fivethirtyeight--2020-05-08--Americans Didn’t Wait For Their Governors To Tell Them To Stay Home Because Of COVID-19

A favorite new debate taking place around the Twitter hearth is whether complying with social distancing guidelines is a partisan statement in and of itself .
Blue states , such as Washington and New York , were initially hit hardest by the COVID-19 crisis , and stay-at-home orders went into effect as early as March 19 ( California was first out of the gate ) .
A number of red states have refrained from implementing such public-safety orders , and many Republican-leaning states , particularly in the South , didn ’ t issue orders for weeks afterward — as late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis waffled over closing the state but eventually did so under pressure from state lawmakers .
But , at least on the front end of this crisis , Americans weren ’ t deciding what to do based on politics .
Americans living in red states appear to have taken the crisis plenty seriously ; data shows that residents there were staying home well before their governors issued stay-at-home orders .
Cuebiq , a private data company , assessed the movement of people via GPS-enabled mobile devices across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data in a cross-section of states President Trump won in the southeast in 2016 — Tennessee , Georgia , Louisiana , North Carolina , South Carolina and Kentucky — 23 percent of people were staying home on average during the first week of March .
That proportion jumped to 47 percent a month later across these six states .
If defying social distancing orders were really a political statement , you ’ d think that the southeast would be a hotbed for dissent .
Yet people in the six states we examined changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states ’ official stay-at-home orders .
In fact , about 90 percent of the total change between early March and mid-April had occurred in the week before the stay-at-home orders were passed in each state .
That ’ s more or less in line with the country at large , as you can see in the chart below .
Almost uniformly across these states , people started staying home beginning on March 14 .
The percentage of people staying home rose rapidly over the following nine days and tended to plateau by March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavioral changes were largely driven by people making a voluntary choice to stay home rather than being forced to do so by a state-sanctioned stay-at-home order .
One need only look at the behavior of residents in North Carolina and their neighbors in South Carolina : While North Carolina issued a stay-at-home order eight days before South Carolina , a stabilized number of people in both states started staying at home about a week before North Carolina ’ s order .
Why did people begin to stay at home so early ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had begun to permeate the national and international conversation .
On March 9 , the Dow dropped to its lowest point since the 2008 financial crisis .
Earlier that same day , Italy announced a nationwide lockdown .
On March 11 , the NBA announced that it would suspend its season indefinitely , a sign to many Americans that the pandemic would indeed change all facets of life , and on March 12 , the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic .
Some of the earliest official actions in the U.S. occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , when Gov .
Jay Inslee announced on March 11 a ban in three counties on gatherings of more than 250 people and public schools in Seattle also announced they would close .
Many other U.S. cities closed schools , restaurants and bars in rapid succession around March 16 .
This sort of mass behavioral change in such a short time is significant .
It took over 50 years and hundreds of billions of dollars in prevention efforts to lower the percentage of people who smoke in the U.S. from 42 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Americans reacted to the threat of COVID-19 in a relative blink of an eye .
The question that now looms , of course , is whether Americans ’ individual behavioral changes will last as the pandemic wears on and the summer sun beckons .
We ’ ll be watching movement data to get a sense of how quickly we will return to normal — or at least how quickly we establish a new normal .

A favorite new debate taking place around the Twitter hearth is whether complying with social distancing guidelines is a partisan statement in and of itself. Blue states, such as Washington and New York, were initially hit hardest by the COVID-19 crisis, and stay-at-home orders went into effect as early as March 19 (California was first out of the gate). A number of red states have refrained from implementing such public-safety orders, and many Republican-leaning states, particularly in the South, didn’t issue orders for weeks afterward — as late as April 3 in Florida and Georgia. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis waffled over closing the state but eventually did so under pressure from state lawmakers.
But, at least on the front end of this crisis, Americans weren’t deciding what to do based on politics. Americans living in red states appear to have taken the crisis plenty seriously; data shows that residents there were staying home well before their governors issued stay-at-home orders.
Cuebiq, a private data company, assessed the movement of people via GPS-enabled mobile devices across the U.S. If you look at movement data in a cross-section of states President Trump won in the southeast in 2016 — Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Kentucky — 23 percent of people were staying home on average during the first week of March. That proportion jumped to 47 percent a month later across these six states.
If defying social distancing orders were really a political statement, you’d think that the southeast would be a hotbed for dissent. Yet people in the six states we examined changed their behavior around mid-March, before the states’ official stay-at-home orders. In fact, about 90 percent of the total change between early March and mid-April had occurred in the week before the stay-at-home orders were passed in each state.
That’s more or less in line with the country at large, as you can see in the chart below.
Almost uniformly across these states, people started staying home beginning on March 14. The percentage of people staying home rose rapidly over the following nine days and tended to plateau by March 23.
The Cuebiq data suggests that behavioral changes were largely driven by people making a voluntary choice to stay home rather than being forced to do so by a state-sanctioned stay-at-home order. One need only look at the behavior of residents in North Carolina and their neighbors in South Carolina: While North Carolina issued a stay-at-home order eight days before South Carolina, a stabilized number of people in both states started staying at home about a week before North Carolina’s order.
Why did people begin to stay at home so early? In mid-March, the seriousness of the virus had begun to permeate the national and international conversation. On March 9, the Dow dropped to its lowest point since the 2008 financial crisis. Earlier that same day, Italy announced a nationwide lockdown. On March 11, the NBA announced that it would suspend its season indefinitely, a sign to many Americans that the pandemic would indeed change all facets of life, and on March 12, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. Some of the earliest official actions in the U.S. occurred around that time in the state of Washington, when Gov. Jay Inslee announced on March 11 a ban in three counties on gatherings of more than 250 people and public schools in Seattle also announced they would close. Many other U.S. cities closed schools, restaurants and bars in rapid succession around March 16.
This sort of mass behavioral change in such a short time is significant. It took over 50 years and hundreds of billions of dollars in prevention efforts to lower the percentage of people who smoke in the U.S. from 42 percent in 1965 to 13 percent in 2018. Americans reacted to the threat of COVID-19 in a relative blink of an eye.
The question that now looms, of course, is whether Americans’ individual behavioral changes will last as the pandemic wears on and the summer sun beckons. We’ll be watching movement data to get a sense of how quickly we will return to normal — or at least how quickly we establish a new normal.
Why does COVID-19 make some people sicker than others? l FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-11--Will The Supreme Court Finally Force Trump’s Tax Returns To Be Released?

