fivethirtyeight--2020-09-30--Will Such A Cacophonous Debate Change Any Minds?

Welcome to a special , post-debate edition of FiveThirtyEight ’ s politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarah ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : Last night marked our first real opportunity to see President Trump and Joe Biden go head-to-head , but it was very much unclear who was in control of the debate , given the interruptions and sniping .
But let ’ s discuss what our takeaways are… What surprised you the most ?
geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : I guess I expected interruptions and “ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree to which the debate couldn ’ t proceed without constant interruptions was pretty remarkable … er , tiresome .
julia_azari ( Julia Azari , political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : I ’ m surprised that I — and seemingly a lot of other people — are surprised .
Trump did nothing out of character based on what we know .
But somehow in a debate setting it rattled us .
Norms are eroded , but we still , out of habit , expect something different in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a fair point .
Trump memorably crossed some lines in 2016 , including in a town hall debate when he loomed behind Hillary Clinton while she was speaking .
So I guess we should have taken what we expected to be the worst possible debate and then gone lower .
What ’ s the headline takeaway from this debate ?
lee.drutman ( Lee Drutman , senior fellow at New America and FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : The standard debate format has outlived its usefulness , at least for a while .
julia_azari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t really have a point , this one kind of really didn ’ t .
There weren ’ t even coherent exchanges .
The idea that I keep coming back to is that Trump used that chaos to keep the debate on his own terms .
geoffrey.skelley : Well , until the end when Trump once again refused to say he ’ d accept the results of the election , I would say it was the exchange about race relations that was headline grabbing for me .
Chris Wallace , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacists and right-wing militias , and Trump instead said , “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by , ” a reference to a white supremacist group .
That organization is apparently very happy to be mentioned by the president , too , and may view it as a call to arms ahead of the election .
lee.drutman : Geoffrey , I think “ exchange ” is a generous term for what was happening .
julia_azari : Trump reframed the question on race so completely that nothing substantive was said about structural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend the Obama administration and take positions that might divide Democrats didn ’ t really work .
That said , I think it does show that Trump ’ s one area of success might be in shaping how people talk about politics and what the salient issues are .
The fact that he ’ s the incumbent president at a time when 200,000 people are dead from the coronavirus means it ’ s a feat that the entire debate is not devoted to his record on that alone .
Did Trump help his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , as I understand it , is that Biden and the Democrats represent a radical left threat to America .
He tried to goad Biden into that , but Biden didn ’ t take the bait .
So in that respect , I don ’ t see how Trump helped his case .
geoffrey.skelley : I think the fundamental problem for Trump is that he ’ s down by 7 points nationally and trails in most of the swing states .
So Trump needs to expand his base by winning over some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t watching , but will hear about the debate tomorrow — or convert some Biden supporters .
He certainly tried to argue that Biden is a leftist or that he ’ s in league with radical socialists .
He also tried to attack Biden on “ law and order ” by claiming that Biden wants to defund the police .
But Trump ’ s campaign has been trying these lines for months without much apparent success , including at the GOP convention .
Why would it work now ?
Perhaps more people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be brought in by his appeals , but even then I ’ m pretty skeptical .
lee.drutman : No , I don ’ t think we ’ ll see any movement in the polls .
These are two candidates who are extremely well-known at this point , and everyone knows their strengths and weaknesses , and nothing we saw did anything to change those deeply-held views .
julia_azari : I think Biden ’ s temperament and demographic profile allowed him to get a bit angrier than , say , Hillary Clinton could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I wouldn ’ t say that debates have been Biden ’ s best format in the 2020 cycle , but he came off more or less as expected .
lee.drutman : And if you are an undecided voter from a cave just tuning in , you went back into your cave and planned to hibernate for another four years .
julia_azari : I saw some Twitter grumbling about Biden ’ s statements about the police , but his position on those issues are well-known , so the fact that he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t particularly surprising .
geoffrey.skelley : Biden was pretty weak early on , but at the same time , it wasn ’ t all that different of a performance from the ones he had in most primary debates , either .
