fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Why The State Of The Union Doesn’t Have A Big Political Impact

With an impeachment trial ongoing and the Iowa caucuses taking place the day before , President Trump ’ s third State of the Union address has flown under the radar in a very busy news cycle .
( In case you missed the memo , the speech takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern tonight . )
But maybe that ’ s not entirely a bad thing : The State of the Union probably gets more attention than it deserves , given its low political stakes .
First , presidents usually take the State of the Union as an opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass them — but most of the time , they are unsuccessful .
Political scientists Donna Hoffman and Alison Howard track the number of policy requests that presidents make in their State of the Union addresses , and they found that the president ’ s annual speech to Congress featured an average of 33 policy proposals from 1965 to 2019 .
But only 25 percent of those proposals were fully enacted within the following year ( another 14 percent , however , were partially enacted ) .
The exact share has varied a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the wildly productive 89th Congress passed two-thirds of the 36 agenda items in President Lyndon B. Johnson ’ s 1965 address — but a grand total of zero of the 19 proposals from President Ronald Reagan ’ s 1987 State of the Union fully became law .
As for Trump , only 16 percent of his speeches ’ policy rollouts so far have been fully enacted .
Second , State of the Union addresses usually have little impact on public opinion of the president .
Gallup ’ s regular polling of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which goes back decades , enables us to compare polls taken immediately before and immediately after the State of the Union to check for any popularity bumps we might attribute to the speech .
But according to Gallup , the average State of the Union address since 1978 has boosted the president ’ s approval rating by just 0.4 percentage points .
In fact , a president ’ s approval rating is just as likely to go down as it is up after a State of the Union ( the average movement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still isn ’ t very much ) .
Last year , though , Trump ’ s approval rating did actually improve by 6 points in the aftermath of his State of the Union — but don ’ t credit the speech for that .
Instead , as you may recall , Trump gave his 2019 State of the Union under rather unusual circumstances — the government had just reopened from the longest government shutdown in U.S. history , which appeared to depress Trump ’ s approval ratings .
Gallup ’ s pre-State of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shutdown was still going on .
But with the shutdown over , Trump ’ s popularity reverted to its usual mean of between 41 and 43 percent , and accordingly Gallup ’ s post-speech poll contained better news for the president .
One reason why a State of the Union address may not change many Americans ’ minds about the president is that the audience is disproportionately already fans of the president .
Since at least the era of President George H.W .
Bush , the people who have tuned in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tended to be members of the president ’ s party , according to polls of viewers conducted shortly after the speech by Gallup , ABC News/Washington Post or CNN .
For instance , last year , CNN ’ s sample of those who watched Trump ’ s State of the Union was 42 percent Republican , 22 percent Democratic .
All this isn ’ t to say that the State of the Union doesn ’ t matter .
It symbolizes how the executive and legislative branches are coequal and must work together to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draw a straight line from George Washington — who delivered the first annual presidential address to Congress in 1790 — to modern presidents , a reminder of the continuity of the republic .
And since the State of the Union began to be televised in the 1960s , it has represented a chance for the president to speak directly to the people , his ultimate constituents .
So tune in on Tuesday night for the chance to participate in an important democratic tradition ; just don ’ t expect much to come of @ @

With an impeachment trial ongoing and the Iowa caucuses taking place the day before, President Trump’s third State of the Union address has flown under the radar in a very busy news cycle. (In case you missed the memo, the speech takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern tonight.) But maybe that’s not entirely a bad thing: The State of the Union probably gets more attention than it deserves, given its low political stakes.
First, presidents usually take the State of the Union as an opportunity to make policy proposals and urge Congress to pass them — but most of the time, they are unsuccessful. Political scientists Donna Hoffman and Alison Howard track the number of policy requests that presidents make in their State of the Union addresses, and they found that the president’s annual speech to Congress featured an average of 33 policy proposals from 1965 to 2019.
But only 25 percent of those proposals were fully enacted within the following year (another 14 percent, however, were partially enacted). The exact share has varied a lot from year to year: For example, the wildly productive 89th Congress passed two-thirds of the 36 agenda items in President Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 address — but a grand total of zero of the 19 proposals from President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 State of the Union fully became law. As for Trump, only 16 percent of his speeches’ policy rollouts so far have been fully enacted.
Second, State of the Union addresses usually have little impact on public opinion of the president. Gallup’s regular polling of the president’s approval rating, which goes back decades, enables us to compare polls taken immediately before and immediately after the State of the Union to check for any popularity bumps we might attribute to the speech. But according to Gallup, the average State of the Union address since 1978 has boosted the president’s approval rating by just 0.4 percentage points. In fact, a president’s approval rating is just as likely to go down as it is up after a State of the Union (the average movement in any direction is 2.7 points, which still isn’t very much).
How the State of the Union affects presidential approval Approval rating before and after the speech Year President Before After Change 1998 Clinton 59% 69% +10 1996 Clinton 46 52 +6 2005 W. Bush 51 57 +6 2019 Trump 37 43 +6 1994 Clinton 54 58 +4 2016 Obama 45 49 +4 1984 Reagan 52 55 +3 2015 Obama 45 48 +3 1980 Carter 56 58 +2 1995 Clinton 47 49 +2 2012 Obama 44 46 +2 2018 Trump 38 40 +2 1988 Reagan 49 50 +1 1992 H.W. Bush 46 47 +1 2003 W. Bush 60 61 +1 2014 Obama 41 42 +1 1982 Reagan 47 47 0 1999 Clinton 69 69 0 2008 W. Bush 34 34 0 2010 Obama 48 48 0 2011 Obama 50 50 0 1979 Carter 43 42 -1 1986 Reagan 64 63 -1 1991 H.W. Bush 83 82 -1 2000 Clinton 64 63 -1 2006 W. Bush 43 42 -1 1983 Reagan 37 35 -2 2002 W. Bush 84 82 -2 2013 Obama 52 50 -2 1978 Carter 55 52 -3 1997 Clinton 60 57 -3 1985 Reagan 64 60 -4 2004 W. Bush 53 49 -4 2007 W. Bush 36 32 -4 1987 Reagan 48 43 -5 1990 H.W. Bush 80 73 -7 Average change +0.4 Median change 0 Average absolute change 2.7 Median absolute change 2 Source: Gallup
Last year, though, Trump’s approval rating did actually improve by 6 points in the aftermath of his State of the Union — but don’t credit the speech for that. Instead, as you may recall, Trump gave his 2019 State of the Union under rather unusual circumstances — the government had just reopened from the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, which appeared to depress Trump’s approval ratings. Gallup’s pre-State of the Union poll was conducted mostly while the shutdown was still going on. But with the shutdown over, Trump’s popularity reverted to its usual mean of between 41 and 43 percent, and accordingly Gallup’s post-speech poll contained better news for the president.
One reason why a State of the Union address may not change many Americans’ minds about the president is that the audience is disproportionately already fans of the president. Since at least the era of President George H.W. Bush, the people who have tuned in to watch the State of the Union have tended to be members of the president’s party, according to polls of viewers conducted shortly after the speech by Gallup, ABC News/Washington Post or CNN. For instance, last year, CNN’s sample of those who watched Trump’s State of the Union was 42 percent Republican, 22 percent Democratic.
All this isn’t to say that the State of the Union doesn’t matter. It symbolizes how the executive and legislative branches are coequal and must work together to govern. It also allows us to draw a straight line from George Washington — who delivered the first annual presidential address to Congress in 1790 — to modern presidents, a reminder of the continuity of the republic. And since the State of the Union began to be televised in the 1960s, it has represented a chance for the president to speak directly to the people, his ultimate constituents. So tune in on Tuesday night for the chance to participate in an important democratic tradition; just don’t expect much to come of it.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Will The Impeachment Trial Change Trump’s State Of The Union Address?