Remember President Trump ’ s tax returns ?
It seems like a relic from the distant past , but only last December , the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a trio of cases on whether the president could block his accounting firm and two of his banks from turning over eight years of tax returns and other financial records to Democratic-led House committees and New York City prosecutors .
Trump ’ s lawyers have offered an extraordinarily expansive vision of his power as president , arguing that as chief executive he is immune from criminal investigations and congressional subpoenas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard in late March but were delayed over a month due to the COVID-19 crisis .
Now , on Tuesday morning , the justices will finally hear arguments in one of the most momentous disputes over congressional power and presidential immunity in recent memory .
The timing could be bad for Trump , as the accounting firm and banks have already indicated that if the Supreme Court deems the requests for his records valid , they would turn over the documents .
That would give Trump ’ s political opponents a new source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes and spends his money right before the 2020 presidential election .
On the other hand , a ruling in Trump ’ s favor could ensure that his financial documents remain hidden for the foreseeable future .
But the outcome might not be that simple .
A few weeks ago , the justices asked both sides to weigh in on whether the dispute between Trump and House Democrats is fundamentally political and , therefore , beyond the reach of the courts .
A ruling that the courts are powerless to resolve this fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since he wouldn ’ t have any power to stop his accounting firm or banks from handing over his records .
But it ’ s not clear exactly what would happen if the Supreme Court stepped aside — and losing the courts as a referee in fights over subpoenas could also be a longer-term victory for the presidency , as Congress could lose its ability to make high-level executive branch officials actually comply with their subpoenas for documents or testimony .
“ If Congress isn ’ t allowed to use the courts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see even more brinksmanship on both sides , ” said Steve Vladeck , a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law .
“ It would remove any incentive for cooperation or accommodation .
And it would be a stunning , stunning blow to Congress ’ s oversight power over the executive branch.
” At the heart of these cases is a question that ’ s come up again and again during Trump ’ s presidency : Is the president really protected from legal and congressional scrutiny ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ though investigators aren ’ t asking him for the records personally — House Democrats subpoenaed Trump ’ s financial documents from his banks and accounting firm , and New York City prosecutors subpoenaed his tax returns as part of a broader criminal investigation into Trump ’ s businesses — the prosecutors ’ subpoenas are still invalid because while Trump is in the White House , he is immune from criminal investigations .
And they ’ ve also contended that the requests for his financial documents are outside of Congress ’ s legislative purview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three trial court judges and three federal appeals court panels have all rejected those arguments , ruling that the banks and Trump ’ s accounting firm do in fact have to comply with the subpoenas .
In the case involving the New York City prosecutors , a district court judge wrote that the idea that a president couldn ’ t be touched by a criminal investigation was “ repugnant to the nation ’ s governmental structure and constitutional values.
” Two appeals courts , meanwhile , ruled that the subpoenas did fall squarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are ways , however , for the justices to rule in Trump ’ s favor without endorsing his lawyers ’ argument that the president can ’ t be investigated by law enforcement or Congress .
One potential roadmap is in a dissent written by an appeals court judge , who said Congress could investigate potential wrongdoing by the president only as part of an impeachment investigation , not as routine oversight .
Any ruling that a congressional subpoena was invalid would still constitute a fairly clear win for Trump , though .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court is considering a handful of other cases with significant political implications , the justices may be looking for an outcome that doesn ’ t notch an obvious victory for either side .
Concluding that the dispute is a political fight that ’ s simply out of their hands — which is what the court did last year in a case involving partisan gerrymandering — could be attractive , according to Vladeck and others .
That ’ s in part because it ’ s genuinely unclear what the short-term impact would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way , the fateful decision whether to release Trump ’ s tax returns to the House committees would be left up to his banks and accounting firm .
But how they would proceed in the absence of a court order is an open question .
“ At that point , it ’ s all about whether the banks and the accounting firm are inclined to comply , ” said Michael Dorf , a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School .
“ If they are , Trump doesn ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re not , Congress doesn ’ t have a lot of other options to force them to comply.
” In theory , Congress would still have one card to play : It could exercise its “ inherent contempt ” power , which involves physically detaining anyone who ignores its subpoenas .
But that power hasn ’ t been exercised since the 1930s , and House Democrats haven ’ t used it so far on other noncompliant witnesses in the Trump administration , signaling that they ’ d be unlikely to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving Congress with functionally no power to enforce its subpoenas .
The stakes are high in the short term for Trump , but they ’ re arguably even higher for Congress .
The New York City prosecutors might also lose , but Vladeck said he saw fewer long-term implications for that case .
“ The [ New York ] case is basically a Trump special that is unlikely to repeat for future presidents who don ’ t have the same kind of ongoing business interests , ” he said .
But a ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disputes over congressional subpoenas involving the president would reverberate far beyond Trump ’ s presidency .
“ It ’ s hard to imagine how they could write that opinion in a way that wouldn ’ t have major , major implications for other congressional subpoenas when Trump and his tax returns are far in the rearview mirror , ” said Tara Leigh Grove , a professor at William & Mary Law School who has written about the history of the political question doctrine .
“ The ruling in this case could significantly diminish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents .
”

Remember President Trump’s tax returns? It seems like a relic from the distant past, but only last December, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a trio of cases on whether the president could block his accounting firm and two of his banks from turning over eight years of tax returns and other financial records to Democratic-led House committees and New York City prosecutors. Trump’s lawyers have offered an extraordinarily expansive vision of his power as president, arguing that as chief executive he is immune from criminal investigations and congressional subpoenas. The cases were supposed to be heard in late March but were delayed over a month due to the COVID-19 crisis. Now, on Tuesday morning, the justices will finally hear arguments in one of the most momentous disputes over congressional power and presidential immunity in recent memory.
The timing could be bad for Trump, as the accounting firm and banks have already indicated that if the Supreme Court deems the requests for his records valid, they would turn over the documents. That would give Trump’s political opponents a new source to mine for information on how he makes and spends his money right before the 2020 presidential election. On the other hand, a ruling in Trump’s favor could ensure that his financial documents remain hidden for the foreseeable future.
But the outcome might not be that simple. A few weeks ago, the justices asked both sides to weigh in on whether the dispute between Trump and House Democrats is fundamentally political and, therefore, beyond the reach of the courts. A ruling that the courts are powerless to resolve this fight could translate into a loss for Trump since he wouldn’t have any power to stop his accounting firm or banks from handing over his records. But it’s not clear exactly what would happen if the Supreme Court stepped aside — and losing the courts as a referee in fights over subpoenas could also be a longer-term victory for the presidency, as Congress could lose its ability to make high-level executive branch officials actually comply with their subpoenas for documents or testimony.
“If Congress isn’t allowed to use the courts to resolve these disputes, we’d see even more brinksmanship on both sides,” said Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. “It would remove any incentive for cooperation or accommodation. And it would be a stunning, stunning blow to Congress’s oversight power over the executive branch.”
At the heart of these cases is a question that’s come up again and again during Trump’s presidency: Is the president really protected from legal and congressional scrutiny?
Trump’s lawyers argue that even though investigators aren’t asking him for the records personally — House Democrats subpoenaed Trump’s financial documents from his banks and accounting firm, and New York City prosecutors subpoenaed his tax returns as part of a broader criminal investigation into Trump’s businesses — the prosecutors’ subpoenas are still invalid because while Trump is in the White House, he is immune from criminal investigations. And they’ve also contended that the requests for his financial documents are outside of Congress’s legislative purview.
At this point, though, three trial court judges and three federal appeals court panels have all rejected those arguments, ruling that the banks and Trump’s accounting firm do in fact have to comply with the subpoenas. In the case involving the New York City prosecutors, a district court judge wrote that the idea that a president couldn’t be touched by a criminal investigation was “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” Two appeals courts, meanwhile, ruled that the subpoenas did fall squarely under Congress’s oversight authority.
There are ways, however, for the justices to rule in Trump’s favor without endorsing his lawyers’ argument that the president can’t be investigated by law enforcement or Congress. One potential roadmap is in a dissent written by an appeals court judge, who said Congress could investigate potential wrongdoing by the president only as part of an impeachment investigation, not as routine oversight.
Any ruling that a congressional subpoena was invalid would still constitute a fairly clear win for Trump, though. And in a term in which the Supreme Court is considering a handful of other cases with significant political implications, the justices may be looking for an outcome that doesn’t notch an obvious victory for either side. Concluding that the dispute is a political fight that’s simply out of their hands — which is what the court did last year in a case involving partisan gerrymandering — could be attractive, according to Vladeck and others. That’s in part because it’s genuinely unclear what the short-term impact would be.
If the courts step out of the way, the fateful decision whether to release Trump’s tax returns to the House committees would be left up to his banks and accounting firm. But how they would proceed in the absence of a court order is an open question. “At that point, it’s all about whether the banks and the accounting firm are inclined to comply,” said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School. “If they are, Trump doesn’t have a way to stop them. But if they’re not, Congress doesn’t have a lot of other options to force them to comply.”
In theory, Congress would still have one card to play: It could exercise its “inherent contempt” power, which involves physically detaining anyone who ignores its subpoenas. But that power hasn’t been exercised since the 1930s, and House Democrats haven’t used it so far on other noncompliant witnesses in the Trump administration, signaling that they’d be unlikely to use it in this case, too — leaving Congress with functionally no power to enforce its subpoenas.
The stakes are high in the short term for Trump, but they’re arguably even higher for Congress. The New York City prosecutors might also lose, but Vladeck said he saw fewer long-term implications for that case. “The [New York] case is basically a Trump special that is unlikely to repeat for future presidents who don’t have the same kind of ongoing business interests,” he said. But a ruling that the courts can’t arbitrate disputes over congressional subpoenas involving the president would reverberate far beyond Trump’s presidency.
“It’s hard to imagine how they could write that opinion in a way that wouldn’t have major, major implications for other congressional subpoenas when Trump and his tax returns are far in the rearview mirror,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a professor at William & Mary Law School who has written about the history of the political question doctrine. “The ruling in this case could significantly diminish Congress’s oversight power over future presidents.”
Why switching to vote-by-mail is tougher than it seems | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-11--Democrats Lead The Race For Congress — But The National Environment Will Probably Change

