fivethirtyeight--2020-09-01--Today’s Elections In Massachusetts Are Another Big Test For The Progressive Movement

In 45 states , the advent of September means it ’ s time to focus on the general election .
But there are still a few primaries left to be resolved — most notably in Massachusetts , where progressives and the Democratic Party establishment are waging their final war of 2020 .
And because the Bay State — and all nine of its congressional districts — are solidly blue , today ’ s elections will essentially decide its next members of Congress .
Like many Democratic primaries this year , the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race pits an incumbent who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurgent arguing it ’ s time for a new generation of leadership .
But that ’ s about where the comparison ends .
The young upstart is Rep. Joe Kennedy III , scion of perhaps the most establishment family in politics .
( Among his great-uncles were President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy , who died in 2009 . )
And incumbent Sen. Ed Markey , despite his 44-year tenure in Congress , is a steadfast progressive who co-wrote the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
As such , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the contest for himself : Ocasio-Cortez , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Our Revolution and the Sunrise Movement have all endorsed him .
Meanwhile , Kennedy ’ s endorsers include establishment heavyweights such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
But in reality , the two candidates largely share the same progressive policy views and have voted similarly in Congress .
So without a clear ideological contrast , Kennedy has arguably struggled to articulate why he feels that Markey doesn ’ t deserve another term .
Long-standing grumblings that Markey doesn ’ t spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stick to the incumbent , leaving Kennedy open to attacks that he is running only because of his family ’ s privilege , which Markey has contrasted with his own working-class upbringing .
However , despite the vitriol that has come to characterize the campaign , most Bay Staters see the race as a choice between two good Democrats .
According to a Suffolk University poll from last week , 71 percent of likely Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of Markey , and 63 percent had a favorable opinion of Kennedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head-to-head polls of the race show Markey with an average lead of 10 percentage points .
That ’ s a pretty big shift from earlier this year , when Kennedy was leading in most polls .
A lot of that early lead was probably name recognition , though , as Markey was not terribly well known for an incumbent — and Kennedy had already aired millions of dollars ’ worth of TV ads before Markey first went on the air in late July .
But Markey ’ s recent spending blitz appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among younger and more college-educated voters .
However , Kennedy has still outspent Markey $ 10.2 million to $ 7.1 million since Oct. 1 , 2019 ( about a week after he entered the race ) , although the two candidates have received roughly the same amount of help ( around $ 4 million ) from outside groups .
But no matter what happens today , history will be made .
It will be the first time either a sitting U.S. senator or a Kennedy has lost a contested primary in Massachusetts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic primary in Western Massachusetts ’ s 1st Congressional District started out as another establishment-versus-insurgent fight between Rep. Richard Neal , a 16-term incumbent who chairs the Ways and Means Committee , and Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse , a 31-year-old progressive .
But the race took a dramatic turn when Morse , who is gay , was accused of sexual misconduct — even more scandalous given the allegations appeared to be part of a political hit job .
On Aug. 7 , the College Democrats of Massachusetts alleged that Morse had inappropriate sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before that , as an adjunct instructor at UMass Amherst .
Morse denied ever having a “ non-consensual sexual encounter ” or violating UMass policies , but admitted that he ’ d had consensual relationships with students at area universities and apologized for making some students feel uncomfortable .
But things took a turn on Aug. 12 when left-leaning outlet The Intercept reported that leaders of the College Democrats had conspired to create a sex scandal and sink Morse ’ s campaign to win favor with Neal .
For his part , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the College Democrats ’ president claimed they had acted in good faith .
The revelations , however , cast serious doubts on the allegations against Morse .
Further reporting from The Intercept also suggests that the state Democratic Party may have been involved in the effort to spread the allegations , and that the party ’ s executive director told leaders of the College Democrats to delete communication records .
Overall , the race appears to be quite close .
In the aftermath of The Intercept ’ s initial story , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fundraising , and a mid-August internal poll from Morse ’ s campaign found Neal ahead by only 5 points , 46 percent to 41 percent .
Still , a late-August survey from RABA Research/Jewish Insider found Neal up 49 percent to 40 percent , and the longtime incumbent holds a huge edge in fundraising .
As of Aug. 12 , Neal had already spent more than four times as much as Morse ( $ 4.3 million versus $ 1.0 million ) and had nine times as much in the bank for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2.8 million to nearly $ 297,000 ) .
Outside groups have also spent almost $ 1.9 million supporting Neal or attacking Morse , more than the $ 1.5 million boosting Morse or slamming Neal .
Neal also got an unusual endorsement from Republican Gov .
Charlie Baker .
In most states , such cross-party support might well hurt Neal , but an August survey of the Democratic primary electorate from UMass Lowell found that 89 percent ( ! )
approved of Baker ’ s performance as governor .
Another wide-open race can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4th Congressional District , which stretches from wealthy Boston suburbs to working-class cities along the Rhode Island border .
Seven Democrats are running here , five of whom have raised more than $ 1 million .
Alan Khazei , the co-founder of City Year , probably entered the campaign as the best-known candidate thanks to two past U.S. Senate runs ( he lost but captured a lot of grassroots energy ) .
And he remains the race ’ s top fundraiser ( $ 1.8 million ) .
But early polls more consistently showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughter-in-law of former Democratic National Committee Chair Steve Grossman , with the most support .
Fellow Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss , a Marine veteran endorsed by The Boston Globe , has also emerged as a front-runner : He has spent more than any candidate ( $ 1.4 million ) , and a super PAC partially funded by his parents has chipped in another $ 532,620 .
But he has also had to apologize for some offensive comments he has made over the years .
A super PAC affiliated with Emily ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack Auchincloss and Khazei , although the women ’ s group has not chosen a favorite among the four women in the race .
In addition , former Wall Street regulator Ihssane Leckey has also parlayed her personal fortune ( she has loaned $ 1 million to her own campaign ) to become a factor in the race : According to her campaign ’ s internal polling , she gained 8 points in the race from June to August .
But now the momentum might be with former Brookline Select Board member Jesse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates Dave Cavell and Chris Zannetos both dropped out and endorsed Mermell — Cavell doing so with the explicit goal of consolidating the progressive vote against Auchincloss .
The most recent poll of the race , from RABA Research/Jewish Insider , showed Auchincloss and Mermell as the two leading candidates .
Rounding out the field , epidemiologist Natalia Linos significantly trails the others in fundraising but was part of a six-way virtual tie for first place in a mid-August Data for Progress poll .
Only a win by attorney Ben Sigel , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both polls and fundraising , would be a true upset .
The last primary we ’ re watching is the 8th Congressional District , where Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch faces a progressive challenge from physician Robbie Goldstein .
Lynch has long had a reputation for being a moderate , especially because of his more conservative stance on abortion rights .
And with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic , Goldstein ’ s background as an infectious-disease expert could attract support , too .
Understandably , Goldstein has focused on health care , backing a single-payer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lynch , who actually voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010 .
However , the reason Lynch voted against the ACA is because he said the legislation didn ’ t go far enough to rein in insurance companies .
So far , though , Goldstein has outraised Lynch in the past two filing periods , bringing in about $ 340,000 to Lynch ’ s $ 52,000 in that time .
Although Lynch has a much larger war chest because of previous fundraising — he had about $ 1.5 million cash on hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as of Aug. 12 — he may not be using that much of it .
Politico reported last week that Lynch had made only very small television and digital ad buys , and Goldstein has spent more on advertising than Lynch so far this year .
A poll released in early August by Goldstein ’ s campaign found Lynch ahead by only 7 points , 39 percent to 32 percent , so the challenger might have a shot at an upset .
Nonetheless , one of Lynch ’ s online ads says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from , ” and given his background as an ironworker-turned-lawyer and Irish Catholic , if he wins handily today that might help explain why .
Lynch ’ s profile fits the traditional culture of the area he represents , and in his nearly two decades in the House , he ’ s seen off every primary challenge with ease .
The 8th District takes in South Boston , a historically working-class and Irish American community .
Although the area has been changing in recent years , 29 percent of the district ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other district in the country .
There ’ s certainly plenty of electoral excitement in Massachusetts today , and as we ’ ve discussed , some surprises could be in store .
We ’ ll be following the ins and outs of each contest tonight on Twitter , so please follow along !