President Trump usually acts like a normal president at the State of the Union .
Will impeachment change that ?
Trump ’ s States of the Union speeches have been one of the few places in his presidency that mostly follow the standard presidential script .
He delivers a speech prepared by speechwriters , talks about a variety of policy priorities and honors a special guest ( a tradition started by Ronald Reagan ) .
In form and function , it ’ s all been almost normal .
This year , of course , the context surrounding Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but normal .
The U.S. Senate will likely acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment this week .
So the question is : Will Trump stick to the usual script , or will he tackle impeachment head-on ?
There are arguments and precedents that point to both scenarios .
In the past , presidents facing scandal or impeachment have pushed back by saying those things — Watergate or other scandals , etc .
— are just distractions from important policy issues that voters care about .
The State of the Union address offers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , keeping the focus on his policy agenda .
On the other hand , the State of the Union also allows presidents to publicly spin an impeachment or scandal .
The framing war between presidents and their political opponents can affect how the public perceives an impeachment , even if that doesn ’ t seem like how the process should work .
So which tactic has been chosen by presidents who have faced this situation before ?
Bill Clinton delivered the 1999 State of the Union Address just a month after the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing two of them — and a few weeks before the Senate voted to acquit him .
Despite some Democrats joining Republicans in calling for the president to postpone the address until after the impeachment process had finished , Clinton proceeded with the speech as scheduled .
His address , on Jan. 19 , emphasized a variety of policy priorities , including preserving Social Security and improving public education , and he touted his own administration ’ s record in domestic and foreign policy .
Clinton never mentioned impeachment .
He did , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unity .
In a discussion of racial inequality , Clinton emphasized the shared fate of a united country : He referred to bipartisan priorities like medical research , education and Middle East peace .
These fit in with standard State of the Union items , especially during a period of divided government .
But in that political environment , they also functioned as a signal that the country should move on .
Richard Nixon took a different approach in his 1974 State of the Union address .
In it , he asked Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ one year of Watergate is enough.
” ( This plea was , of course , unsuccessful , and Nixon resigned about six months later . )
Nixon ’ s remarks also included a pledge to cooperate with the investigation and a commitment to follow precedent “ from George Washington to Lyndon B. Johnson ” to avoid weakening the office of the presidency .
These presidents all took advantage of the platform provided by the address to highlight his role as head of state and national figure .
They mentioned shared values , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might try to do the same thing .
But while both Watergate and the Clinton impeachment engendered deep partisan divisions , Nixon and Clinton enjoyed some advantages that Trump doesn ’ t .
Unlike Trump , Clinton had high approval ratings during his impeachment .
And Nixon held office before the today ’ s era of polarization and hyper partisanship .
In other words , they could lean into the trappings of the presidency and messages of national unity in their addresses in the hopes of expanding their political support — in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , it ’ s anyone ’ s guess what Trump will say .
But the State of the Union , along with almost everything else in national politics related to the Trump White House , has become a lot more partisan .
As we noted last year , these addresses aren ’ t especially effective at moving public opinion or passing legislation , and presidents end up speaking to their own parties .
( The TV audience is likely to be partisans who are already favorable to the president . )
Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and incredibly steady ) approval ratings and contemporary polarization , it ’ s unlikely the State of the Union speech will change many minds about the Ukraine scandal , impeachment or the Trump presidency more generally .
Still , while partisan attitudes tend to be fairly solidified — with Republicans approving of Trump and disapproving of impeachment — the State of the Union could provide a useful opportunity for the administration to frame impeachment , especially for GOP-leaning voters .
Sure , Trump already has sky-high approval ratings among Republicans , but that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s weakness with people who support him .
More generally , impeachment has proven surprisingly popular , with a higher percentage of Americans supporting the process than disapproving of it on average since October .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s impeachment poll tracker shows that through January , more Americans approved of impeachment than disapproved .
But a speech addressed to a mostly partisan audience allows him to describe the impeachment as a ( failed ) attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election ( as his defenders in Congress have argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan team identity .
In other words , this State of the Union might end up more closely resembling a rally speech , which would be a big break with norms .
Such an approach would be substantively different from that of both Nixon and Clinton , both of whom tried to link their speeches to larger national values and priorities .
It would also potentially highlight the distance between how partisans on different sides view the impeachment case .
But Trump is a highly divisive president in a deeply polarized era .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national , ceremonial address – but the president may find political benefit in embracing its partisan potential .

President Trump usually acts like a normal president at the State of the Union. Will impeachment change that?
Trump’s States of the Union speeches have been one of the few places in his presidency that mostly follow the standard presidential script. He delivers a speech prepared by speechwriters, talks about a variety of policy priorities and honors a special guest (a tradition started by Ronald Reagan). In form and function, it’s all been almost normal.
This year, of course, the context surrounding Trump’s State of the Union speech is anything but normal. The U.S. Senate will likely acquit Trump on two articles of impeachment this week . So the question is: Will Trump stick to the usual script, or will he tackle impeachment head-on?
There are arguments and precedents that point to both scenarios. In the past, presidents facing scandal or impeachment have pushed back by saying those things — Watergate or other scandals, etc. — are just distractions from important policy issues that voters care about. The State of the Union address offers presidents an opportunity to highlight those issues, keeping the focus on his policy agenda. On the other hand, the State of the Union also allows presidents to publicly spin an impeachment or scandal. The framing war between presidents and their political opponents can affect how the public perceives an impeachment, even if that doesn’t seem like how the process should work.
So which tactic has been chosen by presidents who have faced this situation before?
Bill Clinton delivered the 1999 State of the Union Address just a month after the House voted on four articles of impeachment — passing two of them — and a few weeks before the Senate voted to acquit him. Despite some Democrats joining Republicans in calling for the president to postpone the address until after the impeachment process had finished, Clinton proceeded with the speech as scheduled.
His address, on Jan. 19, emphasized a variety of policy priorities, including preserving Social Security and improving public education, and he touted his own administration’s record in domestic and foreign policy. Clinton never mentioned impeachment. He did, however, make several references to national unity. In a discussion of racial inequality, Clinton emphasized the shared fate of a united country:
Whether our ancestors came here on the Mayflower, on slave ships, whether they came to Ellis Island or LAX in Los Angeles, whether they came yesterday or walked this land a thousand years ago, our great challenge for the 21st century is to find a way to be one America. We can meet all the other challenges if we can go forward as one America.
He referred to bipartisan priorities like medical research, education and Middle East peace. These fit in with standard State of the Union items, especially during a period of divided government. But in that political environment, they also functioned as a signal that the country should move on.
Richard Nixon took a different approach in his 1974 State of the Union address. In it, he asked Congress to end the investigations, saying that “one year of Watergate is enough.” (This plea was, of course, unsuccessful, and Nixon resigned about six months later.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLInNam9XQE
Nixon’s remarks also included a pledge to cooperate with the investigation and a commitment to follow precedent “from George Washington to Lyndon B. Johnson” to avoid weakening the office of the presidency.
These presidents all took advantage of the platform provided by the address to highlight his role as head of state and national figure. They mentioned shared values, bipartisan priorities and national history.
Trump might try to do the same thing. But while both Watergate and the Clinton impeachment engendered deep partisan divisions, Nixon and Clinton enjoyed some advantages that Trump doesn’t. Unlike Trump, Clinton had high approval ratings during his impeachment. And Nixon held office before the today’s era of polarization and hyper partisanship. In other words, they could lean into the trappings of the presidency and messages of national unity in their addresses in the hopes of expanding their political support — in a way that Trump cannot.
Of course, it’s anyone’s guess what Trump will say. But the State of the Union, along with almost everything else in national politics related to the Trump White House, has become a lot more partisan. As we noted last year, these addresses aren’t especially effective at moving public opinion or passing legislation, and presidents end up speaking to their own parties. (The TV audience is likely to be partisans who are already favorable to the president.) Given that, Trump’s poor (and incredibly steady) approval ratings and contemporary polarization, it’s unlikely the State of the Union speech will change many minds about the Ukraine scandal, impeachment or the Trump presidency more generally.
Still, while partisan attitudes tend to be fairly solidified — with Republicans approving of Trump and disapproving of impeachment — the State of the Union could provide a useful opportunity for the administration to frame impeachment, especially for GOP-leaning voters. Sure, Trump already has sky-high approval ratings among Republicans, but that, to some extent, papers over Trump’s weakness with people who support him. More generally, impeachment has proven surprisingly popular, with a higher percentage of Americans supporting the process than disapproving of it on average since October. FiveThirtyEight’s impeachment poll tracker shows that through January, more Americans approved of impeachment than disapproved.
But a speech addressed to a mostly partisan audience allows him to describe the impeachment as a (failed) attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election (as his defenders in Congress have argued) and to activate a sense of partisan team identity.
In other words, this State of the Union might end up more closely resembling a rally speech, which would be a big break with norms. Such an approach would be substantively different from that of both Nixon and Clinton, both of whom tried to link their speeches to larger national values and priorities. It would also potentially highlight the distance between how partisans on different sides view the impeachment case. But Trump is a highly divisive president in a deeply polarized era. The State of the Union is still a national, ceremonial address – but the president may find political benefit in embracing its partisan potential.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Iowa Caucuses 2020: Updates And Analysis

Search
No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Plenty Of Iowans Were Ready To Ditch The Caucuses — Even Before Monday Night

