans say they have either lost their job or had a pay cut from coronavirus-related shutdowns , according to a CNBC poll conducted by Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies .
• According to a SurveyUSA poll conducted this week , over half of homeowners and over 60 percent of renters are either “ somewhat ” or “ very ” concerned about being unable to pay their mortgage or rent on time .
• A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week found that 72 percent of Americans — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Republicans — support the federal government requiring states to allow mail-in ballots in November to protect against further spread of the coronavirus .
Trump has opposed efforts to expand voting by mail .
• 57 percent of Americans say they believed in the Easter Bunny as a child , according to a YouGov poll conducted Wednesday .
• If , like me , you don ’ t enjoy jigsaw puzzles , then I have some bad news for you : The country is against us .
A new YouGov poll found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t enjoy jigsaw puzzles very much or don ’ t enjoy them at all .
Sixty-one percent of Americans say they either enjoy jigsaw puzzles a lot or somewhat enjoy them .
• 95 percent of 13-to-17 year-olds report cancellation of in-person classes at their school , according to a SurveyMonkey poll conducted at the end of March .
Ninety-six percent of students attending private school and 83 percent of students attending public school said they ’ re being assigned schoolwork remotely .
But private school students were much more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequently connected with their teachers .
• South Korea will go to the polls on April 15 to elect a new National Assembly , the country ’ s 300-member unicameral legislature .
Citizens wearing face masks and gloves will have their temperatures taken and will be sprayed with hand sanitizer before casting their ballots .
According to The Economist , a poll from this month found that 73 percent expressed their intent to vote .
Polling shows that incumbent President Moon Jae-In ’ s approval rating has increased in the wake of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t necessarily mean his ruling party will win the election .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 44.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 50.3 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -5.7 points ) .
At this time last week , 45.7 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -4.3 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 42.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 53 percent , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 7.8 percentage points 48.9 percent to 41.1 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 7.7 points ( 48.9 percent to 41.2 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 7.2 points ( 48.8 percent to 41.6 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
Because they have the power to institute “stay at home” orders, buy hospital equipment and coordinate other vital tasks in their states, governors have been at the forefront of the governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. They’ve been getting credit for their leadership, too. In the past month, for example, The New York Times called New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo, the “politician of the moment” and “the Trump whisperer.” Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike DeWine, has received accolades for acting early to curtail the spread of the virus while President Trump was still downplaying its risks.
It’s not just the media, either; the public is also appreciating its governors. Recent state-level polling shows that a majority of Americans in each state approve of the way their governor has handled the COVID-19 crisis so far. For comparison, just under half of Americans approve of Trump’s response to the novel coronavirus. And the three national polls we found in April that asked about this — one from Morning Consult, one from Monmouth University and one Quinnipiac University — also found people were much more likely to approve of their governor’s response than Trump’s.
Americans like how their governors are handling COVID-19 National polls from April asking people how well they think President Trump and their governor are handling the coronavirus outbreak Governors Trump Dates Pollster Approve Disapprove Approve Disapprove April 3-7 Monmouth 72% 21% 46% 49% April 3-5 Morning Consult 61 31 40 54 April 2-6 Quinnipiac 74 24 46 51 Average 69 25 44 51
Of course, not all of that difference is necessarily explained by how governors are handling the pandemic — many governors were simply more popular than Trump to begin with. For example, the Morning Consult poll found a 21 percentage point difference in the share of people who approved of their governor’s response versus those who approved of Trump’s. At the end of last year, before the coronavirus emerged in the U.S., governors were about 9 percentage points more popular than Trump was. So while some of the difference between governors’ and Trump’s approval ratings on the COVID-19 crisis may be related to governors’ preexisting popularity, there’s still a 12-point gap that’s not explained by pre-coronavirus approval ratings alone.
Some governors are getting especially high marks. There aren’t a ton of state-specific polls yet about how people feel about their governor’s response (the Morning Consult, Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls don’t break out individual states), but the polls we have so far show Cuomo, DeWine and especially California Gov. Gavin Newsom getting an overwhelmingly positive response.