In 45 states, the advent of September means it’s time to focus on the general election. But there are still a few primaries left to be resolved — most notably in Massachusetts, where progressives and the Democratic Party establishment are waging their final war of 2020. And because the Bay State — and all nine of its congressional districts — are solidly blue, today’s elections will essentially decide its next members of Congress.
Like many Democratic primaries this year, the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race pits an incumbent who has served in Congress for decades against an insurgent arguing it’s time for a new generation of leadership. But that’s about where the comparison ends. The young upstart is Rep. Joe Kennedy III, scion of perhaps the most establishment family in politics. (Among his great-uncles were President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died in 2009.) And incumbent Sen. Ed Markey, despite his 44-year tenure in Congress, is a steadfast progressive who co-wrote the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
As such, Markey has successfully claimed the left lane of the contest for himself: Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Our Revolution and the Sunrise Movement have all endorsed him. Meanwhile, Kennedy’s endorsers include establishment heavyweights such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But in reality, the two candidates largely share the same progressive policy views and have voted similarly in Congress.
So without a clear ideological contrast, Kennedy has arguably struggled to articulate why he feels that Markey doesn’t deserve another term. Long-standing grumblings that Markey doesn’t spend enough time in Massachusetts have failed to stick to the incumbent, leaving Kennedy open to attacks that he is running only because of his family’s privilege, which Markey has contrasted with his own working-class upbringing.
However, despite the vitriol that has come to characterize the campaign, most Bay Staters see the race as a choice between two good Democrats. According to a Suffolk University poll from last week, 71 percent of likely Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of Markey, and 63 percent had a favorable opinion of Kennedy. That said, the last four head-to-head polls of the race show Markey with an average lead of 10 percentage points. That’s a pretty big shift from earlier this year, when Kennedy was leading in most polls.
Markey has taken the lead Polls of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts conducted so far in 2020 Dates Pollster Markey Kennedy Margin 8/25-27 Emerson College 56% 44% +12 8/24-25 Data for Progress 50 43 +7 8/23-25 Suffolk University 51 41 +10 8/13-21 UMass Lowell 52 40 +12 8/12-16 SurveyUSA 44 42 +2 7/31-8/7 UMass Amherst 51 36 +15 7/29-30 JMC Analytics 44 41 +3 5/5-6 Emerson College 42 58 +16 4/27-5/1 UMass Lowell 42 44 +2 2/26-28 Suffolk University 36 42 +6 2/18-24 UMass Amherst 43 40 +3 2/12-19 UMass Lowell 34 35 +1 Includes respondents who leaned toward one candidate or the other. Source: Polls
A lot of that early lead was probably name recognition, though, as Markey was not terribly well known for an incumbent — and Kennedy had already aired millions of dollars’ worth of TV ads before Markey first went on the air in late July. But Markey’s recent spending blitz appears to have shored up his support, especially among younger and more college-educated voters. However, Kennedy has still outspent Markey $10.2 million to $7.1 million since Oct. 1, 2019 (about a week after he entered the race), although the two candidates have received roughly the same amount of help (around $4 million) from outside groups.
But no matter what happens today, history will be made. It will be the first time either a sitting U.S. senator or a Kennedy has lost a contested primary in Massachusetts.
Turning to the House races, the Democratic primary in Western Massachusetts’s 1st Congressional District started out as another establishment-versus-insurgent fight between Rep. Richard Neal, a 16-term incumbent who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, and Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse, a 31-year-old progressive. But the race took a dramatic turn when Morse, who is gay, was accused of sexual misconduct — even more scandalous given the allegations appeared to be part of a political hit job.
On Aug. 7, the College Democrats of Massachusetts alleged that Morse had inappropriate sexual relations with students as a candidate and, before that, as an adjunct instructor at UMass Amherst. Morse denied ever having a “non-consensual sexual encounter” or violating UMass policies, but admitted that he’d had consensual relationships with students at area universities and apologized for making some students feel uncomfortable. But things took a turn on Aug. 12 when left-leaning outlet The Intercept reported that leaders of the College Democrats had conspired to create a sex scandal and sink Morse’s campaign to win favor with Neal. For his part, Neal’s campaign denied any involvement, and the College Democrats’ president claimed they had acted in good faith. The revelations, however, cast serious doubts on the allegations against Morse. Further reporting from The Intercept also suggests that the state Democratic Party may have been involved in the effort to spread the allegations, and that the party’s executive director told leaders of the College Democrats to delete communication records.
Overall, the race appears to be quite close. In the aftermath of The Intercept’s initial story, Morse’s campaign enjoyed a surge in fundraising, and a mid-August internal poll from Morse’s campaign found Neal ahead by only 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent. Still, a late-August survey from RABA Research/Jewish Insider found Neal up 49 percent to 40 percent, and the longtime incumbent holds a huge edge in fundraising. As of Aug. 12, Neal had already spent more than four times as much as Morse ($4.3 million versus $1.0 million) and had nine times as much in the bank for the final weeks of the primary (nearly $2.8 million to nearly $297,000). Outside groups have also spent almost $1.9 million supporting Neal or attacking Morse, more than the $1.5 million boosting Morse or slamming Neal. Neal also got an unusual endorsement from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. In most states, such cross-party support might well hurt Neal, but an August survey of the Democratic primary electorate from UMass Lowell found that 89 percent (!) approved of Baker’s performance as governor.
Another wide-open race can be found in Kennedy’s old 4th Congressional District, which stretches from wealthy Boston suburbs to working-class cities along the Rhode Island border. Seven Democrats are running here, five of whom have raised more than $1 million.
Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City Year, probably entered the campaign as the best-known candidate thanks to two past U.S. Senate runs (he lost but captured a lot of grassroots energy). And he remains the race’s top fundraiser ($1.8 million). But early polls more consistently showed Newton City Councilor Becky Grossman, the daughter-in-law of former Democratic National Committee Chair Steve Grossman, with the most support. Fellow Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss, a Marine veteran endorsed by The Boston Globe, has also emerged as a front-runner: He has spent more than any candidate ($1.4 million), and a super PAC partially funded by his parents has chipped in another $532,620. But he has also had to apologize for some offensive comments he has made over the years. A super PAC affiliated with Emily’s List has also spent $652,846 to attack Auchincloss and Khazei, although the women’s group has not chosen a favorite among the four women in the race.
In addition, former Wall Street regulator Ihssane Leckey has also parlayed her personal fortune (she has loaned $1 million to her own campaign) to become a factor in the race: According to her campaign’s internal polling, she gained 8 points in the race from June to August. But now the momentum might be with former Brookline Select Board member Jesse Mermell. In August, 4th District candidates Dave Cavell and Chris Zannetos both dropped out and endorsed Mermell — Cavell doing so with the explicit goal of consolidating the progressive vote against Auchincloss. The most recent poll of the race, from RABA Research/Jewish Insider, showed Auchincloss and Mermell as the two leading candidates.
Rounding out the field, epidemiologist Natalia Linos significantly trails the others in fundraising but was part of a six-way virtual tie for first place in a mid-August Data for Progress poll. Only a win by attorney Ben Sigel, who is last among the remaining candidates in both polls and fundraising, would be a true upset.
The last primary we’re watching is the 8th Congressional District, where Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch faces a progressive challenge from physician Robbie Goldstein. Lynch has long had a reputation for being a moderate, especially because of his more conservative stance on abortion rights. And with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, Goldstein’s background as an infectious-disease expert could attract support, too. Understandably, Goldstein has focused on health care, backing a single-payer system and trying to contrast himself with Lynch, who actually voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010. However, the reason Lynch voted against the ACA is because he said the legislation didn’t go far enough to rein in insurance companies.
So far, though, Goldstein has outraised Lynch in the past two filing periods, bringing in about $340,000 to Lynch’s $52,000 in that time. Although Lynch has a much larger war chest because of previous fundraising — he had about $1.5 million cash on hand compared with Goldstein’s $225,000 as of Aug. 12 — he may not be using that much of it. Politico reported last week that Lynch had made only very small television and digital ad buys, and Goldstein has spent more on advertising than Lynch so far this year. A poll released in early August by Goldstein’s campaign found Lynch ahead by only 7 points, 39 percent to 32 percent, so the challenger might have a shot at an upset.
Nonetheless, one of Lynch’s online ads says he “has never forgotten where he came from,” and given his background as an ironworker-turned-lawyer and Irish Catholic, if he wins handily today that might help explain why. Lynch’s profile fits the traditional culture of the area he represents, and in his nearly two decades in the House, he’s seen off every primary challenge with ease. The 8th District takes in South Boston, a historically working-class and Irish American community. Although the area has been changing in recent years, 29 percent of the district’s population still claims Irish ancestry, more than any other district in the country.
There’s certainly plenty of electoral excitement in Massachusetts today, and as we’ve discussed, some surprises could be in store. We’ll be following the ins and outs of each contest tonight on Twitter, so please follow along!


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-01--The GOP Convention Violated Plenty Of Norms, But Did It Undermine Democratic Values?