The 2020 electoral environment currently looks pretty good for Democrats .
As of Sunday evening , Democrats lead Republicans by roughly 8 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight ’ s generic ballot tracker , just a point less than their lead on Election Day 2018 .
We know that early generic ballot polling has predictive value in both midterm and presidential cycles .
These surveys , which ask voters which party they plan to support in the next congressional election , correctly foreshadowed big Democratic gains in the 2018 midterm elections as early as June 2017 .
They also have trended close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
But how confident should Democrats be that this lead will hold ?
We took a look at the movement in generic ballot polling in presidential cycles from 1996 to 2016 .
In the last six months of a cycle , the polls often shifted by meaningful amounts : There was , on average , a 4-point range between the largest and smallest generic ballot margins .
Four points may not sound like a lot , but that sort of shift in voter preferences could make or break the election for candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine control of the House .
What ’ s more , there appears to be a tendency for the margin to narrow by Election Day , so Democrats should probably expect their lead to shrink in the coming months .
In four of the six cycles we analyzed , the difference between the two parties shrank from 6 months out to 10 days before the election .
Only in 2000 and 2012 was there little change in the overall electoral environment .
Of course , there ’ s no guarantee the generic ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s still worth thinking about how a change in the national environment could make the 2020 House race more of a toss-up .
Take 2016 : Republicans went from trailing by 6 points in the generic ballot four months before the election to trailing by just 1 point in the final 10 days .
Notably , they ended up narrowly winning the House popular vote , too — 48 percent to 47 percent .
This speaks to the consequential shifts generic ballot polls can experience between now and November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats up by about 8 points .
If that were to dwindle to a little less than 4 points by November , that might still be a sufficient lead for Democrats to retain control of the House .
But it could also give Republicans a better shot at winning some Democratic-held House seats that don ’ t look especially vulnerable right now .
There are some sizable GOP pickup opportunities , as Democrats are defending 30 districts that President Trump carried in 2016 ( Republicans just need to win 18 seats to retake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the generic ballot also says something about the overall electoral environment , a narrow Democratic lead could signal that Trump has a better chance of winning reelection .
In 2016 , Trump lost the national popular vote by 2.1 points to Hillary Clinton , but he won in the Electoral College because he performed better in key swing states like Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
In fact , Wisconsin was the tipping-point state in 2016 and Trump won it by 0.8 points , meaning that the decisive contest in the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country as a whole .
So if Trump once again has an advantage in the Electoral College , a smaller Democratic lead in the generic ballot could point to a more competitive presidential election .
The generic ballot average has been relatively stable in 2020 , but recent history suggests it could still move and make for a competitive battle for control of the House as well as the White House .
In other words , Democrats still have reasons to be optimistic about November , but a small swing in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats maintaining their House majority and Republicans capturing one .

The 2020 electoral environment currently looks pretty good for Democrats.
As of Sunday evening, Democrats lead Republicans by roughly 8 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s generic ballot tracker, just a point less than their lead on Election Day 2018.
We know that early generic ballot polling has predictive value in both midterm and presidential cycles. These surveys, which ask voters which party they plan to support in the next congressional election, correctly foreshadowed big Democratic gains in the 2018 midterm elections as early as June 2017. They also have trended close to the final national popular vote for president.
But how confident should Democrats be that this lead will hold? We took a look at the movement in generic ballot polling in presidential cycles from 1996 to 2016. In the last six months of a cycle, the polls often shifted by meaningful amounts: There was, on average, a 4-point range between the largest and smallest generic ballot margins.
The generic ballot can still shift before Election Day The average generic-ballot polling margin at different points in the last six months of a presidential election cycle, since 1996 Time until election day Cycle Six Months Four Months Two Months 10 days margin range 1996 D+8 D+6 D+4 D+4 4pt 2000 D+2 D+3 D+2 D+3 1 2004 D+7 D+6 D+1 EVEN 7 2008 D+12 D+11 D+7 D+9 4 2012 EVEN EVEN D+3 EVEN 3 2016 D+5 D+6 D+2 D+1 5 For the average margin at six, four, and two months from Election Day, we included all polls fielded around the relevant time point (180 days out, 120 days out, 60 days out). We also calculated an average for each pollster in a given period so a pollster wasn’t overrepresented, then averaged those averages. Figures are rounded. Source: Polls
Four points may not sound like a lot, but that sort of shift in voter preferences could make or break the election for candidates in the closely fought seats that will determine control of the House. What’s more, there appears to be a tendency for the margin to narrow by Election Day, so Democrats should probably expect their lead to shrink in the coming months. In four of the six cycles we analyzed, the difference between the two parties shrank from 6 months out to 10 days before the election. Only in 2000 and 2012 was there little change in the overall electoral environment.
Of course, there’s no guarantee the generic ballot will move much this time around, but it’s still worth thinking about how a change in the national environment could make the 2020 House race more of a toss-up. Take 2016: Republicans went from trailing by 6 points in the generic ballot four months before the election to trailing by just 1 point in the final 10 days. Notably, they ended up narrowly winning the House popular vote, too — 48 percent to 47 percent. This speaks to the consequential shifts generic ballot polls can experience between now and November.
Currently, FiveThirtyEight’s tracker puts Democrats up by about 8 points. If that were to dwindle to a little less than 4 points by November, that might still be a sufficient lead for Democrats to retain control of the House. But it could also give Republicans a better shot at winning some Democratic-held House seats that don’t look especially vulnerable right now. There are some sizable GOP pickup opportunities, as Democrats are defending 30 districts that President Trump carried in 2016 (Republicans just need to win 18 seats to retake the House).
Moreover, because the generic ballot also says something about the overall electoral environment, a narrow Democratic lead could signal that Trump has a better chance of winning reelection. In 2016, Trump lost the national popular vote by 2.1 points to Hillary Clinton, but he won in the Electoral College because he performed better in key swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In fact, Wisconsin was the tipping-point state in 2016 and Trump won it by 0.8 points, meaning that the decisive contest in the Electoral College was about 3 points more Republican than the country as a whole. So if Trump once again has an advantage in the Electoral College, a smaller Democratic lead in the generic ballot could point to a more competitive presidential election.
The generic ballot average has been relatively stable in 2020, but recent history suggests it could still move and make for a competitive battle for control of the House as well as the White House. In other words, Democrats still have reasons to be optimistic about November, but a small swing in the electoral environment could be the difference between Democrats maintaining their House majority and Republicans capturing one.
How Justin Amash could affect the general elections | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-11--Politics Podcast: Americans, Not Politicians, Will Decide When We Reopen

All but about a dozen states are in some phase of reopening after COVID-19-related shutdowns , and projections of the pandemic ’ s death toll in the U.S. have correspondingly increased .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses whether an overarching plan is in place for this stage of the crisis — and how Americans are behaving regardless .
They also look at the latest data suggesting a competitive race for control of the U.S. Senate and consider a poll showing that American men may be deluding themselves about their role in child-rearing during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @

All but about a dozen states are in some phase of reopening after COVID-19-related shutdowns, and projections of the pandemic’s death toll in the U.S. have correspondingly increased. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses whether an overarching plan is in place for this stage of the crisis — and how Americans are behaving regardless. They also look at the latest data suggesting a competitive race for control of the U.S. Senate and consider a poll showing that American men may be deluding themselves about their role in child-rearing during the pandemic.
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--2020-05-11--Two Special Elections On Tuesday Could Hint At Another Blue Wave In 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump in most early polls , Democrats are leading polls of the generic congressional ballot by 2018-level margins , and general disapproval of the administration ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic threatens to sink Republican prospects across the board .
On Tuesday , we ’ ll get a taste of whether Democrats ’ electoral advantage on paper will hold up in practice , as California and Wisconsin hold special elections for two vacant congressional seats .
The main event is in the California 25th Congressional District , a bellwether seat in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties see a chance to add to their ranks in the House .
But if Democrats are also competitive in the quickly reddening , rural Wisconsin 7th Congressional District , it could signal another blue wave in the fall .
Here ’ s everything you need to know about the two races .
The California contest will test whether Democrats can hold onto a suburban and formerly GOP seat they captured during the 2018 blue wave .
This election — precipitated by the resignation of Democratic Rep. Katie Hill in November after she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffer — marks the second round of voting as no candidate won an outright majority on March 3 to claim the seat .
So now Democrat Christy Smith and Republican Mike Garcia — the top-two finishers in that initial vote — are battling it out on Tuesday to serve out the remainder of Hill ’ s term , which ends January 2021 .
But regardless of who wins , Smith and Garcia will face off again in November because they both advanced from the regular primary , also held on March 3 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go on , but the contest looks close .
The last public poll of the race dates back to an internal poll the Garcia campaign released in March .
In it , Garcia led Smith , 43 percent to 39 percent .
According to Inside Elections , private polling has consistently found Garcia leading by the low single digits .
Election handicappers rate it a toss-up .
And Smith — a first-term assemblywoman in California ’ s legislature — and Garcia — a businessman and former Navy fighter pilot — have each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The national party campaign arms — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee — have also been busy , too , collectively spending over $ 3 million in the district . )
However , the once-conservative district has shifted left over the last few years : Mitt Romney won it by 2 points in 2012 , but Hillary Clinton carried it by 7 points in 2016 , according to data from Daily Kos Elections .
One of the big issues in the race , though , may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 , a new law Smith supported in the legislature that limits businesses ’ ability to label workers as independent contractors , rather than employees ( who are entitled to employment-related benefits that independent contractors would otherwise not receive ) , has experienced widespread backlash .
Critics argue it ’ s made it harder for freelancers and gig workers to find jobs , and the economic crisis wrought by the coronavirus pandemic has made it a potential landmine for Smith — it ’ s one of Garcia ’ s main talking points .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only controversy either ; she ’ s also received blowback after a video leaked in which she appeared to mock the Garcia campaign ’ s focus on highlighting his military service .
The special election will also be a testing ground for conducting an election during a pandemic .
Democratic Gov .
Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring counties to mail every voter a ballot , though that doesn ’ t mean everyone will vote by mail .
The district has a limited number of in-person voting sites , and the late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lancaster — a move supported by the city ’ s Republican mayor — prompted Trump to tweet that the election is being “ rigged ” by Democrats .
But Garcia and Smith haven ’ t been able to rely on traditional get-out-the-vote techniques as they fight for every vote in the final days of the campaign .
Instead , they ’ ve had to mount campaigns built more on videoconferencing , virtual town halls and phone banking than typical door-knocking .
And as always , who votes will matter .
About 118,000 ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Political Data , Inc , and at first blush , they bode well for Garcia — registered Republicans have cast 44.5 percent of them versus 35.6 percent by Democrats , plus 20.0 percent by independents or other parties .
But these figures aren ’ t all that different from the ballots that had been returned the day before the March 3 contest , when registered Republicans had cast 45.0 percent of ballots compared to 36.6 percent by Democrats , plus 18.4 percent by others .
Yet in the first round @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win 51 percent of the vote , while Republicans won 49 percent .
( It ’ s worth noting , though , that about twice as many voters have returned mail ballots for this election than just before the March 3 contest , as most votes will be cast by mail because of the pandemic . )
In other words , party registration data at this point doesn ’ t tell the whole story because younger and minority voters are more likely to cast late-arriving ballots and they ’ re more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots must be postmarked on or by Election Day , but they can be received up to three days after .
There ’ s a lot at stake in the California 25th — and as is often the case with California , it could be a few days before we know the outcome .
Halfway across the country , Wisconsin is holding another election just five weeks after drawing widespread criticism for not canceling its presidential primary amid the pandemic .
After the many mishaps of that election , Gov .
Tony Evers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but never pulled the trigger — perhaps fearing that a court would overturn his decision yet again .
So just like last month , polling places will be open in Wisconsin on Tuesday , and just like last month , some poll workers are begging out of working the election and the National Guard is being called in to help .
It ’ s unclear , however , how many headaches will ensue .
There have been no widespread reports of polling-place closures , and the ruralness of the district minimizes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April , the longest lines were reported in urban areas like Milwaukee and Green Bay , which are not voting on Tuesday ; the biggest city in the 7th District is Wausau , population less than 40,000 . )
Indeed , the Wisconsin Elections Commission insists that the state is better prepared for May ’ s election than it was for April ’ s , because there have been no legal challenges pushing to change the rules of the election and officials now have experience running an election mid-pandemic .
However , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than normal are opting to vote by mail .
As of Monday morning , local officials had reported receiving 112,892 absentee-ballot applications , a comparable number to the April election .
Indeed , in the 21 counties wholly contained within the 7th District , 103,402 ballots had been requested for the special election compared with 101,846 for the April primary .
Last month , this volume of absentee-ballot requests overwhelmed election offices and led to many people not getting mailed their ballot in time to vote .
However they vote , residents of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state Sen. Tom Tiffany or Democrat Tricia Zunker , the president of the Wausau School Board , to be their next member of Congress .
This northwestern Wisconsin district was once a hotbed of Democratic populism , represented by progressive former Rep. Dave Obey for 42 years and voting for Barack Obama by 8 points in 2008 .
But a huge bloc of non-Hispanic white residents without bachelor ’ s degrees — 72 percent of the population age 25 or older — has turned the 7th District into Republican turf .
Former Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons in September triggered this special election , flipped the seat red in 2010 , and Romney won here by a narrow margin in 2012 .
But Trump put an exclamation point on the district ’ s realignment when he carried it by more than 20 points in 2016 .
Zunker can hope that the district ’ s ancestral Democratic tradition means there are latent Democratic votes for her to activate .
But even the strongest liberal candidates have failed to carry the Wisconsin 7th in recent years .
According to Daily Kos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 5 points in 2018 , and according to J .
Miles Coleman of Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball , Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Jill Karofsky lost it by 6 points last month .
In addition , as of April 22 , Tiffany had outspent Zunker $ 1.1 million to $ 328,000 .
So even though there have been no public polls of the race , the GOP is the clear favorite on Tuesday , with election handicappers rating it “ Solid Republican.
” Still , pay attention to the final margin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a party consistently overperforms its usual partisan baseline in special elections , it bodes well for that party in the general election as well .
So even a narrow loss by Zunker , if paired with a comfortable Smith win , would add to the evidence that another Democratic wave is building .