Was 2020 the end of the Iowa caucuses as we know them ?
After Monday night ’ s debacle — in which fewer than 2 percent of Iowa caucus sites reported results as an apparent consequence of technical difficulties and “ inconsistencies ” in the results — many commentators ( including us ) asked just that .
Even Iowans are starting to wonder whether the caucuses are the best way for their voices to be heard .
Brian Vogel , a supporter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren who was among the few who stayed until the very end of the caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said the caucuses felt like a relic of a past era , when a few dozen neighbors would gather in a living room to hash out which candidate to support .
“ There was a lot of bickering and talk of policy and lobbying back and forth , ” he said .
But that didn ’ t really happen at his precinct .
Only a handful of the 800 caucusgoers there eventually switched sides , and many people left after the first round of voting .
“ It feels like we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more logical for us to cast a ballot , ” Vogel said .
“ If all of us were to just walk through the door and make marks for our preference and leave , the results would have been basically the same.
” There ’ s evidence that many Iowans actually prefer a change .
A September 2019 poll , conducted by Selzer and Co. for the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom , found that likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa were split on switching to a primary .
Forty-four percent said that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary “ so everyone can vote , even if it means Iowa would no longer ” vote first , while 42 percent said it was better for Iowa to go first “ even if it means not everyone who wants to can participate on caucus night.
” Indeed , switching to a primary probably would mean Iowa would no longer be the first state to vote in presidential nominating processes .
That ’ s because New Hampshire has a stranglehold on holding the first primary in the nation ; there is even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state pick a primary election date that is at least seven days before any “ similar election.
” Iowa ’ s party elders might be unhappy about their state ’ s loss of influence over the primary process , but rank-and-file Iowans might not actually care that much about voting a little later in the process .
And after the bad headlines generated Monday night , it would hardly be surprising if scrapping the caucuses becomes even more popular .
Some caucusgoers seemed pretty comfortable with the idea that Iowa might exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was less time-consuming and more flexible .
“ It ’ s a point of pride , but I ’ m not sure if it ’ s appropriate for Iowa to caucus first anyway , ” Matt Bailey , a Cedar Rapids resident who caucused for former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , said before the chaos unfolded Monday night .
“ I think most people here understand that it ’ s not the right setup anymore — in terms of the complicated and time-consuming nature of the caucus itself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even before Monday , the caucuses were already under fire for being undemocratic : Many people can not afford to take a few hours off in the evening to go caucus ; they present accessibility challenges to people with disabilities ; until this year , there was no option to vote absentee ( and this year ’ s option was still pretty flawed ) ; and there is no option to vote a secret ballot .
At a campaign event over the weekend , a couple named Jeff and Melissa explained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday night because Jeff , who has a shift job , couldn ’ t get out of work .
Melissa , meanwhile , said she would be caucusing with their 1-year-old baby strapped into his carrier .
“ It ’ s really not ideal , because it ’ s way past his bedtime , but I don ’ t have another option if I want to caucus , ” she said .
The Iowa Democratic Party did take some steps this year to make the process more open by adding a handful of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living facilities and hospitals , or scheduling them earlier in the day .
About two dozen people showed up to caucus at the Cedar Rapids Public Library on Monday afternoon , and many of them seemed relieved to have an option that didn ’ t involve hanging out in a crowded room for several hours that evening .
“ I was really upset because I have to work this evening and didn ’ t think I was going to be able to caucus , ” said Jill Martinez , a longtime caucusgoer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ different than an ordinary caucus — smaller , and more informal — but that wasn ’ t a problem .
“ Honestly , I ’ m glad to have skipped the crowds.
” There are other reasons , too , why Iowans might appreciate a switch to a primary .
Lisa Lower , who attended the Cedar Rapids satellite caucus , said midday Monday she didn ’ t caucus back in 2016 because she was leaning toward Sen. Bernie Sanders but didn ’ t want her Hillary Clinton-supporting friends and neighbors to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lower said .
“ Voting is a very , very personal activity .
I just am not comfortable basically being naked in front of my neighbors , saying , ‘ This is who I ’ m voting for.
’ That ’ s why we should just have a primary like everyone else.
” Of course , there are still Iowans who see the caucuses as an important vestige of a truly democratic process , and they will likely fight to keep them .
“ In Iowa , a caucus is about consensus-building with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Dave Tingwald , a precinct chair in Iowa City , as he and other volunteers waited Monday night to phone in their results .
“ I think it ’ s incredibly healthy for democracy .
It gives ordinary people access to their government.
” And ultimately , the decision whether to scrap the caucuses in the next presidential race will be made not by ordinary caucusgoers , but by party elites — which means it may not even matter if a majority of Iowa voters support a switch .
Frustrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Iowans still might find themselves back in a high school gymnasium in four years , waiting for the next caucuses to begin .

Was 2020 the end of the Iowa caucuses as we know them? After Monday night’s debacle — in which fewer than 2 percent of Iowa caucus sites reported results as an apparent consequence of technical difficulties and “inconsistencies” in the results — many commentators (including us) asked just that. Even Iowans are starting to wonder whether the caucuses are the best way for their voices to be heard.
Chaos In Iowa
Brian Vogel, a supporter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren who was among the few who stayed until the very end of the caucus at Iowa City’s Precinct 21, said the caucuses felt like a relic of a past era, when a few dozen neighbors would gather in a living room to hash out which candidate to support. “There was a lot of bickering and talk of policy and lobbying back and forth,” he said. But that didn’t really happen at his precinct. Only a handful of the 800 caucusgoers there eventually switched sides, and many people left after the first round of voting. “It feels like we’re at a point where it’s more logical for us to cast a ballot,” Vogel said. “If all of us were to just walk through the door and make marks for our preference and leave, the results would have been basically the same.”
There’s evidence that many Iowans actually prefer a change. A September 2019 poll, conducted by Selzer and Co. for the Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom, found that likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa were split on switching to a primary. Forty-four percent said that it was more important for Iowa to hold a primary “so everyone can vote, even if it means Iowa would no longer” vote first, while 42 percent said it was better for Iowa to go first “even if it means not everyone who wants to can participate on caucus night.”
Indeed, switching to a primary probably would mean Iowa would no longer be the first state to vote in presidential nominating processes. That’s because New Hampshire has a stranglehold on holding the first primary in the nation; there is even a state law that the New Hampshire secretary of state pick a primary election date that is at least seven days before any “similar election.” Iowa’s party elders might be unhappy about their state’s loss of influence over the primary process, but rank-and-file Iowans might not actually care that much about voting a little later in the process.
And after the bad headlines generated Monday night, it would hardly be surprising if scrapping the caucuses becomes even more popular. Some caucusgoers seemed pretty comfortable with the idea that Iowa might exchange its first-in-the-nation status for a process that was less time-consuming and more flexible. “It’s a point of pride, but I’m not sure if it’s appropriate for Iowa to caucus first anyway,” Matt Bailey, a Cedar Rapids resident who caucused for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, said before the chaos unfolded Monday night. “I think most people here understand that it’s not the right setup anymore — in terms of the complicated and time-consuming nature of the caucus itself, and the fact that we go first.”
Even before Monday, the caucuses were already under fire for being undemocratic: Many people cannot afford to take a few hours off in the evening to go caucus; they present accessibility challenges to people with disabilities; until this year, there was no option to vote absentee (and this year’s option was still pretty flawed); and there is no option to vote a secret ballot. At a campaign event over the weekend, a couple named Jeff and Melissa explained that only one of them would be caucusing Monday night because Jeff, who has a shift job, couldn’t get out of work. Melissa, meanwhile, said she would be caucusing with their 1-year-old baby strapped into his carrier. “It’s really not ideal, because it’s way past his bedtime, but I don’t have another option if I want to caucus,” she said.
The Iowa Democratic Party did take some steps this year to make the process more open by adding a handful of satellite caucus locations at places like assisted living facilities and hospitals, or scheduling them earlier in the day. About two dozen people showed up to caucus at the Cedar Rapids Public Library on Monday afternoon, and many of them seemed relieved to have an option that didn’t involve hanging out in a crowded room for several hours that evening. “I was really upset because I have to work this evening and didn’t think I was going to be able to caucus,” said Jill Martinez, a longtime caucusgoer. She said the satellite caucus felt very different than an ordinary caucus — smaller, and more informal — but that wasn’t a problem. “Honestly, I’m glad to have skipped the crowds.”
There are other reasons, too, why Iowans might appreciate a switch to a primary. Lisa Lower, who attended the Cedar Rapids satellite caucus, said midday Monday she didn’t caucus back in 2016 because she was leaning toward Sen. Bernie Sanders but didn’t want her Hillary Clinton-supporting friends and neighbors to know. “I hate caucuses,” Lower said. “Voting is a very, very personal activity. I just am not comfortable basically being naked in front of my neighbors, saying, ‘This is who I’m voting for.’ That’s why we should just have a primary like everyone else.”
Of course, there are still Iowans who see the caucuses as an important vestige of a truly democratic process, and they will likely fight to keep them. “In Iowa, a caucus is about consensus-building with your neighbors and it’s participatory,” said Dave Tingwald, a precinct chair in Iowa City, as he and other volunteers waited Monday night to phone in their results. “I think it’s incredibly healthy for democracy. It gives ordinary people access to their government.”
And ultimately, the decision whether to scrap the caucuses in the next presidential race will be made not by ordinary caucusgoers, but by party elites — which means it may not even matter if a majority of Iowa voters support a switch. Frustrations seem likely to continue to build, but Iowans still might find themselves back in a high school gymnasium in four years, waiting for the next caucuses to begin.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Iowa Democrats Should Have Known Better Than To Use An App