It ’ s been a very unusual convention season .
Both major parties had to improvise on the traditional convention playbook because of the novel coronavirus pandemic , holding nearly all-virtual gatherings instead .
But the Republican National Convention cast aside other traditions too — featuring some of the norm-breaking ( and possible law-breaking ! )
that we ’ ve come to expect from the Trump administration and blurring the lines that separate governance from party politics , and party politics from personal advancement .
As we ’ ve noted here before , there ’ s a difference between norms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even important sometimes .
But not always : Both conventions featured new forms of roll-call voting , for example , losing some norms but not in a problematic way .
Other norms , though , help enforce democratic values .
And that kind of norm-breaking is the one we should really worry about .
So what values — if any — are at stake in the norm violations at the 2020 RNC ?
Most of the norms-based criticisms of the RNC revolved around the use of government resources and governing powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second night , the convention kicked off with President Trump pardoning Jon Ponder .
The same night , the convention aired a pre-taped naturalization ceremony filmed at the White House .
And on Thursday , Trump delivered his acceptance speech from the White House ’ s South Lawn .
All this drew sharp criticism , including questions about whether the Trump administration had violated the Hatch Act , which bans federal officials from mixing their government work with political activities .
Indeed , since last week , the Hatch Act has been having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values embodied in this 1939 piece of legislation ?
On Wednesday morning , White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was quoted saying that only “ Beltway insiders ” cared about such things .
And civil service regulation might not seem like the most exciting or relevant topic .
But the Hatch Act came after many years of political struggles , and other , unsuccessful legislative attempts to address the relationship between politics and governance .
These kinds of rules are in place to protect the governing process from improper political influence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The civil service reform movement in the 1880s sought to create an effective federal government , staffed by civil servants who were trained for their work and free from fear of losing their jobs over politics .
The idea of protecting elections dates back to at least the 1830s .
The Hatch Act itself came about as the result of concern about the FDR administration using the Works Progress Administration for political gain and becoming overly involved in the 1938 primaries in an effort to defeat conservative Democrats .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time and has been controversial since , was aimed at curbing the role of politics in governance and keeping the president from having too much influence over elections .
The Hatch Act and other rules like it aren ’ t just about obscure regulations or Washington norms — they safeguard the values of election integrity and good governance .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s speech from Jerusalem also prompted Hatch Act questions .
It ’ s possible the speech didn ’ t technically violate the law .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretaries to speak at conventions about domestic issues .
But regardless of who paid for what , the appearance of a secretary of state at a convention links partisan politics to foreign policy statecraft and diplomacy .
And there ’ s a reason why foreign policy is different .
As Scott Anderson explained on the Lawfare podcast , the principles behind State Department policies banning partisan activities by overseas diplomats are that they represent the entire nation – not just one political party .
Suggesting that one party is better than the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermining our national position and credibility when the other party takes power .
It defies the concept that both parties are equally invested in the security and safety of the nation , ultimately denying the legitimate role of opposition — the idea that the party out of power is still a legitimate part of the nation , and a crucial democratic value .
At the Democratic National Convention this year , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both had family members speak about them .
But at the RNC , in addition to Ivanka @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , three of Trump ’ s children had evening speaking slots .
His sons , Eric and Donald Jr. , spoke about politics , castigating “ cancel culture ” and the Biden campaign .
Contrasted with Melania Trump ’ s speech as first lady , the Trump children — and his sons , in particular — stepped out of the ceremonial role as “ first family ” and into a more partisan , political one .
As some commentators noted , the speeches sounded like they were gearing up to run for office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American politics .
There are the Bushes , the Romneys and of course , the Kennedys — as well as many others .
And political conventions are supposed to showcase speakers who might run for office later .
But combining these two things flies in the face of core democratic values like equality and access and instead turns the political party into a personal vehicle for the president and his family .
The deeper democratic value violation in the RNC ’ s use of these presidential powers — both real and ceremonial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political scientists call personalistic leadership .
It ’ s not just that Trump merged governance and party politics .
It ’ s that , in this merging , the impression is given that Trump himself — rather than the Constitution or the office — is the source of privileges like granting pardons and citizenship .
This gets directly at one of the principles the nation ’ s founders worried about when creating the office of the presidency : that it would place too much power in the hands of a single individual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of laws and not of men.
” Finally , and relatedly , Trump accepted the nomination in a closing speech on the South Lawn of the White House , followed up with “ Trump 2020 ” fireworks over the Washington Monument .
Some commentators have questioned not only the propriety of this but also suggested these events were illegal .
( A gathering of 1,500 people , most of them unmasked , also violated local laws , though federal property is exempt from those laws . )
Political parties have become more focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates rarely stepping up to challenge incumbent presidents for the nomination .
And it ’ s standard for the conventions to focus heavily on the sitting president in that way , highlighting that this is the person already in the office while also competing to stay there .
But Thursday ’ s use of the White House , accompanied by Trump ’ s declaration of “ we ’ re here and they ’ re not ” in his renomination acceptance speech , undercuts the reality that all presidents occupy that space temporarily .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is a key democratic value .
The presidency and its symbols do not belong to one president or his supporters , but to all of the American people .

It’s been a very unusual convention season. Both major parties had to improvise on the traditional convention playbook because of the novel coronavirus pandemic, holding nearly all-virtual gatherings instead. But the Republican National Convention cast aside other traditions too — featuring some of the norm-breaking (and possible law-breaking!) that we’ve come to expect from the Trump administration and blurring the lines that separate governance from party politics, and party politics from personal advancement.
As we’ve noted here before, there’s a difference between norms and democratic values. Norms are nice, and even important sometimes. But not always: Both conventions featured new forms of roll-call voting, for example, losing some norms but not in a problematic way. Other norms, though, help enforce democratic values. And that kind of norm-breaking is the one we should really worry about.
So what values — if any — are at stake in the norm violations at the 2020 RNC?
Election integrity and good governance
Most of the norms-based criticisms of the RNC revolved around the use of government resources and governing powers for a political event. On the second night, the convention kicked off with President Trump pardoning Jon Ponder. The same night, the convention aired a pre-taped naturalization ceremony filmed at the White House. And on Thursday, Trump delivered his acceptance speech from the White House’s South Lawn. All this drew sharp criticism, including questions about whether the Trump administration had violated the Hatch Act, which bans federal officials from mixing their government work with political activities.
Indeed, since last week, the Hatch Act has been having a moment. But are there democratic values embodied in this 1939 piece of legislation? On Wednesday morning, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was quoted saying that only “Beltway insiders” cared about such things. And civil service regulation might not seem like the most exciting or relevant topic. But the Hatch Act came after many years of political struggles, and other, unsuccessful legislative attempts to address the relationship between politics and governance. These kinds of rules are in place to protect the governing process from improper political influence and elections from the sway of powerful actors. The civil service reform movement in the 1880s sought to create an effective federal government, staffed by civil servants who were trained for their work and free from fear of losing their jobs over politics. The idea of protecting elections dates back to at least the 1830s. The Hatch Act itself came about as the result of concern about the FDR administration using the Works Progress Administration for political gain and becoming overly involved in the 1938 primaries in an effort to defeat conservative Democrats. In other words, the act, which was controversial at the time and has been controversial since, was aimed at curbing the role of politics in governance and keeping the president from having too much influence over elections. The Hatch Act and other rules like it aren’t just about obscure regulations or Washington norms — they safeguard the values of election integrity and good governance.
Nonpartisan foreign policy
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech from Jerusalem also prompted Hatch Act questions. It’s possible the speech didn’t technically violate the law. And it’s not unheard of for Cabinet secretaries to speak at conventions about domestic issues. But regardless of who paid for what, the appearance of a secretary of state at a convention links partisan politics to foreign policy statecraft and diplomacy. And there’s a reason why foreign policy is different.
As Scott Anderson explained on the Lawfare podcast, the principles behind State Department policies banning partisan activities by overseas diplomats are that they represent the entire nation – not just one political party. Suggesting that one party is better than the other to our allies runs the risk of undermining our national position and credibility when the other party takes power. It defies the concept that both parties are equally invested in the security and safety of the nation, ultimately denying the legitimate role of opposition — the idea that the party out of power is still a legitimate part of the nation, and a crucial democratic value.
Equality and access
At the Democratic National Convention this year, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both had family members speak about them. But at the RNC, in addition to Ivanka Trump’s introduction of her father, three of Trump’s children had evening speaking slots. His sons, Eric and Donald Jr., spoke about politics, castigating “cancel culture” and the Biden campaign. Contrasted with Melania Trump’s speech as first lady, the Trump children — and his sons, in particular — stepped out of the ceremonial role as “first family” and into a more partisan, political one. As some commentators noted, the speeches sounded like they were gearing up to run for office.
Family political dynasties are hardly unusual in American politics. There are the Bushes, the Romneys and of course, the Kennedys — as well as many others. And political conventions are supposed to showcase speakers who might run for office later. But combining these two things flies in the face of core democratic values like equality and access and instead turns the political party into a personal vehicle for the president and his family.
Personalistic leadership
The deeper democratic value violation in the RNC’s use of these presidential powers — both real and ceremonial — in a convention context is what political scientists call personalistic leadership. It’s not just that Trump merged governance and party politics. It’s that, in this merging, the impression is given that Trump himself — rather than the Constitution or the office — is the source of privileges like granting pardons and citizenship. This gets directly at one of the principles the nation’s founders worried about when creating the office of the presidency: that it would place too much power in the hands of a single individual, endangering the idea of a “government of laws and not of men.”
Finally, and relatedly, Trump accepted the nomination in a closing speech on the South Lawn of the White House, followed up with “Trump 2020” fireworks over the Washington Monument. Some commentators have questioned not only the propriety of this but also suggested these events were illegal. (A gathering of 1,500 people, most of them unmasked, also violated local laws, though federal property is exempt from those laws.)
Political parties have become more focused on the presidency over time, with candidates rarely stepping up to challenge incumbent presidents for the nomination. And it’s standard for the conventions to focus heavily on the sitting president in that way, highlighting that this is the person already in the office while also competing to stay there. But Thursday’s use of the White House, accompanied by Trump’s declaration of “we’re here and they’re not” in his renomination acceptance speech, undercuts the reality that all presidents occupy that space temporarily. The separation of the presidency from the president is a key democratic value. The presidency and its symbols do not belong to one president or his supporters, but to all of the American people.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-02--More Women Than Ever Are Running For Office. But Are They Winning Their Primaries?