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump in most early polls, Democrats are leading polls of the generic congressional ballot by 2018-level margins, and general disapproval of the administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic threatens to sink Republican prospects across the board. On Tuesday, we’ll get a taste of whether Democrats’ electoral advantage on paper will hold up in practice, as California and Wisconsin hold special elections for two vacant congressional seats. The main event is in the California 25th Congressional District, a bellwether seat in the north Los Angeles suburbs, where both parties see a chance to add to their ranks in the House. But if Democrats are also competitive in the quickly reddening, rural Wisconsin 7th Congressional District, it could signal another blue wave in the fall. Here’s everything you need to know about the two races.
California 25th
The California contest will test whether Democrats can hold onto a suburban and formerly GOP seat they captured during the 2018 blue wave. This election — precipitated by the resignation of Democratic Rep. Katie Hill in November after she admitted to an affair with a campaign staffer — marks the second round of voting as no candidate won an outright majority on March 3 to claim the seat. So now Democrat Christy Smith and Republican Mike Garcia — the top-two finishers in that initial vote — are battling it out on Tuesday to serve out the remainder of Hill’s term, which ends January 2021. But regardless of who wins, Smith and Garcia will face off again in November because they both advanced from the regular primary, also held on March 3.
We don’t have much polling to go on, but the contest looks close. The last public poll of the race dates back to an internal poll the Garcia campaign released in March. In it, Garcia led Smith, 43 percent to 39 percent. According to Inside Elections, private polling has consistently found Garcia leading by the low single digits. Election handicappers rate it a toss-up. And Smith — a first-term assemblywoman in California’s legislature — and Garcia — a businessman and former Navy fighter pilot — have each raised and spent around $2 million. (The national party campaign arms — the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee — have also been busy, too, collectively spending over $3 million in the district.) However, the once-conservative district has shifted left over the last few years: Mitt Romney won it by 2 points in 2012, but Hillary Clinton carried it by 7 points in 2016, according to data from Daily Kos Elections.
One of the big issues in the race, though, may be a state issue: Assembly Bill 5, a new law Smith supported in the legislature that limits businesses’ ability to label workers as independent contractors, rather than employees (who are entitled to employment-related benefits that independent contractors would otherwise not receive), has experienced widespread backlash. Critics argue it’s made it harder for freelancers and gig workers to find jobs, and the economic crisis wrought by the coronavirus pandemic has made it a potential landmine for Smith — it’s one of Garcia’s main talking points. It’s not Smith’s only controversy either; she’s also received blowback after a video leaked in which she appeared to mock the Garcia campaign’s focus on highlighting his military service.
The special election will also be a testing ground for conducting an election during a pandemic. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring counties to mail every voter a ballot, though that doesn’t mean everyone will vote by mail. The district has a limited number of in-person voting sites, and the late addition of one in the city of Lancaster — a move supported by the city’s Republican mayor — prompted Trump to tweet that the election is being “rigged” by Democrats. But Garcia and Smith haven’t been able to rely on traditional get-out-the-vote techniques as they fight for every vote in the final days of the campaign. Instead, they’ve had to mount campaigns built more on videoconferencing, virtual town halls and phone banking than typical door-knocking.
And as always, who votes will matter. About 118,000 ballots had been returned as of May 11, according to Political Data, Inc, and at first blush, they bode well for Garcia — registered Republicans have cast 44.5 percent of them versus 35.6 percent by Democrats, plus 20.0 percent by independents or other parties. But these figures aren’t all that different from the ballots that had been returned the day before the March 3 contest, when registered Republicans had cast 45.0 percent of ballots compared to 36.6 percent by Democrats, plus 18.4 percent by others. Yet in the first round of voting, the Democratic candidates combined to win 51 percent of the vote, while Republicans won 49 percent. (It’s worth noting, though, that about twice as many voters have returned mail ballots for this election than just before the March 3 contest, as most votes will be cast by mail because of the pandemic.) In other words, party registration data at this point doesn’t tell the whole story because younger and minority voters are more likely to cast late-arriving ballots and they’re more likely to vote Democratic. In California, ballots must be postmarked on or by Election Day, but they can be received up to three days after.
There’s a lot at stake in the California 25th — and as is often the case with California, it could be a few days before we know the outcome.
Wisconsin 7th
Halfway across the country, Wisconsin is holding another election just five weeks after drawing widespread criticism for not canceling its presidential primary amid the pandemic. After the many mishaps of that election, Gov. Tony Evers reportedly considered postponing the 7th District special, but never pulled the trigger — perhaps fearing that a court would overturn his decision yet again.
So just like last month, polling places will be open in Wisconsin on Tuesday, and just like last month, some poll workers are begging out of working the election and the National Guard is being called in to help. It’s unclear, however, how many headaches will ensue. There have been no widespread reports of polling-place closures, and the ruralness of the district minimizes the potential for long lines. (In April, the longest lines were reported in urban areas like Milwaukee and Green Bay, which are not voting on Tuesday; the biggest city in the 7th District is Wausau, population less than 40,000.) Indeed, the Wisconsin Elections Commission insists that the state is better prepared for May’s election than it was for April’s, because there have been no legal challenges pushing to change the rules of the election and officials now have experience running an election mid-pandemic.
However, just like last month, many more Wisconsinites than normal are opting to vote by mail. As of Monday morning, local officials had reported receiving 112,892 absentee-ballot applications, a comparable number to the April election. Indeed, in the 21 counties wholly contained within the 7th District, 103,402 ballots had been requested for the special election compared with 101,846 for the April primary. Last month, this volume of absentee-ballot requests overwhelmed election offices and led to many people not getting mailed their ballot in time to vote.
However they vote, residents of the Wisconsin 7th will elect either Republican state Sen. Tom Tiffany or Democrat Tricia Zunker, the president of the Wausau School Board, to be their next member of Congress. This northwestern Wisconsin district was once a hotbed of Democratic populism, represented by progressive former Rep. Dave Obey for 42 years and voting for Barack Obama by 8 points in 2008. But a huge bloc of non-Hispanic white residents without bachelor’s degrees — 72 percent of the population age 25 or older — has turned the 7th District into Republican turf. Former Rep. Sean Duffy, whose resignation for family reasons in September triggered this special election, flipped the seat red in 2010, and Romney won here by a narrow margin in 2012. But Trump put an exclamation point on the district’s realignment when he carried it by more than 20 points in 2016.
Zunker can hope that the district’s ancestral Democratic tradition means there are latent Democratic votes for her to activate. But even the strongest liberal candidates have failed to carry the Wisconsin 7th in recent years. According to Daily Kos Elections, Sen. Tammy Baldwin lost it by 5 points in 2018, and according to J. Miles Coleman of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice-elect Jill Karofsky lost it by 6 points last month.
In addition, as of April 22, Tiffany had outspent Zunker $1.1 million to $328,000. So even though there have been no public polls of the race, the GOP is the clear favorite on Tuesday, with election handicappers rating it “Solid Republican.”
Still, pay attention to the final margin, both here and in California. When a party consistently overperforms its usual partisan baseline in special elections, it bodes well for that party in the general election as well. So even a narrow loss by Zunker, if paired with a comfortable Smith win, would add to the evidence that another Democratic wave is building.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Does The U.S. Have A Coronavirus Recovery Plan?


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-12--There Is No Evidence That Voting By Mail Gives One Party An Advantage