More than 14 hours after the Iowa caucuses began , we still don ’ t have any official results , and it ’ s becoming clear that an app is at least partly to blame .
An app designed to let caucus leaders report results seems to have had problems including user error , lack of connectivity and an insufficient backup plan , demonstrating exactly why it ’ s so difficult — and risky — to introduce new technology into elections .
“ Right now , a lot of the election security community is trying to , as nicely as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , ’ ” said Maggie MacAlpine , a co-founder of Nordic Innovation Labs , a firm of security consultants whose specialties include safeguarding elections .
This year , the Iowa Democratic Party , which runs the state ’ s Democratic caucuses , introduced a smartphone app that local precinct chairs could use to send in tallies from their caucus sites .
Immediately , election security experts raised concerns because the party wouldn ’ t reveal who built the app , what testing had been done , or who they had consulted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party insisted , however , that thorough security measures had been put in place , and besides , precinct chairs could always fall back on the reporting technology they ’ ve been using for decades : a phone-in hotline .
One problem : Multiple precinct chairs reported hours-long wait times , and even getting cut off , when they tried to use that hotline .
Even before the caucuses began , some precinct chairs reported difficulty with the app , including trouble downloading it .
Additionally , one county chairman told The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volunteers running precincts in his district never downloaded the app at all and always planned to call in the results .
These problems demonstrate one of the first big mistakes the party made when introducing new tech to an already arcane process : not considering its user base .
“ One of the reasons election security is such a difficult problem to solve is because the people who are operating elections aren ’ t tech people , ” MacAlpine said .
“ They ’ re often retirees , people who are trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many of these events also take place in rural areas where cell phone reception is less reliable .
In that way , even if the app functioned perfectly , it already failed on a practical level if the people who were intended to use it didn ’ t understand it or couldn ’ t access it .
But , according to the Iowa Democratic Party , the app didn ’ t work perfectly , either .
“ While the app was recording data accurately , it was reporting out only partial data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa Democratic Party , said in a statement released Tuesday morning , adding that the error was due to a coding issue that was later fixed .
Though the party still isn ’ t revealing many details about how the app was tested beforehand , a bug like this suggests it was not adequately tested at scale in the way it would be used on caucus night .
“ There are some really good things to do when you ’ re rolling out any kind of tech in any high-stakes situation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on design in elections and former co-director at the Center for Civic Design .
“ You would want to do a lot of testing in lots of different ways , from reliability and resilience to usability and access .
The evidence suggests those kinds of tests were not done.
” Both Chisnell and MacAlpine questioned why the party didn ’ t simply use the caucuses as a chance to pilot an app , rather than diving into a full roll out .
But in a way , the party already piloted using an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican and Democratic parties in Iowa introduced apps built by Microsoft to report results during the caucuses in 2016 .
And it didn ’ t work last time , either , with multiple results not properly transmitted .
The good news , if there is any , is that because the Iowa caucuses also have a robust paper trail and don ’ t require a secret ballot , it should be possible to verify the results in spite of the massive collapse of the reporting system , and the Iowa Democratic Party chairman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what the party is doing now .
But the fallout from the disastrous results-night-that-wasn ’ t threatens the future of the caucuses themselves — and maybe even impacted this year ’ s nomination process .

Iowa Democrats Should Have Known Better Than To Use An App
More than 14 hours after the Iowa caucuses began, we still don’t have any official results, and it’s becoming clear that an app is at least partly to blame.
An app designed to let caucus leaders report results seems to have had problems including user error, lack of connectivity and an insufficient backup plan, demonstrating exactly why it’s so difficult — and risky — to introduce new technology into elections.
“Right now, a lot of the election security community is trying to, as nicely as possible, say ‘We told you so,’” said Maggie MacAlpine, a co-founder of Nordic Innovation Labs, a firm of security consultants whose specialties include safeguarding elections.
This year, the Iowa Democratic Party, which runs the state’s Democratic caucuses, introduced a smartphone app that local precinct chairs could use to send in tallies from their caucus sites. Immediately, election security experts raised concerns because the party wouldn’t reveal who built the app, what testing had been done, or who they had consulted to make sure it was secure.
The party insisted, however, that thorough security measures had been put in place, and besides, precinct chairs could always fall back on the reporting technology they’ve been using for decades: a phone-in hotline. One problem: Multiple precinct chairs reported hours-long wait times, and even getting cut off, when they tried to use that hotline.
Even before the caucuses began, some precinct chairs reported difficulty with the app, including trouble downloading it. Additionally, one county chairman told The New York Times that seven of the 10 volunteers running precincts in his district never downloaded the app at all and always planned to call in the results.
Nate Silver reacts to 1st results from Iowa
These problems demonstrate one of the first big mistakes the party made when introducing new tech to an already arcane process: not considering its user base.
“One of the reasons election security is such a difficult problem to solve is because the people who are operating elections aren’t tech people,” MacAlpine said. “They’re often retirees, people who are trying to help their community.”
Compounding the issue, many of these events also take place in rural areas where cell phone reception is less reliable. In that way, even if the app functioned perfectly, it already failed on a practical level if the people who were intended to use it didn’t understand it or couldn’t access it.
But, according to the Iowa Democratic Party, the app didn’t work perfectly, either.
“While the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data,” Troy Price, chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, said in a statement released Tuesday morning, adding that the error was due to a coding issue that was later fixed.
Though the party still isn’t revealing many details about how the app was tested beforehand, a bug like this suggests it was not adequately tested at scale in the way it would be used on caucus night.
“There are some really good things to do when you’re rolling out any kind of tech in any high-stakes situation,” said Dana Chisnell, an expert on design in elections and former co-director at the Center for Civic Design. “You would want to do a lot of testing in lots of different ways, from reliability and resilience to usability and access. The evidence suggests those kinds of tests were not done.”
Both Chisnell and MacAlpine questioned why the party didn’t simply use the caucuses as a chance to pilot an app, rather than diving into a full roll out. But in a way, the party already piloted using an app back in 2016. Both the Republican and Democratic parties in Iowa introduced apps built by Microsoft to report results during the caucuses in 2016. And it didn’t work last time, either, with multiple results not properly transmitted.
The good news, if there is any, is that because the Iowa caucuses also have a robust paper trail and don’t require a secret ballot, it should be possible to verify the results in spite of the massive collapse of the reporting system, and the Iowa Democratic Party chairman said in his statement that’s exactly what the party is doing now. But the fallout from the disastrous results-night-that-wasn’t threatens the future of the caucuses themselves — and maybe even impacted this year’s nomination process.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Politics Podcast: Chaos In Iowa

Politics Podcast: Chaos In Iowa

In this late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses why the results of the Democratic Iowa @ @ @ @ @ reported by early Tuesday morning .
They also debate what the repercussions could be for @ @ @ @ @ and the Democratic primary overall .
After we recorded the podcast , the Iowa Democratic @ @ @ @ @ what went wrong in reporting the results of the caucuses .
You can also watch @ @ @ @ @ can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio @ @ @ @ @ it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you @ @ @ @ @ learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help @ @ @ @ @ by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question @ @ @ @ @ polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or @ @ @ @

In this late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses why the results of the Democratic Iowa caucuses had still not been reported by early Tuesday morning. They also debate what the repercussions could be for Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status and the Democratic primary overall. After we recorded the podcast, the Iowa Democratic Party released further details about what went wrong in reporting the results of the caucuses.
You can also watch the podcast here:
Chaos In Iowa
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Iowa Caucuses 2020: Live Updates And Analysis (Again)


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-30--New Polls And New Candidates Are Giving Democrats Some Hope Of Flipping The Senate