You ’ ve probably already heard that more women are running for Congress in 2020 than in any other election cycle — and that ’ s saying a lot , given the record-breaking number of female candidates in the 2018 midterms .
However , that cycle had an indisputable blue tinge , whereas this year , the share of female candidates who are Republican also shot up , thanks in part to a growing list of organizations committed to recruiting and supporting Republican women ’ s candidacies .
But an increase in the number of women running doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it to the general election .
So now that 2020 ’ s primary elections are almost all over , let ’ s assess how female candidates fared — and whether organizations that focus on electing more women have made a difference .
Like we did in 2018 , FiveThirtyEight has been compiling a wealth of information , including gender , for every major-party candidate for Senate , House and governor this year .
And based on data from primaries that were decided by Aug. 25 , we found that more Republican women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last election cycle , while Democratic women are also improving on their impressive 2018 performance .
As a result , the GOP won ’ t eclipse Democrats as the party of women anytime soon .
Republican gains notwithstanding , more women have still run this year in Democratic primaries than in Republican ones .
Thirty-seven percent ( 377 out of 1,015 ) of all candidates in the Democratic primaries we analyzed were women , compared with just 20 percent ( 237 out of 1,164 ) of candidates in Republican primaries .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who advanced to the general election ) , the difference was even starker .
Forty-seven percent ( 211 out of 445 ) of Democrats who advanced to the general election are women , versus just 22 percent ( 94 out of 426 ) of Republicans .
The main reason Democratic women were more likely to win the nomination is that they were incredibly successful in primaries without an incumbent .
Women made up 40 percent ( 224 out of 565 ) of all the candidates who ran in Democratic primaries with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 126 out of 221 ) of candidates who advanced to the general election in those races .
Even in 2018 , Democratic women were not winning primaries at that high a rate .
They made up just 48 percent of the Democratic nominees in primaries that had been decided by Aug. 7 , 2018 ( when we conducted our analysis ) .
But although Republican women once again lag their Democratic counterparts here , they do have some reason for optimism .
Women made up just 24 percent ( 200 out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these primaries , but 32 percent ( 77 out of 240 ) of their winners .
It ’ s still a long way from parity , but it shows that when Republican women run in incumbent-less races , they have a good chance of getting the nomination .
Now for the bad news for the GOP : A lot of those 77 female nominees might not win their general elections .
Only six of them won primaries in seats that election handicapper Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball rates as “ Safe Republican.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running in “ Safe Democratic ” seats , which means they will probably never set foot in the halls of Congress or their state capitol .
So Republicans hoping to increase , say , the number of Republican women in the House of Representatives ( there are currently only 13 ) may make only middling progress this year .
A healthy majority of the losing candidates in both parties were men , although the main reason for that is simply that more men were running than women , so male candidates had more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller numbers of women on the ballot , there is one stat that undeniably shows they ’ re doing well , or at least keeping pace with men , in primaries on both sides : There have been 92 incumbent-less Democratic primaries pitting at least one woman against at least one man so far this year ; women won 67 of them ( 73 percent ) .
And there have been 108 such Republican primaries so far ; men won 54 , and women won 54 .
So on the whole , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are winning .
But reducing the gender gap in elected office-holders is more complicated than simply getting more women to run .
This is why research shows that endorsements ( and the financial backing that tends to come with them ) can be crucial to addressing underrepresentation among women in political office .
That ’ s why groups like Emily ’ s List even exist .
Emily ’ s List , named for the phrase “ early money is like yeast ” ( because it makes the dough rise ) , was formed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their campaigns for Congress , as the group ’ s founder , Ellen Malcolm , knew that if female candidates could raise money early in the race , they ’ d be seen as more viable .
That bet has paid off .
Emily ’ s List has grown to be a force within the Democratic Party , raising and spending tens of millions each election cycle .
After seeing the success of Emily ’ s List , some Republicans have worked over the past few cycles to try to replicate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This sort of intervention is especially important for Republican women , who are often less prominent in political pipelines and more likely to encounter voters who are skeptical of female candidate ’ s partisan loyalties , as our colleague Perry Bacon Jr. has explained .
Take the group that Rep. Elise Stefanik , a rising star in the GOP , launched in 2018 , E-PAC .
She formed that organization to explicitly support female candidates in their primaries .
Inspired by the competitive primary she herself faced in 2014 , Stefanik says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican women don ’ t get boxed out .
And the data suggests that the support of these organizations could be making a real difference .
To determine this , while collecting data about major-party candidates in every Senate , House and governor primary , we tracked endorsements by three key women ’ s groups : Emily ’ s List for Democrats , and E-PAC and Winning for Women for Republicans .
And it turns out that the win rate for women endorsed by these groups is higher than it is for women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbent-less primaries , 18 of the 21 women endorsed by E-PAC ( 86 percent ) and 13 of the 15 women endorsed by Winning for Women ( 87 percent ) won their primaries .
These win rates are much higher than the win rate of Republican women in incumbent-less primaries overall , which stands at 39 percent .
This suggests either that an endorsement from these groups ( and the financial backing that came with it ) helped those women win , or that these groups are shrewdly endorsing the GOP ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a combination of both — the encouragement of groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women could be drawing more formidable women into the race .
And on the Democratic side , Emily ’ s List endorsed 31 candidates in incumbent-less primaries , 26 of whom won .
That ’ s an 84 percent win rate , much higher than Democratic women ’ s 56 percent win rate overall , but similar to the rates for E-PAC and Winning for Women .
That said , Emily ’ s List also flexed its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Women did not : It endorsed two women who were challenging incumbents — Marie Newman in Illinois ’ s 3rd Congressional District and Jessica Cisneros in Texas ’ s 28th Congressional District .
( Newman ’ s and Cisernos ’ s opponents both opposed abortion , which helps explain why Emily ’ s List got involved . )
What ’ s more , Newman actually won , and the nearly $ 1 million Emily ’ s List spent on the race was probably a big part of that .
E-PAC and Winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene , so it makes sense that they may not be quite as bold as Emily ’ s List , which has become a major player in Democratic politics .
By contrast , establishment Republicans viewed E-PAC skeptically , and GOP women ’ s groups face obstacles that Democratic groups do not : Unlike Democrats , the Republican Party and its voters tend to recoil from explicit appeals to gender diversity , which can make it difficult for female candidates to campaign on the unique perspective or qualifications they ’ d bring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women are off to a promising start in their attempt to bring gender diversity to the GOP .
Their next big test becomes how many of these women will win in November .

More Women Than Ever Are Running For Office. But Are They Winning Their Primaries?
You’ve probably already heard that more women are running for Congress in 2020 than in any other election cycle — and that’s saying a lot, given the record-breaking number of female candidates in the 2018 midterms. However, that cycle had an indisputable blue tinge, whereas this year, the share of female candidates who are Republican also shot up, thanks in part to a growing list of organizations committed to recruiting and supporting Republican women’s candidacies.
But an increase in the number of women running doesn’t mean much if they don’t make it to the general election. So now that 2020’s primary elections are almost all over, let’s assess how female candidates fared — and whether organizations that focus on electing more women have made a difference.
Like we did in 2018, FiveThirtyEight has been compiling a wealth of information, including gender, for every major-party candidate for Senate, House and governor this year. And based on data from primaries that were decided by Aug. 25, we found that more Republican women are getting nominated this year than in the last election cycle, while Democratic women are also improving on their impressive 2018 performance. As a result, the GOP won’t eclipse Democrats as the party of women anytime soon.
More women run, and win, in Democratic primaries Share of all candidates who were women and share of candidates advancing to the general election who were women, in Senate, House and governor primaries Party Candidates Primary Winners Democrats 37% 47% Republicans 20 22 As of Aug. 25, 2020. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press
Republican gains notwithstanding, more women have still run this year in Democratic primaries than in Republican ones. Thirty-seven percent (377 out of 1,015) of all candidates in the Democratic primaries we analyzed were women, compared with just 20 percent (237 out of 1,164) of candidates in Republican primaries. And among primary winners (or at least people who advanced to the general election ), the difference was even starker. Forty-seven percent (211 out of 445) of Democrats who advanced to the general election are women, versus just 22 percent (94 out of 426) of Republicans.
More women are running in open primaries Share of all candidates who were women and share of candidates advancing to the general election who were women, in Senate, House and governor primaries with no incumbent running Party Candidates Primary Winners Democrats 40% 57% Republicans 24 32 As of Aug. 25, 2020. In states where members of all parties compete in the same primary, the primary was considered open if any incumbent in the race belonged to a different party than the relevant candidate. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press
The main reason Democratic women were more likely to win the nomination is that they were incredibly successful in primaries without an incumbent. Women made up 40 percent (224 out of 565) of all the candidates who ran in Democratic primaries with no incumbent, but a whopping 57 percent (126 out of 221) of candidates who advanced to the general election in those races. Even in 2018, Democratic women were not winning primaries at that high a rate. They made up just 48 percent of the Democratic nominees in primaries that had been decided by Aug. 7, 2018 (when we conducted our analysis).
But although Republican women once again lag their Democratic counterparts here, they do have some reason for optimism. Women made up just 24 percent (200 out of 824) of all Republican candidates in these primaries, but 32 percent (77 out of 240) of their winners. It’s still a long way from parity, but it shows that when Republican women run in incumbent-less races, they have a good chance of getting the nomination.
GOP women are winning primaries in mostly blue seats How Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates the general election in the 77 races where a Republican woman won a primary for Senate, House or governor in which she was not the incumbent and did not face an incumbent Rating Number of Races Safe Republican 6 Competitive 22 Safe Democratic 49 As of Aug. 25, 2020. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press, Sabato’s Crystal Ball
Now for the bad news for the GOP: A lot of those 77 female nominees might not win their general elections. Only six of them won primaries in seats that election handicapper Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates as “Safe Republican.” By contrast, 49 Republican women are running in “Safe Democratic” seats, which means they will probably never set foot in the halls of Congress or their state capitol. So Republicans hoping to increase, say, the number of Republican women in the House of Representatives (there are currently only 13) may make only middling progress this year.
A healthy majority of the losing candidates in both parties were men, although the main reason for that is simply that more men were running than women, so male candidates had more chances to lose. But despite the smaller numbers of women on the ballot, there is one stat that undeniably shows they’re doing well, or at least keeping pace with men, in primaries on both sides: There have been 92 incumbent-less Democratic primaries pitting at least one woman against at least one man so far this year; women won 67 of them (73 percent). And there have been 108 such Republican primaries so far; men won 54, and women won 54.
Women are beating men in head-to-head races Races won by gender, in primaries for Senate, House and governor where no incumbent was running and where at least one male and one female candidate were running No. of Primaries won by … Party Men Women Share won by women Democrats 25 67 73% Republicans 54 54 50 As of Aug. 25, 2020. In states where members of all parties compete in the same primary, the primary was considered incumbent-less if any incumbent in the race belonged to a different party than the relevant candidate. In two all-party races, two women advanced to the general election. Sources: Center for American Women and Politics, state election offices, Associated Press
So on the whole, because more women are running, more women are winning. But reducing the gender gap in elected office-holders is more complicated than simply getting more women to run. This is why research shows that endorsements (and the financial backing that tends to come with them) can be crucial to addressing underrepresentation among women in political office.
That’s why groups like Emily’s List even exist. Emily’s List, named for the phrase “early money is like yeast” (because it makes the dough rise), was formed in 1985 to support pro-abortion-rights Democratic women in their campaigns for Congress, as the group’s founder, Ellen Malcolm, knew that if female candidates could raise money early in the race, they’d be seen as more viable. That bet has paid off. Emily’s List has grown to be a force within the Democratic Party, raising and spending tens of millions each election cycle.
After seeing the success of Emily’s List, some Republicans have worked over the past few cycles to try to replicate that type of influence in their own party. This sort of intervention is especially important for Republican women, who are often less prominent in political pipelines and more likely to encounter voters who are skeptical of female candidate’s partisan loyalties, as our colleague Perry Bacon Jr. has explained. Take the group that Rep. Elise Stefanik, a rising star in the GOP, launched in 2018, E-PAC. She formed that organization to explicitly support female candidates in their primaries. Inspired by the competitive primary she herself faced in 2014, Stefanik says goal is to make sure other qualified Republican women don’t get boxed out.
And the data suggests that the support of these organizations could be making a real difference. To determine this, while collecting data about major-party candidates in every Senate, House and governor primary, we tracked endorsements by three key women’s groups: Emily’s List for Democrats, and E-PAC and Winning for Women for Republicans. And it turns out that the win rate for women endorsed by these groups is higher than it is for women overall.
Women with endorsements almost always won How female candidates endorsed by three women’s groups fared in primaries for Senate, House and governor where no incumbent was running Affiliation No. Endorsed No. Who Won win Percentage Winning for Women Republican 15 13 87% E-PAC Republican 21 18 86 Emily’s List Democratic 31 26 84 As of Aug. 25, 2020. Some women were endorsed by both E-PAC and Winning for Women. In states where members of all parties compete in the same primary, the primary was considered incumbent-less if any incumbent in the race belonged to a different party than the relevant candidate. Sources: Winning for women, Emily’s list, E-PAC, associated press, Center for American Women and Politics
Once again looking only at incumbent-less primaries, 18 of the 21 women endorsed by E-PAC (86 percent) and 13 of the 15 women endorsed by Winning for Women (87 percent) won their primaries. These win rates are much higher than the win rate of Republican women in incumbent-less primaries overall, which stands at 39 percent. This suggests either that an endorsement from these groups (and the financial backing that came with it) helped those women win, or that these groups are shrewdly endorsing the GOP’s strongest female candidates. Or perhaps it’s a combination of both — the encouragement of groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women could be drawing more formidable women into the race.
And on the Democratic side, Emily’s List endorsed 31 candidates in incumbent-less primaries, 26 of whom won. That’s an 84 percent win rate, much higher than Democratic women’s 56 percent win rate overall, but similar to the rates for E-PAC and Winning for Women. That said, Emily’s List also flexed its muscle in a way E-PAC and Winning for Women did not: It endorsed two women who were challenging incumbents — Marie Newman in Illinois’s 3rd Congressional District and Jessica Cisneros in Texas’s 28th Congressional District. (Newman’s and Cisernos’s opponents both opposed abortion, which helps explain why Emily’s List got involved.) What’s more, Newman actually won, and the nearly $1 million Emily’s List spent on the race was probably a big part of that.
E-PAC and Winning for Women are both new on the scene, so it makes sense that they may not be quite as bold as Emily’s List, which has become a major player in Democratic politics. By contrast, establishment Republicans viewed E-PAC skeptically, and GOP women’s groups face obstacles that Democratic groups do not: Unlike Democrats, the Republican Party and its voters tend to recoil from explicit appeals to gender diversity, which can make it difficult for female candidates to campaign on the unique perspective or qualifications they’d bring to the table. But the data suggests that groups like E-PAC and Winning for Women are off to a promising start in their attempt to bring gender diversity to the GOP. Their next big test becomes how many of these women will win in November.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-02--Trump May Have Gotten A Convention Bounce. But It’s Very Slight And May Already Be Fading.