If the coronavirus pandemic rages on , most Americans will probably vote by mail in November .
But like most political issues in the U.S. , voting by mail is an increasingly partisan affair , with Democrats more likely to support it than Republicans .
The fight over voting by mail isn ’ t new .
But if the political cues around voting by mail weren ’ t firmly set before , they are now , with President Trump calling voting by mail “ corrupt ” and pushing Republicans to fight efforts to expand it .
And this has many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , last-minute scrambles and inevitable litigation could make 2020 an even more uncertain election .
But before the political fighting gets too ugly , lawmakers really ought to look at the evidence .
Numerous studies have arrived at the same conclusion : Voting by mail doesn ’ t provide any clear partisan advantage .
In fact , as states have expanded their use of mailed ballots over the last decade — including five states that conduct all-mail elections by default — both parties have enjoyed a small but equal increase in turnout .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more convenient for some voters but more difficult for others , and these conflicting factors appear to cancel each other out , dampening any partisan advantage .
Moreover , the vast majority of nonvoters don ’ t participate not because it ’ s too inconvenient to vote , but because voting isn ’ t a habit for them .
Maybe they don ’ t care about politics , maybe they don ’ t think their vote matters , maybe they don ’ t like any of the candidates , or maybe it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above .
But the bottom line is that these voters ’ decision to vote depends more on whether somebody around them can motivate them to vote , not whether they are able to vote by mail or in person .
We ’ re going to walk through the evidence that demonstrates there isn ’ t a partisan advantage of voting by mail , then look at 2016 results from two key swing states — Florida and Wisconsin — to help illustrate this .
But first , let ’ s quickly unpack what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail.
” At its most basic level , voting by mail means that instead of going to the polls , you get a ballot mailed to your home , you fill it out , and then you mail it in .
( Though in some states , it ’ s much more complex than that . )
There are three main ways states vote by mail .
First , there are “ universal ” vote-by-mail states , which is when all registered voters automatically receive a ballot , but this is fairly rare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections by default : Colorado , Hawaii , Oregon , Utah and Washington ( although a handful of states allow certain elections to be conducted by mail or some of their counties to vote by mail ) .
Next , there are “ no-excuse ” vote-by-mail states , which is the most common method of voting by mail in the U.S. — 29 states currently use it in federal elections .
Under this system , any registered voter can vote by mail , but must first request a ballot .
And finally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuse-only ” vote by mail , which means voters must provide a reason as to why they can ’ t show up at the polls in order to get their ballot .
Although some states might expand the types of excuses accepted in 2020 — the coronavirus is already a valid excuse for general election voters in New Hampshire , and in Texas there ’ s a lawsuit over whether the coronavirus should be considered a valid excuse for the state ’ s July primary runoff elections .
So keeping those differences in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the voting-by-mail landscape in 2016 .
In that presidential election , states saw anywhere from about 2 percent of ballots cast by mail ( West Virginia , Kentucky , Tennessee ) to 97 percent ( Washington , Oregon ) .
On balance , states that voted for Hillary Clinton were slightly more oriented toward voting by mail than states that voted for Trump .
For instance , of the states that voted for Clinton , the median state reported 8.2 percent of ballots cast by mail ( Nevada ) , compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail in the median state that voted for Trump ( technically , the average of Texas , 7.5 percent , and South Carolina , 7.9 percent ) .
This might sound like evidence that voting by mail does benefit Democrats , but it ’ s important to keep in mind that these are small differences , and in most states , it ’ s still a really small share of the voting-eligible population that has cast a ballot by mail in recent elections .
We ’ ll later address why voting by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but for now , let ’ s get a better understanding of what voting by mail looks like in key swing states .
These states ’ elections are so competitive that it ’ s unlikely their voting rules change before 2020 , as any rule change would be highly contested .
But because all the states we ’ re classifying as swing states allow any voter to vote absentee , we can still dive into the mail-in vote in two battleground states in 2016 and 2018 : Florida and Wisconsin .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voters cast their ballots by mail in 2016 , the first thing to know is that more Democratic counties tend to cast a higher share of ballots by mail .
As you can see in the chart below , the share of voters in a county casting their ballot by mail increases as Trump ’ s voting share declines .
Because more Democratic counties take greater advantage of voting by mail , the first impression might be that voting by mail benefits Democrats .
However , examining which ballots were returned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually saw a higher share of requested mailed ballots get counted .
Between 2016 and 2018 , the share of Florida voters casting ballots by mail increased from about 28.5 percent to 31.6 percent , with most counties seeing an uptick in the share of votes cast by mail .
But as you can see in the table above , it was still Republicans , not Democrats , who had a higher rate of ballots returned successfully .
In short , Florida Republicans do a better job of completing their ballots than Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons that this is true other than Democrats not being as diligent in mailing in their ballots .
Research by political scientist Daniel Smith , conducted for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida , found that younger voters and voters from racial and ethnic minorities are much more likely to have their absentee ballots rejected by state officials .
It ’ s hard to know the exact impact of this — county-level rejection rates in Florida in 2016 indicated that most of the uncompleted ballots were the result of voters simply not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a close election , even a small number of rejections could be decisive .
That said , we didn ’ t find a relationship between the change in the share of ballots cast by mail in a county and its change in vote share from 2016 to 2018 , suggesting neither party gained from an uptick in ballots cast by mail .
So in 2020 , we shouldn ’ t expect either party to automatically benefit from a higher rate of voting by mail .
Instead , we should expect the party that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voting by mail to benefit more .
And despite Trump ’ s public aversion to voting by mail , Florida Republican operatives have learned how to work with , not against , voting by mail .
As one Florida Republican campaign veteran recently told NPR : “ Absentee ballots are typically Republicans ’ friends in Florida.
” So now let ’ s look at Wisconsin , which has a much lower rate of voting by mail than Florida — just 9 percent voted by mail in 2016 .
Its recent primary fiasco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sharp relief , and Democrats ended up taking advantage of it more than Republicans , presumably because the state Democratic party clearly communicated the urgency of voting absentee .
But up until the 2020 primary , there hasn ’ t been evidence of a county-level relationship between partisanship and ballot success rate in Wisconsin .
In fact , as was the case in Florida , the change in county-level absentee voting from 2016 to 2018 had no relationship to the change in a county ’ s partisan vote share .
Studies that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on partisan fortunes on a larger scale have found similar results .
In a recent study , a team of Stanford University political scientists looked at county-level implementation of vote by mail in California , Utah and Washington .
They found no statistically significant partisan difference between counties that had transitioned to voting fully by mail and those that had not , along with a slight increase in voter turnout .
Another research team recently analyzed the effects of voting by mail in Colorado , and although they found a much higher effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they also had a similar null partisan finding .
More voters turned out to support Democratic candidates , but more voters also turned out to support Republican candidates .
So what do we make of the lack of evidence that any one party benefits from voting by mail ?
The best way to think about this is to imagine the marginal voter who didn ’ t vote in person but would vote by mail .
Because most voting is habitual , most voting rules don ’ t seem to make a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent that voting by mail makes voting more convenient , it helps those who are already motivated to vote but who may not be able to find time on Election Day for whatever reason .
This is why studies generally find that even universal voting by mail ( where everyone is sent a ballot ) only increases voting marginally , and probably among those who already are most likely to vote anyway .
Bottom line : By making it a little easier to vote , voting by mail probably increases the likelihood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process .
( Though younger and lower-income voters , who tend to vote at lower rates , also tend to not take advantage of voting by mail . )
But it also makes it easier for more habitual older voters , who tend to vote more Republican than younger voters , to cast a ballot .
Thus , on balance , any associated partisan effects from voting by mail have tended to cancel out .
We should be careful to apply past patterns to 2020 , though .
The states that moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over several election cycles .
So we ’ ve never seen anything on the scale of what we might see in 2020 .
The obvious implication is that efforts to expand absentee voting in a pandemic might work differently .
And maybe there will be partisan differences in who chooses to vote by mail , as we saw in Wisconsin ’ s primary .
But we may also learn something more about how states implement voting-by-mail systems and what those impacts are .
( For example , is postage prepaid ?
How easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How easy is it to correct a rejected ballot ? )
We may also see that different campaign tactics are more effective in getting people to vote by mail than getting people to vote in person .
At the very least , we ’ ll almost certainly see tremendous variation on both counts — variation that will give us a new cottage industry of studies that refine our understanding of how vote by mail impacts turnout , or at least how it impacted turnout in 2020 .
Looking at Florida ’ s 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before a statewide shelter-in-place order was in place , although other states were issuing orders ) , may hold a few clues .
Not surprisingly , the share of primary voters casting a ballot by mail increased from 31 percent in 2016 to 48 percent , according to an analysis by MIT political scientist Charles Stewart .
And it was Republicans — not Democrats — who were more likely to mail their ballot ( 57 percent of Republicans compared with 41 percent of Democrats ) even though it was Democrats who had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout .
In 2016 , there was no partisan difference .
But the more important clue may be Stewart ’ s finding that it was people who had voted by mail in the 2016 primary were much more likely to vote in the 2020 primary .
In total , he found , 62 percent of voters who voted by mail in the primary in 2016 voted in 2020 , compared with just 35 percent of those who voted in person on Election Day in 2016 .
This is in line with previous findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most .
But this may also suggest that those who are in the habit of requesting a mail ballot may have an advantage if states shift to all-mail elections — the electoral ramifications of which aren ’ t entirely clear .
Likewise , the Wisconsin 2020 primary may also offer some clues as for what to expect in the general election , especially if voting by mail becomes an increasingly polarized issue .
Turnout was higher than expected in the Wisconsin primary , and Democrats do appear to have taken more advantage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as with Florida , Democratic turnout was presumably higher because Democrats had a contested presidential primary , whereas Republicans didn ’ t ) .
Granted , there were other down-ballot elections , including a judicial election for the state Supreme Court which was one reason the primary couldn ’ t be postponed , but Democratic party leaders also led a strong effort to get Democratic voters to request mail ballots .
That final point is a crucial one , too , in trying to anticipate what the effects may be on the general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on how and when to vote .
So if mail ballots are going to be a part of 2020 ( and beyond ) , campaigns will adopt strategies to educate and encourage voters to request and fill out ballots — even if they don ’ t like the rules .
And in a fluid voting environment like the one we expect for 2020 , whether Democrats or Republicans benefit more will almost certainly have less to do with the actual rules , and more to do with which campaigns most effectively organize their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote from the comfort of their homes .