And like Lee said , things are pretty baked in at this point .
Moreover , challengers have tended to gain after the first debate , so if the polls do move , it ’ s possible that Biden might gain instead of Trump .
Did you learn anything new ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I learned anything new , but this feels like a new low .
Debates are an important exercise in legitimate opposition , and the norms that candidates follow seemed unimportant … until they were gone .
lee.drutman : My priors going into tonight were : 1 ) Biden is sluggish and sometimes incoherent ; 2 ) Trump is often all over the place ; and 3 ) American democracy is in a dark place in 2020 .
I ’ m not sure that changed after tonight , to be honest .
geoffrey.skelley : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely rule out some poll movement , but I ’ d be pretty amazed if it shifted the state of the race to a noticeable degree .
And even if it does , that might be ephemeral .
Our forecast model anticipates that a post-debate change might be temporary and that the polls could return to the pre-debate equilibrium .
So I think we ’ ll have to wait and see .

Welcome to a special, post-debate edition of FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Last night marked our first real opportunity to see President Trump and Joe Biden go head-to-head, but it was very much unclear who was in control of the debate, given the interruptions and sniping. But let’s discuss what our takeaways are…
What surprised you the most?
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): I guess I expected interruptions and “Trump to be Trump,” but the degree to which the debate couldn’t proceed without constant interruptions was pretty remarkable … er, tiresome.
julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I’m surprised that I — and seemingly a lot of other people — are surprised. Trump did nothing out of character based on what we know. But somehow in a debate setting it rattled us. Norms are eroded, but we still, out of habit, expect something different in a debate.
geoffrey.skelley: Julia, that’s a fair point. Trump memorably crossed some lines in 2016, including in a town hall debate when he loomed behind Hillary Clinton while she was speaking. So I guess we should have taken what we expected to be the worst possible debate and then gone lower.
What’s the headline takeaway from this debate?
lee.drutman (Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America and FiveThirtyEight contributor): The standard debate format has outlived its usefulness, at least for a while.
julia_azari: After years of people saying debates don’t really have a point, this one kind of really didn’t. There weren’t even coherent exchanges. The idea that I keep coming back to is that Trump used that chaos to keep the debate on his own terms.
geoffrey.skelley: Well, until the end when Trump once again refused to say he’d accept the results of the election, I would say it was the exchange about race relations that was headline grabbing for me. Chris Wallace, the moderator, asked Trump to condemn white supremacists and right-wing militias, and Trump instead said, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” a reference to a white supremacist group.
Proud Boys in social media groups are going wild about the "Stand back and stand by" comment. They are basically seeing it as acknowledgment and a call to arms — Ezra Kaplan (@EzraNBC) September 30, 2020
That organization is apparently very happy to be mentioned by the president, too, and may view it as a call to arms ahead of the election.
lee.drutman: Geoffrey, I think “exchange” is a generous term for what was happening.
julia_azari: Trump reframed the question on race so completely that nothing substantive was said about structural racism. Trying to push Biden to defend the Obama administration and take positions that might divide Democrats didn’t really work. That said, I think it does show that Trump’s one area of success might be in shaping how people talk about politics and what the salient issues are.
The fact that he’s the incumbent president at a time when 200,000 people are dead from the coronavirus means it’s a feat that the entire debate is not devoted to his record on that alone.
Did Trump help his case?
lee.drutman: Trump’s case, as I understand it, is that Biden and the Democrats represent a radical left threat to America. He tried to goad Biden into that, but Biden didn’t take the bait. So in that respect, I don’t see how Trump helped his case.
geoffrey.skelley: I think the fundamental problem for Trump is that he’s down by 7 points nationally and trails in most of the swing states. So Trump needs to expand his base by winning over some undecided voters — who probably weren’t watching, but will hear about the debate tomorrow — or convert some Biden supporters.