Governors are getting high marks for COVID-19 response Job approval ratings for each governor’s handling of the coronavirus crisis vs. their overall approval rating prior to the pandemic COVID-19 polls Pre-pandemic Governor Party State number Approval Approval Diff Newsom D CA 1 83% 42% +41 Cuomo D NY 2 79 47 +32 DeWine R OH 1 80 49 +31 Evers D WI 2 72 48 +24 Whitmer D MI 2 66 42 +24 Inslee D WA 1 67 44 +23 Hutchinson R AR 1 80 58 +22 Cooper D NC 1 63 47 +16 Bel Edwards D LA 1 68 54 +14 Sununu R NH 1 73 59 +14 Stitt R OK 1 69 56 +13 Gordon R WY 1 82 69 +13 Wolf D PA 2 66 53 +13 Baker R MA 1 80 69 +11 DeSantis R FL 1 51 58 -7 Baseline approval numbers are from Morning Consult’s 2019 Q4 governor rankings. Source: Polls, Morning Consult
Governors like Cuomo and DeWine are getting far higher marks for their response to the virus than, for example, Ron DeSantis of Florida. DeSantis has been criticized for failing to close down Florida’s beaches during spring break and for waiting until April to issue a stay-at-home order.
Still, approval of most governors’ pandemic response is higher than their baseline approval ratings, suggesting they’re doing something to impress even people who don’t normally approve of them. Newsom, for example, isn’t especially popular overall, but he’s getting higher marks for his coronavirus response than just about any other governor for which we have data. Meanwhile, Charlie Baker, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, is also getting good marks for his handling of the virus, but he already had the approval of a large majority of his constituents. Baker was, at one point, the most popular governor in America according to Morning Consult’s numbers (and according to PARG — our “Popularity Above Replacement Governor” — metric).
How close are we to a COVID-19 vaccine? l FiveThirtyEight
It isn’t clear yet if, or how much, the crisis will affect the electoral prospects of each governor. Of those we have data for, only three are up for reelection this coming November: Democrat Jay Inslee of Washington, Democrat Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Republican Chris Sununu of New Hampshire. How they handle the coronavirus response could make a bigger electoral difference to Sununu and Cooper than Inslee, a Democratic governor in an already very Democratic state. As for the remaining governors, we either don’t have a pandemic-related approval polling yet or they are not up for reelection this year.
In any case, the COVID-19 crisis, and all its fallout, is still incredibly fluid. Many of these numbers can and likely will change. So far, however, Americans are happier with how their governors are handling the crisis than their president.
Other polling bites
While the governors are getting high approval ratings for their coronavirus responses, there is one person getting even higher marks: Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls showed Fauci to be the most trusted official when it comes to the response to the outbreak. The Quinnipiac poll found that 78 percent of Americans approve of the way Fauci is handling the coronavirus response, while only 7 percent disapprove.
one person getting even higher marks: Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both Monmouth and Quinnipiac polls showed Fauci to be the most trusted official when it comes to the response to the outbreak. The Quinnipiac poll found that 78 percent of Americans approve of the way Fauci is handling the coronavirus response, while only 7 percent disapprove. About a quarter of Americans say they have either lost their job or had a pay cut from coronavirus-related shutdowns, according to a CNBC poll conducted by Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies.
According to a SurveyUSA poll conducted this week, over half of homeowners and over 60 percent of renters are either “somewhat” or “very” concerned about being unable to pay their mortgage or rent on time.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week found that 72 percent of Americans — including 79 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans — support the federal government requiring states to allow mail-in ballots in November to protect against further spread of the coronavirus. Trump has opposed efforts to expand voting by mail.
57 percent of Americans say they believed in the Easter Bunny as a child, according to a YouGov poll conducted Wednesday.
If, like me, you don’t enjoy jigsaw puzzles, then I have some bad news for you: The country is against us. A new YouGov poll found that only 28 percent of Americans either don’t enjoy jigsaw puzzles very much or don’t enjoy them at all. Sixty-one percent of Americans say they either enjoy jigsaw puzzles a lot or somewhat enjoy them.
95 percent of 13-to-17 year-olds report cancellation of in-person classes at their school, according to a SurveyMonkey poll conducted at the end of March. Ninety-six percent of students attending private school and 83 percent of students attending public school said they’re being assigned schoolwork remotely. But private school students were much more likely to report having attended online classes or having frequently connected with their teachers.
South Korea will go to the polls on April 15 to elect a new National Assembly, the country’s 300-member unicameral legislature. Citizens wearing face masks and gloves will have their temperatures taken and will be sprayed with hand sanitizer before casting their ballots. According to The Economist, a poll from this month found that 73 percent expressed their intent to vote. Polling shows that incumbent President Moon Jae-In’s approval rating has increased in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, but that doesn’t necessarily mean his ruling party will win the election.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 44.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 50.3 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -5.7 points). At this time last week, 45.7 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -4.3 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 42.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 53 percent, for a net approval rating of -10.2 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.8 percentage points 48.9 percent to 41.1 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.7 points (48.9 percent to 41.2 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.2 points (48.8 percent to 41.6 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.