We ’ ve now seen an array of new national polls conducted in the aftermath of the Republican National Convention , and collectively they show nothing major has shifted in the race between President Trump and Joe Biden .
Trump may have enjoyed a very slight convention bounce , but one that represents only a small boost compared to where the race stood before the party conventions — and even that small bounce is showing some signs of fading .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s general election forecast tells the tale .
On Aug. 16 , the Sunday before the Democratic convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot at winning .
A little over a week later , as the GOP convention was taking place , Trump ’ s chances ticked up to 32 in 100 , as there wasn ’ t much evidence of Biden getting any post-DNC bounce .
And as of the afternoon of Wednesday , Sept. 2 , Trump has a 30 in 100 chance .
All in all , there ’ s been only a very small shift in Trump ’ s direction .
Those forecasted odds are derived mostly from the polling data being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a closer look at that data ; we ’ ll separate the polls into batches according to their methodologies — telephone surveys , online polls and tracking polls .
First , four live-telephone pollsters released surveys on Wednesday that offered only modestly positive news for the president .
Quinnipiac University found Biden ahead by 10 points , 52 percent to 42 percent , in a poll conducted after both conventions , which marked an improvement over Trump ’ s 15-point deficit in the pollster ’ s mid-July survey ( the new poll is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one was of registered voters — the former tend to be a tad more Republican-leaning than the latter ) .
Meanwhile , USA Today/Suffolk University gave Biden a 7-point edge , 50 percent to 43 percent , smaller than the 12-point lead Biden had in late June .
Grinnell College/Selzer & Co. also released a new survey , finding Biden ahead by 8 points , 49 percent to 41 percent , although it hadn ’ t tested the race since late March when it gave Biden just a 4-point lead over Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually showed a marginal improvement for Biden — he led by 8 points , 51 percent to 43 percent , up from his 4-point lead in mid-August .
However , pollsters that conduct surveys online haven ’ t shown much movement in their national numbers .
And the online pollsters have tended to poll more often than live-phone outfits , giving us more recent benchmarks to judge the conventions ’ effects ( mostly pre-convention polls conducted just prior to the Democratic event ) .
Ipsos showed a marginal improvement for Trump , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-August to 7 points after the conventions .
But others found no real change .
Canadian pollster Léger found Biden ’ s lead going from 8 points in early August to 7 points after the GOP convention , while Morning Consult found no change in voter sentiment in three-day polls before and after the convention period , giving Biden an 8-point edge in both surveys .
Meanwhile , three pollsters showed a very slight increase in Biden ’ s margin : YouGov/The Economist , IBD/TIPP and Redfield & Wilton all found Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lastly , Emerson College partially conducts its surveys online , and its latest poll found Trump down by only 3 points after he trailed by 6.5 points at the end of July .
Finally , tracking polls — which conduct daily interviews over a rolling period of time — have been a mixed bag .
In its first 7-day tracking poll ending on Aug. 17 , leading into the Democratic convention , USC Dornsife found Biden up by 10 points based on responses to its probabilistic voting questions , and Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic convention .
But as of Sept. 1 , with the GOP convention days mostly out of this weekly tracker , Biden led by 9 points .
Morning Consult also conducted a handful of 1-day polls in and around the convention period , and the pollster found that Trump received a small bounce the day after his convention ; though , as we mentioned earlier , the pollster didn ’ t find any improvement for Trump in its lengthier polls .
Of course , these national surveys tell only part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be decided by the vote in each state .
New state-level surveys are coming in , as well , and we plan to have more to say about those tomorrow .
We ’ ll be looking for whether Trump ’ s slight bounce is enduring or fading ( or was even there to begin with ) .
But for now , it looks like the conventions didn ’ t fundamentally alter the trajectory of the campaign .