The topsy-turvy Democratic primary for president dominated political news for the first two-and-a-half months of 2020 — and rightfully so , it was bonkers — but now that it ’ s settled down , it ’ s time for us to check in once again on the other major political battle of 2020 : the fight for the U.S. Senate .
Republicans started the cycle with the advantage , but Democrats have had reason for optimism of late .
New polls have shown Democratic challengers ahead of GOP incumbents , the party is recruiting strong candidates , and , perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential and Senate voting , former Vice President Joe Biden , the Democrat who has polled the best against President Trump , has become the party ’ s likely presidential nominee .
The most likely outcome is still that Republicans maintain control of the Senate , though perhaps with a reduced majority : The status quo favors them , and most of the states where the Senate will be decided lean red .
( As a refresher , Republicans currently have 53 Senate seats to Democrats ’ 47 , meaning Democrats need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take control — or three if they also win the vice presidency . )
But Democrats have expanded the map to the point where they have a lot more pick-up opportunities than Republicans do , so they have a lot of upside .
The most competitive Senate races remain unchanged from late last year — there haven ’ t been any significant developments in Colorado or Maine , for example , that have dislodged them from their too-close-to-call status .
Instead , the biggest Senate news of the last couple months came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montana , where Gov .
Steve Bullock ’ s entry has shaken up the race .
Bullock was considered to be the only Democrat who could put this red state in play , and his announcement caused nonpartisan handicappers to move the race from “ Solid Republican ” to “ Lean Republican.
” According to Morning Consult , Bullock has a +21 net approval rating ( approval rating minus disapproval rating ) and at least 83 percent of Montanans are able to form an opinion of him ( approval rating plus disapproval rating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up against incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines ( who has just a +16 net approval rating and at least 78 percent name recognition , according to the same poll ) .
Indeed , Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling put out a survey shortly after Bullock entered the race that found Bullock and Daines deadlocked at 47 percent support .
However , the poll was sponsored by liberal group End Citizens United , which has endorsed Bullock , so you should take it with a grain of salt .
The special election in Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates .
After now-Sen. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to the vacant seat instead of Republican Rep. Doug Collins , Collins announced in late January that he would challenge her in November ’ s jungle primary .
( Unlike a normal Georgia election , all candidates in the special election , regardless of party , will run on the same ballot in November ; then , if no one gets a majority , the top two finishers advance to a runoff . )
But Collins isn ’ t the only one entering the fray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of former Sen. Joe Lieberman , has been running since last year , and fellow Democrat Raphael Warnock , the senior pastor at Atlanta ’ s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church , announced in late January that he would run .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly endorsed Warnock .
Then , in February , former U.S. Attorney Ed Tarver became the third prominent Democrat to join the race .
With both the Republican and Democratic vote splintered among several candidates , it now seems extremely likely that the race will advance to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Democrats , there ’ s a chance they get locked out of a runoff completely : Several early polls of the race ( granted , only one of which was nonpartisan ) showed Collins and Loeffler finishing first and second in the jungle primary .
However , if a Democrat does make it through to the runoff , he might find Collins or Loeffler to be a relatively soft target .
Collins ’ s hardline conservative views may make him a poor fit for an increasingly moderate state like Georgia , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since it was revealed she sold millions of dollars in stocks after she received a briefing on the dangers of the coronavirus .
In fact , one GOP pollster has shown her losing ground in the last few weeks — although , as always , we shouldn ’ t read too much into just one poll .
Meanwhile , handicappers still rate Arizona as a toss-up , but there ’ s an increasingly strong argument that Democrats are actually favored despite the state ’ s Republican lean .
Five polls of Arizona ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far in March , and Democrat Mark Kelly led Republican Sen. Martha McSally in all five .
His average lead was 7 percentage points .
Of course , contrarians need only recall the fate of former Tallahassee , Florida , Mayor Andrew Gillum in 2018 : He led almost every poll of the Florida governor ’ s race yet still went down to defeat .
Even a small systematic polling error in Arizona could mean that McSally is actually ahead ( most of those Kelly leads are within the margin of error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advantage of being a monster fundraiser — he took in more than $ 20.2 million in 2019 .
McSally raised only $ 12.6 million .
Finally , the first few Senate battlegrounds have now held their primaries , which means we have a clearer picture of who will face off in the fall .
In North Carolina , former state Sen. Cal Cunningham , who had the support of the DSCC , won the Democratic primary with 57 percent of the vote .
That sets up a close general election with Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic firm Public Policy Polling claims Cunningham is ahead , while Tillis ’ s pollster gave the incumbent the lead .
And in Texas , Republican Sen. John Cornyn ’ s Democratic opponent will be either DSCC-endorsed veteran MJ Hegar or state Sen. Royce West .
After finishing first and second , in the March 3 primary , the two Democrats will face off in a July 14 runoff that was delayed two months by the coronavirus pandemic .
( This could be a problem for Democrats , as their eventual nominee will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an extended intraparty fight rather than stockpiling enough cash to compete with Cornyn in this very expensive state . )
Also on July 14 ( and also months later than originally scheduled ) , Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama will find out if his Republican opponent will be former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville or former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions .
Tuberville and Sessions finished neck and neck in the first round of the GOP primary on March 3 , but Tuberville may have the advantage in the runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trump , still nursing a grudge against Sessions for not protecting him from the Mueller probe , formally endorsed Tuberville a couple weeks ago .
No matter who wins , though , things look dire for Jones .
In a Mason-Dixon poll from early February , Tuberville led the Democrat by 8 percentage points , and Sessions led him by 13 points .
Democrats ’ best chance at holding onto this seat likely went out the window after former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — whose profound flaws as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat back in 2017 — failed in his comeback bid ; he finished fourth with just 7 percent in the GOP primary earlier this month .
With seven months to go until Election Day , though , there is still a lot that can change — in these races and others .
The overall race for the Senate could still go either way , and we ’ ll of course keep you updated .

The topsy-turvy Democratic primary for president dominated political news for the first two-and-a-half months of 2020 — and rightfully so, it was bonkers — but now that it’s settled down, it’s time for us to check in once again on the other major political battle of 2020: the fight for the U.S. Senate.
Republicans started the cycle with the advantage, but Democrats have had reason for optimism of late. New polls have shown Democratic challengers ahead of GOP incumbents, the party is recruiting strong candidates, and, perhaps most importantly given the tight correlation between presidential and Senate voting, former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrat who has polled the best against President Trump, has become the party’s likely presidential nominee.
The most likely outcome is still that Republicans maintain control of the Senate, though perhaps with a reduced majority: The status quo favors them, and most of the states where the Senate will be decided lean red. (As a refresher, Republicans currently have 53 Senate seats to Democrats’ 47, meaning Democrats need to flip four seats, on net, to take control — or three if they also win the vice presidency.) But Democrats have expanded the map to the point where they have a lot more pick-up opportunities than Republicans do, so they have a lot of upside.
Democrats have pick-up opportunities in the Senate Competitive U.S. Senate seats up for election in 2020, as rated by three major election handicappers State Incumbent Incumbent Party Rating Minnesota Tina Smith D Likely D New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen D Likely D New Mexico OPEN D Likely D Michigan Gary Peters D Lean D Arizona* Martha McSally R Toss-up Colorado Cory Gardner R Toss-up North Carolina Thom Tillis R Toss-up Maine Susan Collins R Toss-up/Lean R Alabama Doug Jones D Lean R Georgia* Kelly Loeffler R Lean R Iowa Joni Ernst R Lean R Kansas OPEN R Lean R Montana Steve Daines R Lean R Georgia David Perdue R Likely R Kentucky Mitch McConnell R Likely R Texas John Cornyn R Likely R Rating is the race’s median rating among the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Races with a median rating of Solid D or Solid R are excluded. *Special election. Sources: Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato’s Crystal Ball
The most competitive Senate races remain unchanged from late last year — there haven’t been any significant developments in Colorado or Maine, for example, that have dislodged them from their too-close-to-call status. Instead, the biggest Senate news of the last couple months came in the longer-shot Democratic pick-up opportunity of Montana, where Gov. Steve Bullock’s entry has shaken up the race. Bullock was considered to be the only Democrat who could put this red state in play, and his announcement caused nonpartisan handicappers to move the race from “Solid Republican” to “Lean Republican.”
According to Morning Consult, Bullock has a +21 net approval rating (approval rating minus disapproval rating) and at least 83 percent of Montanans are able to form an opinion of him (approval rating plus disapproval rating). This gives him a leg up against incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines (who has just a +16 net approval rating and at least 78 percent name recognition, according to the same poll). Indeed, Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling put out a survey shortly after Bullock entered the race that found Bullock and Daines deadlocked at 47 percent support. However, the poll was sponsored by liberal group End Citizens United, which has endorsed Bullock, so you should take it with a grain of salt.
The special election in Georgia has also seen a flurry of new candidates. After now-Sen. Kelly Loeffler was appointed to the vacant seat instead of Republican Rep. Doug Collins, Collins announced in late January that he would challenge her in November’s jungle primary. (Unlike a normal Georgia election, all candidates in the special election, regardless of party, will run on the same ballot in November; then, if no one gets a majority, the top two finishers advance to a runoff.) But Collins isn’t the only one entering the fray. Democrat Matt Lieberman, the son of former Sen. Joe Lieberman, has been running since last year, and fellow Democrat Raphael Warnock, the senior pastor at Atlanta’s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, announced in late January that he would run. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee quickly endorsed Warnock. Then, in February, former U.S. Attorney Ed Tarver became the third prominent Democrat to join the race.
With both the Republican and Democratic vote splintered among several candidates, it now seems extremely likely that the race will advance to a runoff election in January. And unfortunately for Democrats, there’s a chance they get locked out of a runoff completely: Several early polls of the race (granted, only one of which was nonpartisan) showed Collins and Loeffler finishing first and second in the jungle primary. However, if a Democrat does make it through to the runoff, he might find Collins or Loeffler to be a relatively soft target. Collins’s hardline conservative views may make him a poor fit for an increasingly moderate state like Georgia, while Loeffler has faced a firestorm of criticism since it was revealed she sold millions of dollars in stocks after she received a briefing on the dangers of the coronavirus. In fact, one GOP pollster has shown her losing ground in the last few weeks — although, as always, we shouldn’t read too much into just one poll.
Meanwhile, handicappers still rate Arizona as a toss-up, but there’s an increasingly strong argument that Democrats are actually favored despite the state’s Republican lean. Five polls of Arizona’s U.S. Senate race have been conducted so far in March, and Democrat Mark Kelly led Republican Sen. Martha McSally in all five. His average lead was 7 percentage points.
Democrat Mark Kelly leads in recent Arizona polls Public polls of Arizona’s U.S. Senate race conducted in March 2020 Results Dates Pollster Sample Kelly (D) McSally (R) Margin March 2-3 Public Policy Polling 666 V 47% 42% D+5 March 3-4 OH Predictive Insights 600 LV 49 42 D+7 March 6-11 Latino Decisions 1036 RV 48 36 D+12 March 10-15 Marist College 2523 RV 48 45 D+3 March 11-14 Monmouth University 847 RV 50 44 D+6 Average 48 42 D+7 Source: Polls
Of course, contrarians need only recall the fate of former Tallahassee, Florida, Mayor Andrew Gillum in 2018: He led almost every poll of the Florida governor’s race yet still went down to defeat. Even a small systematic polling error in Arizona could mean that McSally is actually ahead (most of those Kelly leads are within the margin of error). However, Kelly also has the advantage of being a monster fundraiser — he took in more than $20.2 million in 2019. McSally raised only $12.6 million.
Finally, the first few Senate battlegrounds have now held their primaries, which means we have a clearer picture of who will face off in the fall. In North Carolina, former state Sen. Cal Cunningham, who had the support of the DSCC, won the Democratic primary with 57 percent of the vote. That sets up a close general election with Republican Sen. Thom Tillis: A survey by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling claims Cunningham is ahead, while Tillis’s pollster gave the incumbent the lead.
And in Texas, Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s Democratic opponent will be either DSCC-endorsed veteran MJ Hegar or state Sen. Royce West. After finishing first and second, in the March 3 primary, the two Democrats will face off in a July 14 runoff that was delayed two months by the coronavirus pandemic. (This could be a problem for Democrats, as their eventual nominee will be forced to spend time and money on an extended intraparty fight rather than stockpiling enough cash to compete with Cornyn in this very expensive state.)
Also on July 14 (and also months later than originally scheduled), Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama will find out if his Republican opponent will be former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville or former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Tuberville and Sessions finished neck and neck in the first round of the GOP primary on March 3, but Tuberville may have the advantage in the runoff: He leads in multiple polls, and Trump, still nursing a grudge against Sessions for not protecting him from the Mueller probe, formally endorsed Tuberville a couple weeks ago.
No matter who wins, though, things look dire for Jones. In a Mason-Dixon poll from early February, Tuberville led the Democrat by 8 percentage points, and Sessions led him by 13 points. Democrats’ best chance at holding onto this seat likely went out the window after former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — whose profound flaws as a candidate allowed Jones to first win this seat back in 2017 — failed in his comeback bid; he finished fourth with just 7 percent in the GOP primary earlier this month.
With seven months to go until Election Day, though, there is still a lot that can change — in these races and others. The overall race for the Senate could still go either way, and we’ll of course keep you updated.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-27--The Coronavirus Isn’t Just A Blue State Problem