He certainly tried to argue that Biden is a leftist or that he’s in league with radical socialists. He also tried to attack Biden on “law and order” by claiming that Biden wants to defund the police. But Trump’s campaign has been trying these lines for months without much apparent success, including at the GOP convention. Why would it work now?
Perhaps more people are paying attention now and some lower-information voters could be brought in by his appeals, but even then I’m pretty skeptical.
Did Biden lose any ground tonight?
lee.drutman: No, I don’t think we’ll see any movement in the polls. These are two candidates who are extremely well-known at this point, and everyone knows their strengths and weaknesses, and nothing we saw did anything to change those deeply-held views.
julia_azari: I think Biden’s temperament and demographic profile allowed him to get a bit angrier than, say, Hillary Clinton could when facing off against Trump in 2016.
I wouldn’t say that debates have been Biden’s best format in the 2020 cycle, but he came off more or less as expected.
lee.drutman: And if you are an undecided voter from a cave just tuning in, you went back into your cave and planned to hibernate for another four years.
julia_azari: I saw some Twitter grumbling about Biden’s statements about the police, but his position on those issues are well-known, so the fact that he didn’t strike a more progressive stance wasn’t particularly surprising.
geoffrey.skelley: Biden was pretty weak early on, but at the same time, it wasn’t all that different of a performance from the ones he had in most primary debates, either. And like Lee said, things are pretty baked in at this point. Moreover, challengers have tended to gain after the first debate, so if the polls do move, it’s possible that Biden might gain instead of Trump.
Did you learn anything new?
julia_azari: I don’t think I learned anything new, but this feels like a new low. Debates are an important exercise in legitimate opposition, and the norms that candidates follow seemed unimportant … until they were gone.
lee.drutman: My priors going into tonight were: 1) Biden is sluggish and sometimes incoherent; 2) Trump is often all over the place; and 3) American democracy is in a dark place in 2020. I’m not sure that changed after tonight, to be honest.
geoffrey.skelley: I don’t think we can entirely rule out some poll movement, but I’d be pretty amazed if it shifted the state of the race to a noticeable degree. And even if it does, that might be ephemeral. Our forecast model anticipates that a post-debate change might be temporary and that the polls could return to the pre-debate equilibrium. So I think we’ll have to wait and see.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-29--What Went Down During The First Presidential Debate

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-30--Trump’s Chances Are Dwindling. That Could Make Him Dangerous.

President Trump ’ s quest to win a second term is not in good shape .
He entered Tuesday night ’ s debate with roughly a 7- or 8-point deficit in national polls , putting him further behind at this stage of the race than any other candidate since Bob Dole in 1996 .
If we look at potential tipping-point states , the race is a bit closer , but not that much closer .
After a couple of strong polls for Joe Biden earlier this week in Pennsylvania — the state that ’ s currently most likely to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 5 to 6 points .
He ’ s down by about 7 points in Michigan and Wisconsin , meanwhile .
Those states , along with Minnesota , Maine and New Hampshire — where Biden has also polled strongly lately — suggest that Biden is winning back some of the Obama-Trump white working-class voters who flocked to Trump four years ago .
Indeed , Biden is as close to winning South Carolina or Alaska as Trump is to winning Michigan and Wisconsin , based on recent polls of those states .
At a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the debate probably didn ’ t help him either — it may have hurt him .
Every scientific poll we ’ ve seen had Trump losing the debate , some by narrow margins and some by wide ones .
That includes the poll FiveThirtyEight conducted with Ipsos , which surveyed the same group of voters before and after the debate .
While the poll didn ’ t show a massive swing — most voters stuck to their initial preferences — more voters did rate Biden ’ s performance favorably , and Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of voters who said they were certain to vote for him , roughly tantamount to a 3-point swing toward Biden in head-to-head polls .