We’ve now seen an array of new national polls conducted in the aftermath of the Republican National Convention, and collectively they show nothing major has shifted in the race between President Trump and Joe Biden. Trump may have enjoyed a very slight convention bounce, but one that represents only a small boost compared to where the race stood before the party conventions — and even that small bounce is showing some signs of fading.
FiveThirtyEight’s general election forecast tells the tale. On Aug. 16, the Sunday before the Democratic convention, Trump had a 28 in 100 shot at winning. A little over a week later, as the GOP convention was taking place, Trump’s chances ticked up to 32 in 100, as there wasn’t much evidence of Biden getting any post-DNC bounce. And as of the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 2, Trump has a 30 in 100 chance. All in all, there’s been only a very small shift in Trump’s direction.
Those forecasted odds are derived mostly from the polling data being released. So let’s take a closer look at that data; we’ll separate the polls into batches according to their methodologies — telephone surveys, online polls and tracking polls.
First, four live-telephone pollsters released surveys on Wednesday that offered only modestly positive news for the president. Quinnipiac University found Biden ahead by 10 points, 52 percent to 42 percent, in a poll conducted after both conventions, which marked an improvement over Trump’s 15-point deficit in the pollster’s mid-July survey (the new poll is among likely voters, while the earlier one was of registered voters — the former tend to be a tad more Republican-leaning than the latter). Meanwhile, USA Today/Suffolk University gave Biden a 7-point edge, 50 percent to 43 percent, smaller than the 12-point lead Biden had in late June. Grinnell College/Selzer & Co. also released a new survey, finding Biden ahead by 8 points, 49 percent to 41 percent, although it hadn’t tested the race since late March when it gave Biden just a 4-point lead over Trump. Lastly, CNN/SSRS’s post-convention survey actually showed a marginal improvement for Biden — he led by 8 points, 51 percent to 43 percent, up from his 4-point lead in mid-August.
However, pollsters that conduct surveys online haven’t shown much movement in their national numbers. And the online pollsters have tended to poll more often than live-phone outfits, giving us more recent benchmarks to judge the conventions’ effects (mostly pre-convention polls conducted just prior to the Democratic event). Ipsos showed a marginal improvement for Trump, who went from trailing by 11 points in mid-August to 7 points after the conventions. But others found no real change. Canadian pollster Léger found Biden’s lead going from 8 points in early August to 7 points after the GOP convention, while Morning Consult found no change in voter sentiment in three-day polls before and after the convention period, giving Biden an 8-point edge in both surveys. Meanwhile, three pollsters showed a very slight increase in Biden’s margin: YouGov/The Economist, IBD/TIPP and Redfield & Wilton all found Biden’s margin actually increased by 1 point. Lastly, Emerson College partially conducts its surveys online, and its latest poll found Trump down by only 3 points after he trailed by 6.5 points at the end of July.
Finally, tracking polls — which conduct daily interviews over a rolling period of time — have been a mixed bag. In its first 7-day tracking poll ending on Aug. 17, leading into the Democratic convention, USC Dornsife found Biden up by 10 points based on responses to its probabilistic voting questions, and Biden’s lead expanded to 14 points following the Democratic convention. But as of Sept. 1, with the GOP convention days mostly out of this weekly tracker, Biden led by 9 points. Morning Consult also conducted a handful of 1-day polls in and around the convention period, and the pollster found that Trump received a small bounce the day after his convention; though, as we mentioned earlier, the pollster didn’t find any improvement for Trump in its lengthier polls.
Of course, these national surveys tell only part of the story, as the Electoral College will be decided by the vote in each state. New state-level surveys are coming in, as well, and we plan to have more to say about those tomorrow. We’ll be looking for whether Trump’s slight bounce is enduring or fading (or was even there to begin with). But for now, it looks like the conventions didn’t fundamentally alter the trajectory of the campaign.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-02--A FiveThirtyEight Forecast Update: Was There A Convention Bounce?

Galen Druke takes a look at FiveThirtyEight ’ s 2020 presidential forecast and asks whether either candidate got a convention @ @ @ @ @ have the closest races right now .

Galen Druke takes a look at FiveThirtyEight’s 2020 presidential forecast and asks whether either candidate got a convention bounce — and which states have the closest races right now.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-02--Ed Markey Won, But It’s Still Been A Rough Year For Incumbents

With a competitive U.S. Senate race and the potential for two U.S. House upsets , Tuesday ’ s primary elections in Massachusetts represented the last significant chance for an incumbent member of Congress to lose his or her primary this year .
It didn ’ t happen — Sen. Ed Markey defeated younger challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy III 55 percent to 45 percent , and the state ’ s U.S. representatives all survived their primaries as well .
But , Tuesday notwithstanding , 2020 has still seen an unusual amount of anti-incumbent sentiment .
The more-or-less final tally : Eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no U.S. senators ) lost renomination in 2020 .
Out of the 380 House members who ran for reelection this year , that may not seem like a lot .
( And it isn ’ t — incumbents have historically won their primaries at very high rates , and this year is no exception . )
But it is an unusually high number by historical standards — it ’ s twice as many as in 2018 or in the tea party cycle of 2010 .
It ’ s not unusual to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ending in -2 because those are the first cycles after congressional redistricting , when incumbents are sometimes thrown into new districts with lots of voters who are unfamiliar with them .
Sometimes , when the number of districts is reduced , incumbents are even forced to run against other incumbents , guaranteeing an incumbent loss .
( But even in redistricting cycles , incumbents still win 95 percent of the time or more . )
But it is unusual to see a lot of incumbents lose in non-redistricting cycles like 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 1984 .
In fact , to find a non-redistricting year when as many incumbents lost renomination as in 2020 , one would have to go back to 1974 , which was a historic election in its own right .
That year , eight sitting members of Congress also lost renomination as a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment swept the nation in the wake of the Watergate scandal .
It ’ s tempting to say that the rash of incumbent losses in 2020 also means that anti-incumbent fever has reached Watergate-level highs .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight incumbents who lost in 2020 all lost for the same reason .
The circumstances of their elections were pretty unique , and the incumbent losses haven ’ t been limited to one party .
That said , all three Democratic incumbents who lost definitely can be lumped together : Reps. Dan Lipinski , Eliot Engel and Lacy Clay all faced younger , more progressive challengers .
And these primaries are clearly the continuation of a trend that began in 2018 , when now-Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley also defeated long-serving , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same activist groups ( e.g.
, Justice Democrats , Our Revolution ) also endorsed all or most of the five challengers in these districts .
What ’ s more , these districts are similar in that they are relatively racially diverse and urban , which partly explains progressives ’ success here .
But progressive insurgents defeating establishment incumbents in Democratic primaries accounted for just three of the eight incumbent losses this year .
Rather , what made 2020 stand out is the high number of Republican incumbents who lost in primaries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s much harder to detect a pattern or conclude from that that anti-incumbent sentiment is rampant on the GOP side : • Three Republican incumbents lost because they were facing scandals .
Rep. Steve King of Iowa had his committee assignments taken away after suggesting that the terms “ white nationalist ” and “ white supremacist ” were nothing to be ashamed of — this following years of other racist comments .
Rep. Steve Watkins of Kansas was charged with voter fraud a month before his primary and was also facing old accusations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ résumé .
And Rep. Ross Spano of Florida appeared to violate campaign-finance law in 2018 when he loaned his own campaign $ 167,000 around the time he borrowed a similar amount from friends , triggering a Justice Department investigation .
• One Republican incumbent , Rep. Scott Tipton of Colorado , had something in common with the Democratic incumbents who lost : He was perceived as being out of step with the party zeitgeist .
Although Tipton had Trump ’ s endorsement , his challenger , Lauren Boebert , hewed closer to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her gun-themed restaurant where the servers are armed , and was able to argue successfully that Tipton wasn ’ t conservative enough .
( It also helped that Tipton didn ’ t appear to take his primary seriously . )
• The final Republican incumbent , Rep. Denver Riggleman of Virginia , lost for kind of a hybrid of the two reasons above .
He set off a mini-controversy in conservative circles when he officiated the same-sex wedding of two of his campaign volunteers , leading former Campbell County Supervisor Bob Good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Good was successful in large part because the Virginia GOP held a convention , not a primary , to decide their nominee in the 5th Congressional District , and convention goers tend to be the most ideological members of the party .
But the fact that political insiders , not voters , engineered Riggleman ’ s defeat is another point against drawing too many conclusions from the fact that so many incumbents lost in 2020 .
There is certainly a significant amount of grassroots energy among both Democrats and Republicans these days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lost in 2020 did not all fall victim to the same affliction .
The number who lost for ideological reasons is five at most , and three were due to scandals that are probably best thought of as one-off occurrences .
However , every election in every cycle brings its own idiosyncrasies .
For instance , even in 1974 there were unique circumstances , like one incumbent losing because he was under indictment on bribery charges .
One fact is undeniable , however : Eight incumbents losing renomination is a lot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noteworthy in and of itself , even if the underlying causes aren ’ t as clear .