Washington state was the initial epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States .
And New York is now the hardest-hit part of the country so far , with hospitalizations increasing at rapid rates — more than 37,000 people had been diagnosed with the coronavirus in New York as of late Thursday afternoon .
Because COVID-19 hit blue , coastal states first , and because politics is politics , the response to the pandemic hasn ’ t exactly been apolitical .
But blue states are hardly alone in what is becoming a nationwide epidemic .
Jefferson Parish , Louisiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage points in 2016 — has a death rate about equal to that of Manhattan .
And as terrifying as the hospital situation is in New York City , hospital capacity is also under strain in states such as Michigan and Georgia .
Overall , although the number of detected cases is higher in blue states , the number is increasing at a more rapid rate in red states .
Moreover , blue states have conducted more tests per capita than red states , so — given that the large majority of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases in red states may partially be an artifact of less testing .
Here is the data as of late Thursday afternoon , with states sorted by the increase in confirmed COVID-19 cases between Monday ( March 23 ) and Thursday ( March 26 ) .
All data is taken from the invaluable COVID Tracking Project .
Nine of the 10 states that have seen the most rapid increase in coronavirus from Monday to Thursday are states that voted for Trump in 2016 , led by Texas , where the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On average , states that voted for Trump saw a 119 percent increase in cases over this 3-day period , as compared to an 88 percent increase in states that voted for Hillary Clinton ( plus the District of Columbia ) .
Weighted by state populations , the difference is slightly larger : 141 percent in states Trump won and 88 percent in states Clinton won .
For now , states Clinton won do have considerably more total reported cases .
As of Thursday , Clinton states had 4.29 positive tests per 10,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10,000 people in Trump states .
A lot of that difference is attributable to New York ; without New York , Clinton states have 1.89 cases per 10,000 people .
But the nature of exponential growth is such that these differences could evaporate in a hurry .
If reported cases in Trump states continued to increase at 119 percent every three days ( about 30 percent per day ) while reported cases in Clinton states increased by 88 percent every three days ( about 23 percent per day ) , then the per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surpass that in Clinton states within about 30 days , or by late April .
Hopefully , the rate of increase will slow in both types of states as we begin to see further effects of social distancing measures in the data .
However , these measures were generally enacted earlier and have been more forceful in blue states .
That means the rate at which new cases are being diagnosed could slow down faster in blue states than in red states , meaning that red states would catch up earlier .
Blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red states .
In states with reliable estimates of the number of positive and negative tests as of Thursday night , Clinton states had conducted 21.8 tests per 10,000 people as compared to 12.5 tests per 10,000 people in Trump states .
That means the true gap in the number of cases may not be as large as the roughly fourfold difference in reported cases between blue states and red states right now .
States such as Louisiana have discovered they have far more cases than they originally realized as they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other red states ( and blue states ) could follow .
COVID-19 has also led to a slightly higher case fatality rate ( the number of deaths as a share of the number of known cases ) in red states so far .
As of Thursday evening , the death rate per case was 1.7 percent in Trump states as compared to 1.3 percent in Clinton states .
This could reflect a variety of factors , including potential underreporting of cases in Trump states , the age and health of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the efficacy of responses by local health care systems .
However , the higher fatality rate it is a somewhat troubling sign for red states given that many of them are generally at an earlier point in their epidemic curves , meaning that many people who have acquired COVID-19 in those states have done so recently and have not yet developed the most serious symptoms that could lead to long-term hospitalization or death .

Washington state was the initial epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States. And New York is now the hardest-hit part of the country so far, with hospitalizations increasing at rapid rates — more than 37,000 people had been diagnosed with the coronavirus in New York as of late Thursday afternoon.
Because COVID-19 hit blue, coastal states first, and because politics is politics, the response to the pandemic hasn’t exactly been apolitical.
But blue states are hardly alone in what is becoming a nationwide epidemic. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana — which went for Trump by 15 percentage points in 2016 — has a death rate about equal to that of Manhattan. And as terrifying as the hospital situation is in New York City, hospital capacity is also under strain in states such as Michigan and Georgia.
Overall, although the number of detected cases is higher in blue states, the number is increasing at a more rapid rate in red states. Moreover, blue states have conducted more tests per capita than red states, so — given that the large majority of coronavirus cases remain undetected — the lower rate of cases in red states may partially be an artifact of less testing.
Here is the data as of late Thursday afternoon, with states sorted by the increase in confirmed COVID-19 cases between Monday (March 23) and Thursday (March 26). All data is taken from the invaluable COVID Tracking Project.
Detected COVID-19 cases are on the rise in red states Known COVID-19 cases as of March 23 and March 26, according to The COVID Tracking Project March 23 March 26 State Detected cases Per 10k pop. Detected cases Per 10k pop. Change 2016 winner Texas 352 0.12 1396 0.48 297% Trump West Virginia 16 0.09 51 0.28 219 Trump Massachusetts 777 1.12 2417 3.48 211 Clinton Oklahoma 81 0.2 248 0.63 206 Trump Alabama 167 0.34 506 1.03 203 Trump Missouri 183 0.3 502 0.82 174 Trump Alaska 22 0.3 59 0.81 168 Trump Pennsylvania 644 0.5 1687 1.32 162 Trump Idaho 47 0.26 123 0.69 162 Trump Indiana 259 0.38 645 0.96 149 Trump Connecticut 415 1.16 1012 2.84 144 Clinton New Jersey 2844 3.2 6876 7.74 142 Clinton Arizona 265 0.36 577 0.79 118 Trump Michigan 1328 1.33 2856 2.86 115 Trump North Carolina 297 0.28 636 0.61 114 Trump Vermont 75 1.2 158 2.53 111 Clinton Montana 34 0.32 71 0.66 109 Trump Kansas 82 0.28 168 0.58 105 Trump Wyoming 26 0.45 53 0.92 104 Trump Maryland 288 0.48 580 0.96 101 Clinton Florida 1171 0.55 2355 1.1 101 Trump District of Columbia 116 1.64 231 3.27 99 Clinton Georgia 772 0.73 1525 1.44 98 Trump Illinois 1285 1.01 2538 2 98 Clinton Louisiana 1172 2.52 2305 4.96 97 Trump Ohio 442 0.38 867 0.74 96 Trump Mississippi 249 0.84 485 1.63 95 Trump Arkansas 174 0.58 335 1.11 93 Trump Delaware 68 0.7 130 1.34 91 Clinton Kentucky 104 0.23 198 0.44 90 Trump Colorado 591 1.03 1086 1.89 84 Clinton Virginia 254 0.3 460 0.54 81 Clinton New York 20875 10.73 37258 19.15 78 Clinton New Hampshire 78 0.57 137 1.01 76 Clinton California 1733 0.44 3006 0.76 73 Clinton North Dakota 30 0.39 52 0.68 73 Trump New Mexico 65 0.31 112 0.53 72 Clinton Nevada 245 0.8 420 1.36 71 Clinton Oregon 191 0.45 327 0.78 71 Clinton Iowa 105 0.33 179 0.57 70 Trump Wisconsin 416 0.71 707 1.21 70 Trump Hawaii 56 0.4 95 0.67 70 Clinton South Dakota 28 0.32 46 0.52 64 Trump Utah 257 0.8 402 1.25 56 Trump Rhode Island 106 1 165 1.56 56 Clinton Tennessee 615 0.9 957 1.4 56 Trump South Carolina 299 0.58 456 0.89 53 Trump Minnesota 235 0.42 346 0.61 47 Clinton Nebraska 50 0.26 73 0.38 46 Trump Maine 107 0.8 155 1.15 45 Clinton Washington 1996 2.62 2580 3.39 29 Clinton Sources: The COVID Tracking Project, U.S. Census
Nine of the 10 states that have seen the most rapid increase in coronavirus from Monday to Thursday are states that voted for Trump in 2016, led by Texas, where the number of reported cases increased by 297 percent.
On average, states that voted for Trump saw a 119 percent increase in cases over this 3-day period, as compared to an 88 percent increase in states that voted for Hillary Clinton (plus the District of Columbia). Weighted by state populations, the difference is slightly larger: 141 percent in states Trump won and 88 percent in states Clinton won.
For now, states Clinton won do have considerably more total reported cases. As of Thursday, Clinton states had 4.29 positive tests per 10,000 people, as compared to 1.13 per 10,000 people in Trump states. A lot of that difference is attributable to New York; without New York, Clinton states have 1.89 cases per 10,000 people.
But the nature of exponential growth is such that these differences could evaporate in a hurry. If reported cases in Trump states continued to increase at 119 percent every three days (about 30 percent per day) while reported cases in Clinton states increased by 88 percent every three days (about 23 percent per day), then the per capita case count in Trump states would surpass that in Clinton states within about 30 days, or by late April.
Hopefully, the rate of increase will slow in both types of states as we begin to see further effects of social distancing measures in the data. However, these measures were generally enacted earlier and have been more forceful in blue states. That means the rate at which new cases are being diagnosed could slow down faster in blue states than in red states, meaning that red states would catch up earlier.
Blue states have also conducted more testing than red states. In states with reliable estimates of the number of positive and negative tests as of Thursday night, Clinton states had conducted 21.8 tests per 10,000 people as compared to 12.5 tests per 10,000 people in Trump states.
Blue states have done more COVID-19 testing Tests completed per capita as of March 26, in states with reliable reporting on the number of negative tests State Tests completed per 10k people* 2016 winner New York 62.8 Clinton Louisiana 38.8 Trump New Mexico 37.2 Clinton Massachusetts 34.0 Clinton Vermont 32.2 Clinton Maine 26.4 Clinton District of Columbia 26.3 Clinton Alaska 25.4 Trump Utah 24.0 Trump New Jersey 23.1 Clinton New Hampshire 23.1 Clinton Minnesota 23.0 Clinton South Dakota 22.8 Trump Tennessee 21.8 Trump Wisconsin 21.1 Trump Montana 20.6 Trump Connecticut 18.6 Clinton Oregon 17.3 Clinton Nevada 16.6 Clinton Ohio 14.8 Trump Rhode Island 14.2 Clinton Pennsylvania 14.2 Trump Illinois 13.1 Clinton Idaho 12.2 Trump Florida 12.2 Trump Kansas 10.4 Trump Michigan 9.4 Trump Nebraska 8.6 Trump Georgia 8.4 Trump Alabama 8.4 Trump Texas 7.4 Trump Kentucky 7.4 Trump Virginia 7.3 Clinton Arkansas 6.1 Trump West Virginia 6.0 Trump California 5.2 Clinton Oklahoma 3.0 Trump * Excluding tests that are listed as pending. Sources: The COVID Tracking Project, U.S. Census
That means the true gap in the number of cases may not be as large as the roughly fourfold difference in reported cases between blue states and red states right now. States such as Louisiana have discovered they have far more cases than they originally realized as they’ve ramped up testing over the past week, and other red states (and blue states) could follow.
COVID-19 has also led to a slightly higher case fatality rate (the number of deaths as a share of the number of known cases) in red states so far. As of Thursday evening, the death rate per case was 1.7 percent in Trump states as compared to 1.3 percent in Clinton states. This could reflect a variety of factors, including potential underreporting of cases in Trump states, the age and health of the populations in each set of states, or the efficacy of responses by local health care systems.
However, the higher fatality rate it is a somewhat troubling sign for red states given that many of them are generally at an earlier point in their epidemic curves, meaning that many people who have acquired COVID-19 in those states have done so recently and have not yet developed the most serious symptoms that could lead to long-term hospitalization or death.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-27--Trump Fully Invoking The Defense Production Act Would Help, But It Won’t Fix Everything