Now , I ’ m not predicting this will happen , but if Biden ’ s national lead were to expand to 9 or 10 points , which is consistent with the sorts of polling bounces we ’ ve seen in the past for candidates who were perceived to win debates — especially challengers debating an incumbent for the first time — Trump ’ s situation could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , none of this means that Trump ’ s chances are kaput .
As of this writing , our forecast still gives him around a 21 percent chance of winning the Electoral College .
That ’ s not great , but it ’ s a lot better than zero .
But it ’ s possible Trump ’ s chances may decline further after post-debate polling begins to roll into our forecast .
Furthermore , the mere passage of time helps Biden in our model , because every day that Trump doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fate becomes slightly more sealed .
( Lots of people have already voted ! )
Case in point : In an election held today — Trump has no more time to make up ground — his chances would be 9 percent , not 21 percent , according to our forecast .
Then again , there are some possibilities that our model doesn ’ t account for , and they have become more pertinent after Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and declined to commit to respecting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launching the forecast : Let ’ s back up for a second .
This is FiveThirtyEight ’ s fourth presidential election campaign .
And in the previous three , there was at least some question about who was ahead in the stretch run of the race .
John McCain , for instance , briefly pulled ahead of Barack Obama following the 2008 Republican convention , and Obama didn ’ t really solidify his lead until early October .
In 2012 , national polls were very tight between Obama and Mitt Romney following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tight thereafter ( although Obama always maintained an Electoral College edge ) .
And people forget how close the 2016 race was for stretches of the campaign ; it was not such a huge upset .
In fact , Hillary Clinton led by only 1.4 points in our national polling average heading into the first debate that year .
But there isn ’ t any of that ambiguity this time .
Since we launched our general election polling averages on June 18 , Biden has never led by less than 6.6 points nationally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Rasmussen Reports poll that put Trump ahead by less than a full percentage point — has shown Trump leading by any margin during that period .
It ’ s been an exceptionally stable race .
But , amazingly , that hasn ’ t really shaken people ’ s confidence in Trump ’ s ability to win .
In our own poll with Ipsos , we found respondents thought Biden and Trump had roughly equally likely chances of winning .
And maybe that boils down to three perpetual sources of anxiety I hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers : • Trump could win the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin .
• There could be a large polling error in Trump ’ s favor .
• Trump could somehow steal the election .
All three are legitimate sources of concern for Biden backers .
The first two are relatively easy to quantify , however .
Indeed , the whole purpose of a model like FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential forecast is to answer questions like those .
The third one , however , is harder to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s talk about No .
1 and 2 first..
The Electoral College could still help Trump , but it only goes so far The possibility of an Electoral College , popular vote split remains a point in Trump ’ s favor .
In fact , there ’ s an 11 percent chance that Trump wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote in our forecast ( but less than a 1 percent chance the other way around ) .
At the same time , Biden ’ s strength in the Upper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least , if polls are correct there — potentially mitigates this disadvantage to some extent .
The table below shows Biden ’ s probability of winning the Electoral College given various popular vote margins , according to our forecast as of Wednesday afternoon .
And as you can see , Biden is only truly safe to win the Electoral College once he has a popular vote margin of 5 points or more !
But , he ’ s a fairly heavy favorite with a 3- to 5-point margin , and has roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin .
So , for practical purposes , you can take Biden ’ s lead in national polls and subtract 2 or 2.5 points from it to infer his margin in tipping-point states .
In other words , if he ’ s ahead by around 7.5 points in national polls , that ’ s more like the equivalent of a 5-point lead in the Electoral College .
That ’ s still a reasonably large advantage ; empirically , it ’ s not that easy to overcome a 5-point deficit at this stage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help Trump … or Biden One of the misconceptions I hear about FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast is that “ it assumes that polls are right.
” Actually , in some sense the whole purpose of the forecast is to estimate the chance that the polls are wrong .