With a competitive U.S. Senate race and the potential for two U.S. House upsets, Tuesday’s primary elections in Massachusetts represented the last significant chance for an incumbent member of Congress to lose his or her primary this year. It didn’t happen — Sen. Ed Markey defeated younger challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy III 55 percent to 45 percent, and the state’s U.S. representatives all survived their primaries as well.
But, Tuesday notwithstanding, 2020 has still seen an unusual amount of anti-incumbent sentiment. The more-or-less final tally: Eight members of the House of Representatives (and no U.S. senators) lost renomination in 2020. Out of the 380 House members who ran for reelection this year, that may not seem like a lot. (And it isn’t — incumbents have historically won their primaries at very high rates, and this year is no exception.) But it is an unusually high number by historical standards — it’s twice as many as in 2018 or in the tea party cycle of 2010.
Incumbents rarely lose their primaries The number of U.S. House members who lost renomination, as a share of those seeking reelection, in elections since 1946 Incumbents… Year Seeking Reelection Who Lost Renomination Loss Rate 1946 398 18 4.5% 1948 400 15 3.8 1950 400 6 1.5 1952 389 9 2.3 1954 407 6 1.5 1956 411 6 1.5 1958 396 3 0.8 1960 405 5 1.2 1962 402 12 3.0 1964 397 8 2.0 1966 411 8 1.9 1968 409 4 1.0 1970 401 10 2.5 1972 393 11 2.8 1974 391 8 2.0 1976 384 3 0.8 1978 382 5 1.3 1980 398 6 1.5 1982 393 10 2.5 1984 411 3 0.7 1986 394 3 0.8 1988 409 1 0.2 1990 406 1 0.2 1992 368 19 5.2 1994 387 4 1.0 1996 384 2 0.5 1998 402 1 0.2 2000 403 3 0.7 2002 398 8 2.0 2004 404 2 0.5 2006 403 2 0.5 2008 400 4 1.0 2010 397 4 1.0 2012 391 13 3.3 2014 392 5 1.3 2016 393 5 1.3 2018 375 4 1.1 2020 380 8 2.1 Bolded rows are the first election cycle after redistricting. Figures from the 2020 cycle only include primaries that have concluded by Sept. 1. Source: Sabato’s Crystal Ball
It’s not unusual to see a lot of incumbents lose primaries in years ending in -2 because those are the first cycles after congressional redistricting, when incumbents are sometimes thrown into new districts with lots of voters who are unfamiliar with them. Sometimes, when the number of districts is reduced, incumbents are even forced to run against other incumbents, guaranteeing an incumbent loss. (But even in redistricting cycles, incumbents still win 95 percent of the time or more.)
But it is unusual to see a lot of incumbents lose in non-redistricting cycles like 2020, which have averaged only three incumbent losses since 1984. In fact, to find a non-redistricting year when as many incumbents lost renomination as in 2020, one would have to go back to 1974, which was a historic election in its own right. That year, eight sitting members of Congress also lost renomination as a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment swept the nation in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
It’s tempting to say that the rash of incumbent losses in 2020 also means that anti-incumbent fever has reached Watergate-level highs. But it’s less clear that the eight incumbents who lost in 2020 all lost for the same reason. The circumstances of their elections were pretty unique, and the incumbent losses haven’t been limited to one party.
The eight House incumbents who lost renomination in 2020 Race Date Party Incumbent Winner IL-03 March 17 D Dan Lipinski Marie Newman IA-04 June 2 R Steve King Randy Feenstra VA-05* June 13 R Denver Riggleman Bob Good NY-16 June 23 D Eliot Engel Jamaal Bowman CO-03 June 30 R Scott Tipton Lauren Boebert KS-02 Aug. 4 R Steve Watkins Jake LaTurner MO-01 Aug. 4 D Lacy Clay Cori Bush FL-15 Aug. 18 R Ross Spano Scott Franklin *Nomination decided at convention, not primary. Source: State election offices
That said, all three Democratic incumbents who lost definitely can be lumped together: Reps. Dan Lipinski, Eliot Engel and Lacy Clay all faced younger, more progressive challengers. And these primaries are clearly the continuation of a trend that began in 2018, when now-Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley also defeated long-serving, older incumbents in their Democratic primaries. The same activist groups (e.g., Justice Democrats, Our Revolution) also endorsed all or most of the five challengers in these districts. What’s more, these districts are similar in that they are relatively racially diverse and urban, which partly explains progressives’ success here.
But progressive insurgents defeating establishment incumbents in Democratic primaries accounted for just three of the eight incumbent losses this year. Rather, what made 2020 stand out is the high number of Republican incumbents who lost in primaries. And on that front, it’s much harder to detect a pattern or conclude from that that anti-incumbent sentiment is rampant on the GOP side:
There is certainly a significant amount of grassroots energy among both Democrats and Republicans these days, but ultimately, the eight incumbents who lost in 2020 did not all fall victim to the same affliction. The number who lost for ideological reasons is five at most, and three were due to scandals that are probably best thought of as one-off occurrences.
However, every election in every cycle brings its own idiosyncrasies. For instance, even in 1974 there were unique circumstances, like one incumbent losing because he was under indictment on bribery charges. One fact is undeniable, however: Eight incumbents losing renomination is a lot, and turnover in the 117th Congress is noteworthy in and of itself, even if the underlying causes aren’t as clear.
CORRECTION (Sept. 3, 2020, 11:58 a.m.): A previous version of the photo caption in this article incorrectly identified Jamaal Bowman as congressman-elect. Bowman won the Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District, but the general election has yet to take place.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-03--Americans Are Far More Likely To Support Athlete Protests Than They Once Were

Nearly 25 years before the NBA shut down for several days to protest racial injustice , before LeBron James tweeted , “ FUCK THIS MAN !
!
!
!
WE DEMAND CHANGE .
SICK OF IT , ” and before the Milwaukee Bucks left the court in support of Jacob Blake , Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf made a protest of his own .
During the 1995-96 season , Abdul-Rauf , the Denver Nuggets ’ leading scorer , refused to stand with his teammates for the pregame playing of the national anthem — saying the flag was a symbol of racism and oppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with scorn , not support .
He was suspended by the league until he agreed to stand for the anthem and was traded after the season to the Sacramento Kings , where his NBA career effectively ended in 1998 .
And in a perfect encapsulation of partisan politics on race in the 1990s , the GOP ’ s 1996 presidential nominee , Bob Dole , criticized Abdul-Rauf ’ s anthem protest while his Democratic opponent , President Clinton , stayed silent on the issue .
Abdul-Rauf ’ s plight says a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general public have shifted on political activism , race and the role athletes should play in these issues .
The NBA of the 1990s was dominated by Michael Jordan and his adamantly apolitical persona .
Jordan — who infamously joked that he wouldn ’ t get involved in the racially polarized 1990 U.S. Senate campaign in his home state of North Carolina because “ Republicans buy sneakers , too ” — exemplified an era in professional sports when profits were clearly prioritized over politics .
In this environment , neither Jordan nor any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense .
Some even openly criticized him .
It ’ s hardly surprising , then , that most white people were also against Abdul-Rauf ’ s actions .
The one national opinion survey on the subject , a March 1996 ABC/Washington Post poll , showed that 76 percent of white people thought the NBA made the right decision by suspending Abdul-Rauf for refusing to stand during the national anthem .
In contrast to the huge partisan divides in public opinion about racial controversies today , 72 percent of white Democrats and 86 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The country has come a long way since then in support of protesting athletes , though .
When NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick first knelt during the national anthem four years ago , public opinion was still largely against him .
Only about one-third of Americans approved and thought that kneeling during the anthem was an appropriate form of protest .
But as the country ’ s racial attitudes liberalized in response to President Trump ’ s administration and the Black Lives Matter movement , so has public opinion about athlete protests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anthem has steadily increased over the past four years .
For example , the share in Fox News Polls who thought that kneeling during the anthem was appropriate increased from 32 percent in September 2016 to 41 percent in September 2017 to 48 percent in July 2020 .
Recent polls from NBC/Wall Street Journal and YouGov-Yahoo found that a majority of Americans now either support kneeling or think it ’ s appropriate to kneel during the national anthem .
In keeping with those trends , polling shows that most Americans support the NBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the playoffs after a Kenosha , Wisconsin , police officer shot Blake seven times in the back .
Online pollster YouGov found that 57 percent of adults supported the NBA boycott , compared to only 28 percent who opposed it , while a live-caller poll of registered voters conducted Aug. 28-31 by Suffolk University/USA Today found 54 percent support and 35 percent opposition .
With the players united and public opinion on their side , the unprecedented wave of sports activism following the Blake shooting and the police killings this year of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a much different response from sports and political leaders than Abdul-Rauf and Kaepernick ’ s earlier protests .
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver penned a letter to league employees after last week ’ s strike that said , “ I wholeheartedly support NBA and WNBA players and their commitment to shining a light on important issues of social justice.
” The Democratic Party ’ s most prominent voices — including Barack Obama , Joe Biden , Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton — took to Twitter to applaud the players .
Even Michael Jordan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an NBA team , is taking strong positions in support of racial equality and player protests .
And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized in June “ for not listening to NFL players earlier , ” and he encouraged “ all players to speak out and peacefully protest.
” That doesn ’ t mean there isn ’ t still division on the issue .
Trump has been a vocal critic throughout his presidency of athletes who protest , and he said the NBA players ’ protests were going to “ destroy basketball.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While 82 percent of Democrats surveyed by YouGov supported the NBA ’ s protest , just 21 percent of Republicans did .
But something has clearly changed since Abdul-Rauf first refused to stand .
It is now less costly for Black athletes to advocate for racial justice than it was for Abdul-Rauf or Kaepernick .
Those reduced barriers seem likely to lead to even more athlete activism that shines a spotlight on racial injustices in America going forward .

Americans Are Far More Likely To Support Athlete Protests Than They Once Were
Nearly 25 years before the NBA shut down for several days to protest racial injustice, before LeBron James tweeted, “FUCK THIS MAN!!!! WE DEMAND CHANGE. SICK OF IT,” and before the Milwaukee Bucks left the court in support of Jacob Blake, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf made a protest of his own.
During the 1995-96 season, Abdul-Rauf, the Denver Nuggets’ leading scorer, refused to stand with his teammates for the pregame playing of the national anthem — saying the flag was a symbol of racism and oppression.
But Abdul-Rauf’s protest was met with scorn, not support. He was suspended by the league until he agreed to stand for the anthem and was traded after the season to the Sacramento Kings, where his NBA career effectively ended in 1998. And in a perfect encapsulation of partisan politics on race in the 1990s, the GOP’s 1996 presidential nominee, Bob Dole, criticized Abdul-Rauf’s anthem protest while his Democratic opponent, President Clinton, stayed silent on the issue.
Abdul-Rauf’s plight says a lot about how far the NBA and the general public have shifted on political activism, race and the role athletes should play in these issues.
The NBA of the 1990s was dominated by Michael Jordan and his adamantly apolitical persona. Jordan — who infamously joked that he wouldn’t get involved in the racially polarized 1990 U.S. Senate campaign in his home state of North Carolina because “Republicans buy sneakers, too”— exemplified an era in professional sports when profits were clearly prioritized over politics. In this environment, neither Jordan nor any other NBA All-Star came to Abdul-Rauf’s defense. Some even openly criticized him.
It’s hardly surprising, then, that most white people were also against Abdul-Rauf’s actions. The one national opinion survey on the subject, a March 1996 ABC/Washington Post poll, showed that 76 percent of white people thought the NBA made the right decision by suspending Abdul-Rauf for refusing to stand during the national anthem. In contrast to the huge partisan divides in public opinion about racial controversies today, 72 percent of white Democrats and 86 percent of white Republicans supported the suspension.
The country has come a long way since then in support of protesting athletes, though.
When NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick first knelt during the national anthem four years ago, public opinion was still largely against him. Only about one-third of Americans approved and thought that kneeling during the anthem was an appropriate form of protest. But as the country’s racial attitudes liberalized in response to President Trump’s administration and the Black Lives Matter movement, so has public opinion about athlete protests.
Support for athletes kneeling during the national anthem has steadily increased over the past four years. For example, the share in Fox News Polls who thought that kneeling during the anthem was appropriate increased from 32 percent in September 2016 to 41 percent in September 2017 to 48 percent in July 2020. Recent polls from NBC/Wall Street Journal and YouGov-Yahoo found that a majority of Americans now either support kneeling or think it’s appropriate to kneel during the national anthem.
In keeping with those trends, polling shows that most Americans support the NBA players’ decision last week to strike during the playoffs after a Kenosha, Wisconsin, police officer shot Blake seven times in the back. Online pollster YouGov found that 57 percent of adults supported the NBA boycott, compared to only 28 percent who opposed it, while a live-caller poll of registered voters conducted Aug. 28-31 by Suffolk University/USA Today found 54 percent support and 35 percent opposition.
With the players united and public opinion on their side, the unprecedented wave of sports activism following the Blake shooting and the police killings this year of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd was met with a much different response from sports and political leaders than Abdul-Rauf and Kaepernick’s earlier protests. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver penned a letter to league employees after last week’s strike that said, “I wholeheartedly support NBA and WNBA players and their commitment to shining a light on important issues of social justice.” The Democratic Party’s most prominent voices — including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton — took to Twitter to applaud the players. Even Michael Jordan, now the only Black majority owner of an NBA team, is taking strong positions in support of racial equality and player protests. And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized in June “for not listening to NFL players earlier,” and he encouraged “all players to speak out and peacefully protest.”
That doesn’t mean there isn’t still division on the issue. Trump has been a vocal critic throughout his presidency of athletes who protest, and he said the NBA players’ protests were going to “destroy basketball.” Most Republicans seemed to share his opinion. While 82 percent of Democrats surveyed by YouGov supported the NBA’s protest, just 21 percent of Republicans did.
But something has clearly changed since Abdul-Rauf first refused to stand. It is now less costly for Black athletes to advocate for racial justice than it was for Abdul-Rauf or Kaepernick. Those reduced barriers seem likely to lead to even more athlete activism that shines a spotlight on racial injustices in America going forward.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-03--Election Update: Biden Gets Good Polls In Arizona And Wisconsin — And A Bad One In Pennsylvania