The U.S. doesn ’ t have what it needs to fight the novel coronavirus .
N95 respirator masks are emergency room workers ’ ideal line of defense against the small particles of spittle that can transmit COVID-19 .
It ’ s a banal-looking medical product — like a baseball straining under a small tarp of synthetic cloth — but its mundanity doesn ’ t make it easy to find .
A recent NBC News survey of health care workers reported widespread rationing of N95 masks in hospitals .
The country also doesn ’ t have enough ventilators — machines that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those will be a matter of life and death in the coming days .
There are around 160,000 ventilators in U.S. hospitals and only 16,600 ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile , according to a recent report from the Center for Public Integrity .
New York state alone is requesting an additional 30,000 .
While it ’ s unclear how many ventilators the country might need in the coming weeks and months , one estimate from a 2005 Department of Health and Human Services pandemic simulation put the number at 742,500 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public officials to ask President Trump to make full use of a little-known-until-a-week-ago law , the Defense Production Act .
So far Trump has been reluctant to fully deploy it , to the consternation of many ( including those in his own party ) .
White House statements on the use of the DPA have been muddled , suggesting a deeper bureaucratic confusion about how to even implement the act .
But even with the law ’ s powers in full use , the pandemic has revealed America ’ s precarious place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than an industrial fortress ready for a fight on its own shores .
Passed in 1950 in response to the Korean War , the DPA allows the government to jump the supply chain line for needed goods in the midst of emergencies — it was invoked in 2017 to procure supplies for hurricane victims , for example — and authorizes it to incentivize the production of needed supplies .
Trump ’ s stance on deploying the DPA fully has been hazy , and his statements about the gravity of the supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening appearance on Fox News , he cast doubt on New York ’ s need for 30,000 ventilators .
On March 18 , he said that he would be “ invoking the Defense Production Act just in case we need it.
” The administration has said it would use some powers in the act , like the one that goes after hoarding and price-gouging of emergency supplies and one that requires companies to prioritize government contracts and allows the federal government to allocate emergency resources ( it ’ s not clear how efficiently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
But groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have reportedly lobbied the Trump administration against using the law to its full effect .
The past week has seen Democratic lawmakers and former national security officials pillorying Trump for what they see as inadequate use of the law .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo said on Tuesday , “ I do not understand the reluctance to use the federal Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators .
If not now , when ?
” The short answer is that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar with the workings of the DPA are quick to note its implementation is not a panacea .
Dave Kaufman was in charge of DPA authorities in his role at FEMA during the Obama administration .
He told me that there seems to be a fundamental public misunderstanding of what the law can do .
“ It ’ s being talked about in the media as restructuring the economy a la WWII .
It ’ s not actually really that — it ’ s a powerful authority , don ’ t get me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationalization of industry , which is kind of the way we ’ re talking about it.
” Industrial leaders like General Motors Co. reportedly balked at the idea of the White House invoking the DPA .
The kind of DPA powers that Cuomo and the media have largely been talking about are the ones vested in Article III of the act .
That portion of the law is meant to “ create , maintain , protect , expand , or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense.
” To go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide loans and loan guarantees to stimulate domestic production of needed goods , to make agreements to purchase products on a long term basis in order to encourage the production of needed goods and “ to procure and install equipment in private industrial facilities , ” in the words of a Congressional Research Service analysis of the DPA .
Kaufman said that invocation of the DPA isn ’ t always needed to get a job done .
“ You could also just make a commitment to a multi-year procurement and send the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development of supply , ” he said .
Ford , 3M and GE Healthcare pledged this week to jump-start production of ventilators and masks , though they didn ’ t give a timeline for the needed scale-up of production — it would likely be months .
( On Friday morning , Trump tweeted that “ General Motors MUST immediately open their stupidly abandoned Lordstown plant in Ohio , or some other plant , and START MAKING VENTILATORS , NOW !
!
!
!
!
!
” As Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan quickly pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plant . )
But with N95 masks and ventilators , many of which are made overseas , things are tricky .
“ DPA authority is great to talk about , but if the commodities don ’ t exist here in the scale and quantity needed for demand , claiming the first off the line for what does exist is not really solving the problem , ” Kaufman said , referring to the DPA power that allows the government to jump the supply chain .
China is a major producer of N95 masks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency supplies manufactured there , much like the rest of the world .
It ’ s a stark reminder that despite Trump ’ s trade wars and inflammatory rhetoric , China remains a manufacturing behemoth .
Well before the coronavirus pandemic began , the U.S. ’ s reliance on China for key goods dismayed government officials .
A September 2019 NBC News report detailed the alarm of national security officials over how dependent the U.S. is on Chinese-manufactured pharmaceutical products .
A Council of Foreign Relations analysis from December 2019 noted the rapid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector , aided by its government ’ s protectionist policies .
There is some production of the needed emergency products in the United States .
3M is a major producer of respirator masks : A spokesperson said in an email that it makes them in two locations in the U.S. , South Dakota and Nebraska .
A March 22 statement from 3M ’ s CEO noted that the company produces 35 million respirators per month and that “ more than 500,000 respirators are on the way from our South Dakota plant to two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York and Seattle.
” At the time of publication , it was unclear how the masks would be apportioned to each region .
Governors have asked the federal government to take control of the allocation of ventilators and masks by using the DPA .
Under Title I of the law — which technically , the Trump administration has said it has put into effect — the federal government can take charge of the allocation of emergency supplies .
It ’ s not clear how well it ’ s doing that or communicating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dakota Gov .
Kristi Noem , the chief executive of the state that produces so many N95 masks , expressed frustration during a call with Trump last week .
“ I need to understand how you ’ re triaging supplies , ” she said , with other governors on the line .
“ I don ’ t want to be less of a priority because we ’ re a smaller state or less populated , ” she said .
According to The New York Times , Trump assured her that would “ never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted , “ Ms .
Noem ’ s telephone line was disconnected.
” Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker was referring to similar allocation concerns when he said that his state was “ competing ” with other states and federal agencies on the open market for emergency medical supplies .
Confusion over how or whether the Trump administration is using the DPA has grown over the last few days , a worrisome sign given the bureaucratic organization needed to oversee so many moving parts of government and industry that should ostensibly be working together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week that the production of 60,000 testing kits had been expedited under the auspices of the act , but FEMA later said that in the end , it hadn ’ t needed to invoke the DPA .
In an email to FiveThirtyEight over the weekend , a FEMA spokesperson wrote that it was “ actively engaged with private industry partners through the National Business Emergency Operations Center .
One outcome from this engagement is the stand-up of a cell that is coordinating needs and sourcing re-supply for the community-based testing sites.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it became clear that FEMA ’ s newly established Supply Chain Stabilization Task Force , headed by Rear Adm. John Polowczyk , was the agency ’ s attempt at centralizing interactions with private industry .
If a recent Democratic proposal from the Senate is any indication , there is a worry about the administration ’ s ability to marshal and organize critical information from private companies in the time of crisis .
The proposal calls for basic information-gathering provisions , like an assessment of the country ’ s emergency medical protective gear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and companies , and a hotline for companies to call for information .
Banal bureaucratic organization problems seem , for now , to be blunting the collective power of American capitalism in a time of crisis .