If the coronavirus pandemic rages on, most Americans will probably vote by mail in November. But like most political issues in the U.S., voting by mail is an increasingly partisan affair, with Democrats more likely to support it than Republicans.
The fight over voting by mail isn’t new. But if the political cues around voting by mail weren’t firmly set before, they are now, with President Trump calling voting by mail “corrupt” and pushing Republicans to fight efforts to expand it. And this has many election experts concerned as the partisan fighting, last-minute scrambles and inevitable litigation could make 2020 an even more uncertain election.
But before the political fighting gets too ugly, lawmakers really ought to look at the evidence. Numerous studies have arrived at the same conclusion: Voting by mail doesn’t provide any clear partisan advantage. In fact, as states have expanded their use of mailed ballots over the last decade — including five states that conduct all-mail elections by default — both parties have enjoyed a small but equal increase in turnout.
In short: voting by mail is more convenient for some voters but more difficult for others, and these conflicting factors appear to cancel each other out, dampening any partisan advantage. Moreover, the vast majority of nonvoters don’t participate not because it’s too inconvenient to vote, but because voting isn’t a habit for them. Maybe they don’t care about politics, maybe they don’t think their vote matters, maybe they don’t like any of the candidates, or maybe it’s some combination of all of the above. But the bottom line is that these voters’ decision to vote depends more on whether somebody around them can motivate them to vote, not whether they are able to vote by mail or in person.
We’re going to walk through the evidence that demonstrates there isn’t a partisan advantage of voting by mail, then look at 2016 results from two key swing states — Florida and Wisconsin — to help illustrate this. But first, let’s quickly unpack what we mean when we say “voting by mail.”
At its most basic level, voting by mail means that instead of going to the polls, you get a ballot mailed to your home, you fill it out, and then you mail it in. (Though in some states, it’s much more complex than that.)
There are three main ways states vote by mail. First, there are “universal” vote-by-mail states, which is when all registered voters automatically receive a ballot, but this is fairly rare. Just five states currently conduct all-mail elections by default: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington (although a handful of states allow certain elections to be conducted by mail or some of their counties to vote by mail). Next, there are “no-excuse” vote-by-mail states, which is the most common method of voting by mail in the U.S. — 29 states currently use it in federal elections. Under this system, any registered voter can vote by mail, but must first request a ballot. And finally, there are 16 states that are “excuse-only” vote by mail, which means voters must provide a reason as to why they can’t show up at the polls in order to get their ballot. Although some states might expand the types of excuses accepted in 2020 — the coronavirus is already a valid excuse for general election voters in New Hampshire, and in Texas there’s a lawsuit over whether the coronavirus should be considered a valid excuse for the state’s July primary runoff elections.
So keeping those differences in mind, let’s take a look at the voting-by-mail landscape in 2016. In that presidential election, states saw anywhere from about 2 percent of ballots cast by mail (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee) to 97 percent (Washington, Oregon).
On balance, states that voted for Hillary Clinton were slightly more oriented toward voting by mail than states that voted for Trump. For instance, of the states that voted for Clinton, the median state reported 8.2 percent of ballots cast by mail (Nevada), compared to 7.7 percent of ballots cast by mail in the median state that voted for Trump (technically, the average of Texas, 7.5 percent, and South Carolina, 7.9 percent).
This might sound like evidence that voting by mail does benefit Democrats, but it’s important to keep in mind that these are small differences, and in most states, it’s still a really small share of the voting-eligible population that has cast a ballot by mail in recent elections. We’ll later address why voting by mail has had such a minimal partisan effect, but for now, let’s get a better understanding of what voting by mail looks like in key swing states. These states’ elections are so competitive that it’s unlikely their voting rules change before 2020, as any rule change would be highly contested. But because all the states we’re classifying as swing states allow any voter to vote absentee, we can still dive into the mail-in vote in two battleground states in 2016 and 2018: Florida and Wisconsin.
In Florida, where just under 30 percent of voters cast their ballots by mail in 2016, the first thing to know is that more Democratic counties tend to cast a higher share of ballots by mail. As you can see in the chart below, the share of voters in a county casting their ballot by mail increases as Trump’s voting share declines.
Because more Democratic counties take greater advantage of voting by mail, the first impression might be that voting by mail benefits Democrats. However, examining which ballots were returned in 2016 show that counties that Trump won actually saw a higher share of requested mailed ballots get counted.
Florida Republicans voted by mail more successfully Total absentee ballots requested, ballots cast and the share of ballots successfully cast by party in Florida in the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 midterm elections 2016 presidential election Ballots… Party requested cast success rate Republicans 1,309,197 1,108,053 84.6% Democrats 1,314,929 1,049,809 79.8 Unaffiliated 640,427 504,895 78.8 2018 midterm elections Ballots… Party requested cast success rate Republicans 1,347,407 1,080,808 80.2% Democrats 1,394,728 1,026,600 73.6 Unaffiliated 709,039 500,564 70.6 Data excludes individuals who identify as members of other parties. Source: Florida Department of State
Between 2016 and 2018, the share of Florida voters casting ballots by mail increased from about 28.5 percent to 31.6 percent, with most counties seeing an uptick in the share of votes cast by mail. But as you can see in the table above, it was still Republicans, not Democrats, who had a higher rate of ballots returned successfully.
In short, Florida Republicans do a better job of completing their ballots than Florida Democrats. However, there may be reasons that this is true other than Democrats not being as diligent in mailing in their ballots. Research by political scientist Daniel Smith, conducted for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, found that younger voters and voters from racial and ethnic minorities are much more likely to have their absentee ballots rejected by state officials. It’s hard to know the exact impact of this, but in a close election, even a small number of rejections could be decisive.
That said, we didn’t find a relationship between the change in the share of ballots cast by mail in a county and its change in vote share from 2016 to 2018, suggesting neither party gained from an uptick in ballots cast by mail.
So in 2020, we shouldn’t expect either party to automatically benefit from a higher rate of voting by mail. Instead, we should expect the party that mobilizes its voters to better take advantage of voting by mail to benefit more. And despite Trump’s public aversion to voting by mail, Florida Republican operatives have learned how to work with, not against, voting by mail. As one Florida Republican campaign veteran recently told NPR: “Absentee ballots are typically Republicans’ friends in Florida.”
So now let’s look at Wisconsin, which has a much lower rate of voting by mail than Florida — just 9 percent voted by mail in 2016. Its recent primary fiasco brought conflicts over voting by mail into sharp relief, and Democrats ended up taking advantage of it more than Republicans, presumably because the state Democratic party clearly communicated the urgency of voting absentee. But up until the 2020 primary, there hasn’t been evidence of a county-level relationship between partisanship and ballot success rate in Wisconsin. In fact, as was the case in Florida, the change in county-level absentee voting from 2016 to 2018 had no relationship to the change in a county’s partisan vote share.
Studies that have analyzed the effects of voting by mail on partisan fortunes on a larger scale have found similar results. In a recent study, a team of Stanford University political scientists looked at county-level implementation of vote by mail in California, Utah and Washington. They found no statistically significant partisan difference between counties that had transitioned to voting fully by mail and those that had not, along with a slight increase in voter turnout. Another research team recently analyzed the effects of voting by mail in Colorado, and although they found a much higher effect on overall voter turnout than previous studies, they also had a similar null partisan finding. More voters turned out to support Democratic candidates, but more voters also turned out to support Republican candidates.
So what do we make of the lack of evidence that any one party benefits from voting by mail? The best way to think about this is to imagine the marginal voter who didn’t vote in person but would vote by mail. Because most voting is habitual, most voting rules don’t seem to make a huge change in who votes. So to the extent that voting by mail makes voting more convenient, it helps those who are already motivated to vote but who may not be able to find time on Election Day for whatever reason. This is why studies generally find that even universal voting by mail (where everyone is sent a ballot) only increases voting marginally, and probably among those who already are most likely to vote anyway.
Bottom line: By making it a little easier to vote, voting by mail probably increases the likelihood of the marginal Democratic voter engaging in the process. (Though younger and lower-income voters, who tend to vote at lower rates, also tend to not take advantage of voting by mail.) But it also makes it easier for more habitual older voters, who tend to vote more Republican than younger voters, to cast a ballot. Thus, on balance, any associated partisan effects from voting by mail have tended to cancel out.
We should be careful to apply past patterns to 2020, though. The states that moved to universal voting did so gradually, over several election cycles. So we’ve never seen anything on the scale of what we might see in 2020. The obvious implication is that efforts to expand absentee voting in a pandemic might work differently. And maybe there will be partisan differences in who chooses to vote by mail, as we saw in Wisconsin’s primary.
But we may also learn something more about how states implement voting-by-mail systems and what those impacts are. (For example, is postage prepaid? How easy is it to request a ballot? How easy is it to correct a rejected ballot?) We may also see that different campaign tactics are more effective in getting people to vote by mail than getting people to vote in person. At the very least, we’ll almost certainly see tremendous variation on both counts — variation that will give us a new cottage industry of studies that refine our understanding of how vote by mail impacts turnout, or at least how it impacted turnout in 2020.
Looking at Florida’s 2020 primary, held on March 17 (before a statewide shelter-in-place order was in place, although other states were issuing orders), may hold a few clues. Not surprisingly, the share of primary voters casting a ballot by mail increased from 31 percent in 2016 to 48 percent, according to an analysis by MIT political scientist Charles Stewart. And it was Republicans — not Democrats — who were more likely to mail their ballot (57 percent of Republicans compared with 41 percent of Democrats) even though it was Democrats who had a contested primary, and therefore, higher turnout. In 2016, there was no partisan difference.
But the more important clue may be Stewart’s finding that it was people who had voted by mail in the 2016 primary were much more likely to vote in the 2020 primary. In total, he found, 62 percent of voters who voted by mail in the primary in 2016 voted in 2020, compared with just 35 percent of those who voted in person on Election Day in 2016. This is in line with previous findings that voting by mail benefits habitual voters most. But this may also suggest that those who are in the habit of requesting a mail ballot may have an advantage if states shift to all-mail elections — the electoral ramifications of which aren’t entirely clear.
Likewise, the Wisconsin 2020 primary may also offer some clues as for what to expect in the general election, especially if voting by mail becomes an increasingly polarized issue. Turnout was higher than expected in the Wisconsin primary, and Democrats do appear to have taken more advantage of voting by mail than Republicans (though as with Florida, Democratic turnout was presumably higher because Democrats had a contested presidential primary, whereas Republicans didn’t). Granted, there were other down-ballot elections, including a judicial election for the state Supreme Court which was one reason the primary couldn’t be postponed, but Democratic party leaders also led a strong effort to get Democratic voters to request mail ballots.
That final point is a crucial one, too, in trying to anticipate what the effects may be on the general. Voters rely on parties for cues on how and when to vote. So if mail ballots are going to be a part of 2020 (and beyond), campaigns will adopt strategies to educate and encourage voters to request and fill out ballots — even if they don’t like the rules. And in a fluid voting environment like the one we expect for 2020, whether Democrats or Republicans benefit more will almost certainly have less to do with the actual rules, and more to do with which campaigns most effectively organize their voters to take advantage of their ability to vote from the comfort of their homes.
CORRECTION (May 15, 2020, 4:46 p.m.) A previous version of this article cited research by political scientist Daniel Smith, conducted for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, that suggested that the small portion of ballots received in Florida could have been attributed to ballots that were not mailed back; however, the research this drew on did not include ballots that the state did not receive.
Why switching to vote-by-mail is tougher than it seems | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-12--What To Make Of Those New Senate Polls That Have Democrats Way Ahead