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s Election Update for Thursday , September 3 !
We ’ ve now gotten several state polls conducted entirely after the end of the Republican National Convention , and they are consistent with the tale told by post-convention national polls : The RNC hasn ’ t boosted President Trump enough to meaningfully improve his odds of winning the election .
In fact , the state polls we ’ ve gotten this week have been pretty darn good for Joe Biden — with one big exception that we ’ ll get to in a minute .
Probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News ’ s survey of Arizona , which gave Biden a healthy 9-percentage-point lead .
The poll was taken in the immediate wake of the RNC , and although candidates generally poll higher right after their conventions , Fox found Trump in a worse position compared with its previous poll .
Morning Consult appeared to confirm Biden ’ s upward trajectory in Arizona , releasing an Aug. 21-30 poll showing Biden up by 10 .
( That was a big shift from Trump ’ s 2-point lead there in Morning Consult ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona polling had been a little disappointing for Biden , given that the state appeared primed to move into the spotlight as one of the top 2020 swing states .
But these two good polls for Biden helped the Democrat jump out to a clearer lead in our Arizona forecast ( although it ’ s still pretty close to a toss-up ) : In addition , Biden now leads Trump by 4.6 points in our weighted average of polls of Arizona .
That ’ s significant because , if you were to line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has the biggest polling lead to those where Trump ’ s lead is biggest , right now Arizona would be the Electoral College “ tipping point ” — the state that puts one candidate over the top .
( That said , our forecast , which blends the polls with election “ fundamentals ” like the economy to predict where the race will stand in November , maintains that Pennsylvania is the likeliest state to wind up as the tipping point on Election Day . )
Fox News also had good news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat ahead by 8 points .
And two other recent polls ( from Morning Consult and Opinium ) staked Biden to similarly large leads — 10 and 13 points , respectively .
Notably , all three of these polls were conducted mostly or entirely after police shot Jacob Blake , a Black man , in the Wisconsin city of Kenosha , kicking off protests where two demonstrators were killed ( a militia member has been charged with their murder ) .
But contrary to what many commentators have insisted , those tragic events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on the violent fallout and a “ law and order ” message — don ’ t appear to be boosting the president ’ s standing in the state .
Biden ’ s chances of winning it are up to 73 in 100 , per our forecast .
The one state where Trump does seem to have emerged from the conventions in better shape is Pennsylvania ; Monmouth University now has Trump and Biden in a virtual tie among likely voters there .
Biden is 3 percentage points ahead in Monmouth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a low-turnout scenario .
In Monmouth ’ s July 9-13 poll of the Keystone State , Biden led by 10 points in the former scenario and 7 points in the latter .
As a result , our forecast shows Trump with a better chance to win Pennsylvania than he ’ s had in months .
It ’ s a bit surprising to see Biden polling relatively poorly in Pennsylvania , the state where he was born and one that he references frequently on the campaign trail .
According to the polling averages with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump by just 3.4 points there — a smaller lead than in demographically similar Michigan ( 6.5 points ) and Wisconsin ( 7.1 points ) .
That said , although Monmouth is an excellent pollster , its post-convention survey may be an outlier .
Monmouth ’ s sample sizes are on the small side , and the company isn ’ t afraid to publish results that diverge from the consensus ( that ’ s a good thing ) , so its polling can sometimes be subject to large swings .
And the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Trump to win Pennsylvania .
Indeed , as you ’ ve seen , he is more likely than Trump to win all three of these crucial states .
That ’ s a big reason why he still has a 69 in 100 chance of winning the Electoral College overall — almost exactly the same position he was in before the conventions .
Are we seeing a post-convention polling bounce ?
| FiveThirtyEight Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight ’ s full presidential forecast ; you can also see all the 2020 polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls , Florida polls , Michigan polls , Minnesota polls , North Carolina polls , Texas polls and … well … all the states , really .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s Election Update for Thursday, September 3! We’ve now gotten several state polls conducted entirely after the end of the Republican National Convention, and they are consistent with the tale told by post-convention national polls: The RNC hasn’t boosted President Trump enough to meaningfully improve his odds of winning the election. In fact, the state polls we’ve gotten this week have been pretty darn good for Joe Biden — with one big exception that we’ll get to in a minute.
Probably the most eye-opening state poll was Fox News’s survey of Arizona, which gave Biden a healthy 9-percentage-point lead. The poll was taken in the immediate wake of the RNC, and although candidates generally poll higher right after their conventions, Fox found Trump in a worse position compared with its previous poll. Morning Consult appeared to confirm Biden’s upward trajectory in Arizona, releasing an Aug. 21-30 poll showing Biden up by 10. (That was a big shift from Trump’s 2-point lead there in Morning Consult’s Aug. 7-16 poll.)
Previously, Arizona polling had been a little disappointing for Biden, given that the state appeared primed to move into the spotlight as one of the top 2020 swing states. But these two good polls for Biden helped the Democrat jump out to a clearer lead in our Arizona forecast (although it’s still pretty close to a toss-up):
In addition, Biden now leads Trump by 4.6 points in our weighted average of polls of Arizona. That’s significant because, if you were to line up all 50 states from those where Biden has the biggest polling lead to those where Trump’s lead is biggest, right now Arizona would be the Electoral College “tipping point” — the state that puts one candidate over the top. (That said, our forecast, which blends the polls with election “fundamentals” like the economy to predict where the race will stand in November, maintains that Pennsylvania is the likeliest state to wind up as the tipping point on Election Day.)
Fox News also had good news for Biden in Wisconsin, putting the Democrat ahead by 8 points. And two other recent polls (from Morning Consult and Opinium) staked Biden to similarly large leads — 10 and 13 points, respectively. Notably, all three of these polls were conducted mostly or entirely after police shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, in the Wisconsin city of Kenosha, kicking off protests where two demonstrators were killed (a militia member has been charged with their murder). But contrary to what many commentators have insisted, those tragic events — and the Trump campaign’s focus on the violent fallout and a “law and order” message — don’t appear to be boosting the president’s standing in the state. Biden’s chances of winning it are up to 73 in 100, per our forecast.
The one state where Trump does seem to have emerged from the conventions in better shape is Pennsylvania; Monmouth University now has Trump and Biden in a virtual tie among likely voters there. Biden is 3 percentage points ahead in Monmouth’s high-turnout scenario and 1 point ahead in a low-turnout scenario. In Monmouth’s July 9-13 poll of the Keystone State, Biden led by 10 points in the former scenario and 7 points in the latter. As a result, our forecast shows Trump with a better chance to win Pennsylvania than he’s had in months.
It’s a bit surprising to see Biden polling relatively poorly in Pennsylvania, the state where he was born and one that he references frequently on the campaign trail. According to the polling averages with Monmouth factored in, he currently leads Trump by just 3.4 points there — a smaller lead than in demographically similar Michigan (6.5 points) and Wisconsin (7.1 points).
That said, although Monmouth is an excellent pollster, its post-convention survey may be an outlier. Monmouth’s sample sizes are on the small side, and the company isn’t afraid to publish results that diverge from the consensus (that’s a good thing), so its polling can sometimes be subject to large swings.
And the fact remains that Biden is still more likely than Trump to win Pennsylvania. Indeed, as you’ve seen, he is more likely than Trump to win all three of these crucial states. That’s a big reason why he still has a 69 in 100 chance of winning the Electoral College overall — almost exactly the same position he was in before the conventions.
Are we seeing a post-convention polling bounce? | FiveThirtyEight
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight’s full presidential forecast; you can also see all the 2020 polls we’ve collected, including national polls, Florida polls, Michigan polls, Minnesota polls, North Carolina polls, Texas polls and … well … all the states, really.