The U.S. doesn’t have what it needs to fight the novel coronavirus. N95 respirator masks are emergency room workers’ ideal line of defense against the small particles of spittle that can transmit COVID-19. It’s a banal-looking medical product — like a baseball straining under a small tarp of synthetic cloth — but its mundanity doesn’t make it easy to find. A recent NBC News survey of health care workers reported widespread rationing of N95 masks in hospitals. The country also doesn’t have enough ventilators — machines that assist breathing — and the need for those will be a matter of life and death in the coming days. There are around 160,000 ventilators in U.S. hospitals and only 16,600 ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile, according to a recent report from the Center for Public Integrity. New York state alone is requesting an additional 30,000. While it’s unclear how many ventilators the country might need in the coming weeks and months, one estimate from a 2005 Department of Health and Human Services pandemic simulation put the number at 742,500.
The shortage of critical supplies has led many public officials to ask President Trump to make full use of a little-known-until-a-week-ago law, the Defense Production Act. So far Trump has been reluctant to fully deploy it, to the consternation of many (including those in his own party). White House statements on the use of the DPA have been muddled, suggesting a deeper bureaucratic confusion about how to even implement the act. But even with the law’s powers in full use, the pandemic has revealed America’s precarious place in the global marketplace as just another buyer, rather than an industrial fortress ready for a fight on its own shores.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: COVID-19 broke the jobless claims chart
Passed in 1950 in response to the Korean War, the DPA allows the government to jump the supply chain line for needed goods in the midst of emergencies — it was invoked in 2017 to procure supplies for hurricane victims, for example — and authorizes it to incentivize the production of needed supplies.
Trump’s stance on deploying the DPA fully has been hazy, and his statements about the gravity of the supply shortage has varied — during a Thursday evening appearance on Fox News, he cast doubt on New York’s need for 30,000 ventilators. On March 18, he said that he would be “invoking the Defense Production Act just in case we need it.” The administration has said it would use some powers in the act, like the one that goes after hoarding and price-gouging of emergency supplies and one that requires companies to prioritize government contracts and allows the federal government to allocate emergency resources (it’s not clear how efficiently that’s actually being done yet). But groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have reportedly lobbied the Trump administration against using the law to its full effect. The past week has seen Democratic lawmakers and former national security officials pillorying Trump for what they see as inadequate use of the law. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said on Tuesday, “I do not understand the reluctance to use the federal Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators. If not now, when?”
The short answer is that’s not quite how the law works.
Those familiar with the workings of the DPA are quick to note its implementation is not a panacea. Dave Kaufman was in charge of DPA authorities in his role at FEMA during the Obama administration. He told me that there seems to be a fundamental public misunderstanding of what the law can do. “It’s being talked about in the media as restructuring the economy a la WWII. It’s not actually really that — it’s a powerful authority, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not nationalization of industry, which is kind of the way we’re talking about it.” Industrial leaders like General Motors Co. reportedly balked at the idea of the White House invoking the DPA.
The kind of DPA powers that Cuomo and the media have largely been talking about are the ones vested in Article III of the act. That portion of the law is meant to “create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense.” To go about that, the government is authorized to provide loans and loan guarantees to stimulate domestic production of needed goods, to make agreements to purchase products on a long term basis in order to encourage the production of needed goods and “to procure and install equipment in private industrial facilities,” in the words of a Congressional Research Service analysis of the DPA.
Kaufman said that invocation of the DPA isn’t always needed to get a job done. “You could also just make a commitment to a multi-year procurement and send the pricing signal to the market to stimulate development of supply,” he said. Ford, 3M and GE Healthcare pledged this week to jump-start production of ventilators and masks, though they didn’t give a timeline for the needed scale-up of production — it would likely be months. (On Friday morning, Trump tweeted that “General Motors MUST immediately open their stupidly abandoned Lordstown plant in Ohio, or some other plant, and START MAKING VENTILATORS, NOW!!!!!!” As Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan quickly pointed out, GM no longer owns the plant.)
But with N95 masks and ventilators, many of which are made overseas, things are tricky. “DPA authority is great to talk about, but if the commodities don’t exist here in the scale and quantity needed for demand, claiming the first off the line for what does exist is not really solving the problem,” Kaufman said, referring to the DPA power that allows the government to jump the supply chain.
China is a major producer of N95 masks and ventilators and the U.S. is competing for emergency supplies manufactured there, much like the rest of the world. It’s a stark reminder that despite Trump’s trade wars and inflammatory rhetoric, China remains a manufacturing behemoth. Well before the coronavirus pandemic began, the U.S.’s reliance on China for key goods dismayed government officials. A September 2019 NBC News report detailed the alarm of national security officials over how dependent the U.S. is on Chinese-manufactured pharmaceutical products. A Council of Foreign Relations analysis from December 2019 noted the rapid growth of the Chinese medical device manufacturing sector, aided by its government’s protectionist policies.
There is some production of the needed emergency products in the United States. 3M is a major producer of respirator masks: A spokesperson said in an email that it makes them in two locations in the U.S., South Dakota and Nebraska. A March 22 statement from 3M’s CEO noted that the company produces 35 million respirators per month and that “more than 500,000 respirators are on the way from our South Dakota plant to two of the more critically impacted areas, New York and Seattle.” At the time of publication, it was unclear how the masks would be apportioned to each region.
Governors have asked the federal government to take control of the allocation of ventilators and masks by using the DPA. Under Title I of the law — which technically, the Trump administration has said it has put into effect — the federal government can take charge of the allocation of emergency supplies. It’s not clear how well it’s doing that or communicating its plans to the states. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, the chief executive of the state that produces so many N95 masks, expressed frustration during a call with Trump last week. “I need to understand how you’re triaging supplies,” she said, with other governors on the line. “I don’t want to be less of a priority because we’re a smaller state or less populated,” she said. According to The New York Times, Trump assured her that would “never” happen. Subsequently, the report noted, “Ms. Noem’s telephone line was disconnected.” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker was referring to similar allocation concerns when he said that his state was “competing” with other states and federal agencies on the open market for emergency medical supplies.
Confusion over how or whether the Trump administration is using the DPA has grown over the last few days, a worrisome sign given the bureaucratic organization needed to oversee so many moving parts of government and industry that should ostensibly be working together. News came from the White House this week that the production of 60,000 testing kits had been expedited under the auspices of the act, but FEMA later said that in the end, it hadn’t needed to invoke the DPA. In an email to FiveThirtyEight over the weekend, a FEMA spokesperson wrote that it was “actively engaged with private industry partners through the National Business Emergency Operations Center. One outcome from this engagement is the stand-up of a cell that is coordinating needs and sourcing re-supply for the community-based testing sites.” Over the course of the week, it became clear that FEMA’s newly established Supply Chain Stabilization Task Force, headed by Rear Adm. John Polowczyk, was the agency’s attempt at centralizing interactions with private industry.
If a recent Democratic proposal from the Senate is any indication, there is a worry about the administration’s ability to marshal and organize critical information from private companies in the time of crisis. The proposal calls for basic information-gathering provisions, like an assessment of the country’s emergency medical protective gear, a point person to communicate with states and companies, and a hotline for companies to call for information.
Banal bureaucratic organization problems seem, for now, to be blunting the collective power of American capitalism in a time of crisis.