Before you read any further , let ’ s get one thing straight : It ’ s still pretty early to trust general-election polls .
In addition to the small but significant error inherent in polls taken six months before Election Day , the coronavirus pandemic has made the fall political environment extremely uncertain .
But some recent Senate polls have been so eye-popping that we ’ re compelled to write about them — if only to sound a note of caution .
Those polls imply a Democratic wave of truly epic proportions .
In the space of just two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Two polls of Colorado : A Keating Research/Onsight Public Affairs/Melanson survey giving Democrat John Hickenlooper an 18-point lead over Republican Sen. Cory Gardner and a Montana State University Bozeman/University of Denver poll giving Hickenlooper a nearly identical 17-point lead over Gardner .
• A Montana State University Bozeman/University of Denver poll of Montana giving Democrat Steve Bullock a 7-point lead over Republican Sen. Steve Daines .
• And a Civiqs/Daily Kos survey giving Democrat Cal Cunningham a 9-point lead over Republican Sen. Thom Tillis in North Carolina .
To put it mildly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with our previous perceptions of these races .
Election handicappers believe Colorado is a toss-up or perhaps tilts a bit toward Democrats .
And although Bullock ’ s entry into the race was expected to make Montana competitive , handicappers still think it favors Republicans .
Likewise , the North Carolina Senate race is universally seen as a toss-up , not a healthy Democratic lead .
So it ’ s fair to wonder how accurate these polls are .
Individually , there ’ s something to nitpick about all four of them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough track record for us to confidently assign them a precise pollster rating .
Plus , all four polls were conducted online , and according to Nate Cohn of The New York Times ’ s The Upshot , online polls of states , especially small ones like Montana , are a largely unproven medium .
Finally , Keating Research/Onsight Public Affairs/Melanson and Civiqs are both Democratic pollsters , and partisan polls have a tendency to show optimistic results for their side .
Whenever an attention-grabbing poll is released , we always counsel readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other recent surveys .
However , a lack of high-quality , nonpartisan polling makes that tricky in these races .
In North Carolina , two other polls conducted within the past month actually agreed that Cunningham led by the high single digits — but one was an unweighted online poll , and the other was from a Democratic pollster .
More reliable may be a SurveyUSA poll showing Cunningham and Tillis within the margin of error , but that ’ s just one poll vs. three others now that disagree .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the only other confirmed poll was sponsored by a liberal group that has endorsed Bullock and showed a tied race .
And in Colorado , these were the first two surveys we ’ ve seen since last October — although the fact that they agreed makes their findings more credible than either poll would have been on its own .
In the face of such a pickle , let ’ s turn to the much more robust universe of congressional generic ballot polling .
At the same time these Senate polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a poll from highly-rated Monmouth University that gave Democrats a 10-point lead over Republicans in the generic congressional ballot .
Even the average generic-ballot poll gives Democrats an 8-point lead .
These polls obviously point toward a strongly Democratic national environment , but not the kind of blue tsunami that would lead to an 18-point Democratic lead in the purple state of Colorado or a 7-point Democratic lead in the red state of Montana .
That said , as popular former or sitting governors , Hickenlooper and Bullock are very strong candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference , although even that is a reach .
Ultimately , it ’ s hard to know at this point if these polls are outliers or early indicators of an overwhelming Democratic electoral environment .
But the fact that they are even remotely plausible reflects a vulnerability for the GOP in the age of the coronavirus .
Americans are souring on President Trump ’ s handling of the crisis , and congressional Republicans are reportedly worried that it will drag them down too .
The pandemic has also devastated the economy , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party in the White House .
In the worst-case scenario , the outbreak could lead to a Democratic wave à la 2008 , when an unpopular Republican president and a tanking economy helped elect President Barack Obama and gave Democrats full control of the federal government .
Or not .
As we said at the beginning , there is still plenty of time for the political environment to change .
The health and economic situation could improve by the fall ( or it could worsen ) .
Another hot-button political issue could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed the mark — it ’ s still six months out , after all .
In the end , all these polls do is tell us something we should have already known : A second consecutive Democratic wave election is on the table .
But it ’ s not dinner time yet .
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast : Does The U.S. Have A Coronavirus Recovery Plan ?

Before you read any further, let’s get one thing straight: It’s still pretty early to trust general-election polls. In addition to the small but significant error inherent in polls taken six months before Election Day, the coronavirus pandemic has made the fall political environment extremely uncertain. But some recent Senate polls have been so eye-popping that we’re compelled to write about them — if only to sound a note of caution.
Those polls imply a Democratic wave of truly epic proportions. In the space of just two days last week, we got:
To put it mildly, these polls were out of step with our previous perceptions of these races. Election handicappers believe Colorado is a toss-up or perhaps tilts a bit toward Democrats. And although Bullock’s entry into the race was expected to make Montana competitive, handicappers still think it favors Republicans. Likewise, the North Carolina Senate race is universally seen as a toss-up, not a healthy Democratic lead.
So it’s fair to wonder how accurate these polls are. Individually, there’s something to nitpick about all four of them. None of the pollsters has a robust enough track record for us to confidently assign them a precise pollster rating. Plus, all four polls were conducted online, and according to Nate Cohn of The New York Times’s The Upshot, online polls of states, especially small ones like Montana, are a largely unproven medium. Finally, Keating Research/Onsight Public Affairs/Melanson and Civiqs are both Democratic pollsters, and partisan polls have a tendency to show optimistic results for their side.
Whenever an attention-grabbing poll is released, we always counsel readers to look at them in the context of other recent surveys. However, a lack of high-quality, nonpartisan polling makes that tricky in these races. In North Carolina, two other polls conducted within the past month actually agreed that Cunningham led by the high single digits — but one was an unweighted online poll, and the other was from a Democratic pollster. More reliable may be a SurveyUSA poll showing Cunningham and Tillis within the margin of error, but that’s just one poll vs. three others now that disagree.
We’re flying even blinder in Montana, where the only other confirmed poll was sponsored by a liberal group that has endorsed Bullock and showed a tied race. And in Colorado, these were the first two surveys we’ve seen since last October — although the fact that they agreed makes their findings more credible than either poll would have been on its own.
In the face of such a pickle, let’s turn to the much more robust universe of congressional generic ballot polling. At the same time these Senate polls were coming out, we also got a poll from highly-rated Monmouth University that gave Democrats a 10-point lead over Republicans in the generic congressional ballot. Even the average generic-ballot poll gives Democrats an 8-point lead. These polls obviously point toward a strongly Democratic national environment, but not the kind of blue tsunami that would lead to an 18-point Democratic lead in the purple state of Colorado or a 7-point Democratic lead in the red state of Montana. That said, as popular former or sitting governors, Hickenlooper and Bullock are very strong candidates, so that could be making up the difference, although even that is a reach.
Ultimately, it’s hard to know at this point if these polls are outliers or early indicators of an overwhelming Democratic electoral environment. But the fact that they are even remotely plausible reflects a vulnerability for the GOP in the age of the coronavirus. Americans are souring on President Trump’s handling of the crisis, and congressional Republicans are reportedly worried that it will drag them down too. The pandemic has also devastated the economy, which has historically been bad news electorally for the party in the White House. In the worst-case scenario, the outbreak could lead to a Democratic wave à la 2008, when an unpopular Republican president and a tanking economy helped elect President Barack Obama and gave Democrats full control of the federal government.
Or not. As we said at the beginning, there is still plenty of time for the political environment to change. The health and economic situation could improve by the fall (or it could worsen). Another hot-button political issue could intervene. Or these polls could have missed the mark — it’s still six months out, after all. In the end, all these polls do is tell us something we should have already known: A second consecutive Democratic wave election is on the table. But it’s not dinner time yet.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Does The U.S. Have A Coronavirus Recovery Plan?


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-12--Does The U.S. Have A Coronavirus Recovery Plan?

On this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the team considers the politics and practicalities of states reopening amid @ @ @ @ @ also discuss which party is ahead in the race for Senate .

On this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team considers the politics and practicalities of states reopening amid the COVID-19 pandemic. They also discuss which party is ahead in the race for Senate.