In 2016 , the polls did show Clinton ahead , but between tight margins in tipping-point states and the large number of undecided voters , there was a fairly high probability — around 30 percent , according to our forecast — that Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a polling error is possible — indeed , our forecast assumes there ’ s likely additional error this year because of an uptick in mail voting — it would still take a bigger error than in 2016 for Trump to win .
Assume that current polls hold until Election Day , and subtract 3 points from Biden ’ s margin in every state ( roughly the average error in swing state polls in 2016 ) … Biden still wins Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin fairly comfortably , and therefore , the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slight favorite in Arizona .
And as our friends at the Upshot have calculated , even if you had a polling error of the exact same magnitude in the exact same states as in 2016 , Biden would still win , albeit narrowly .
Of course , nothing intrinsically rules out a larger polling error .
We had one in 1948 — when Dewey didn ’ t defeat Truman , after all — and in 1980 , when Ronald Reagan won in an epic landslide instead of the narrow margin that polls predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such an error would favor Trump .
Historically , the direction of polling bias has not been predictable from cycle to cycle ; the same polls that underestimated Trump in 2016 tended to underestimate Obama and Democrats in 2012 , for instance .
If anything , to the extent there are polling errors , they sometimes come in the opposite direction of what the conventional wisdom expects .
I want to spend more time on this topic in the coming days , so I won ’ t go on at too much length @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a 7-point Biden lead on Election Day could , indeed , turn into a 2-point Biden popular vote win where Trump narrowly wins the Electoral College .
As I wrote earlier in the piece , our forecast gives Trump about a 9 percent chance of winning an election held today despite his current deficit in polls — not bad when you ’ re 7 points down !
But it ’ s about equally likely that a 7-point Biden lead could translate into a 12-point Biden win , in which he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas , but would also have a shot in South Carolina , Alaska and Montana .
Trump ’ s comments on respecting the election outcome are deeply worrisome , but it ’ s hard to estimate his chances of overturning the result Hoo , boy .
At some point I ’ m going to have to write a column about this too , I suppose .
As I said at the outset , our forecast assumes that the election is free and fair — at least to the extent that past elections that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free and fair .
( Throughout American history , there has always been plenty of voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement . )
But for now , let me advance a few propositions : • Even a small probability that the U.S. could become a failed or manifestly undemocratic state is worth taking seriously .
• There are a wide range of things that Trump could attempt to do , many of which would be quite damaging to the country , but they are not necessarily equally likely to succeed .
• Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually change the result of the election if the outcome is close , and right now , the most likely scenario is that Biden wins by a not-so-close margin .
Beyond that , it ’ s hard to estimate the probability that Trump could steal the election to any degree of precision .
It requires , at a minimum , some knowledge of the probabilities in a free and fair election plus some knowledge of election law and how many votes could realistically come under dispute plus some theory of the institutional incentives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts plus some opinions on how Congress might interpret the Constitution in the event of a disputed election .
Maybe a panel of experts could get together and try to put together some reasonable bounds on the probability of various scenarios , but I don ’ t know that any individual could — certainly not me .
After Trump ’ s actions over the past few weeks , though , I wonder if there ’ s some tradeoff between Trump ’ s chances of winning legitimately and his willingness to engage in authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably wouldn ’ t succeed at stealing the election .
It ’ s not like this is coming entirely out of left field ; Trump also said in 2016 that he wouldn ’ t necessarily respect the election results .
But his recent statements have come at a moment of increasing peril for his campaign .
It ’ s hard to know for sure , but I think Trump ’ s comments might be more tempered if he were 2 points ahead in Wisconsin instead of 7 points down .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has left to play or which contingencies could work in his favor enough for him to win — other than if the polls have been wrong all along .
Consider that Trump ’ s convention produced , at best , a very meager bounce in his favor .
His attempt to pivot the campaign to a “ law and order ” theme fell completely flat in polls of the upper Midwest .
He ’ s thrown the kitchen sink at Biden and not really been able to pull down Biden ’ s favorables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn the corner on COVID-19 before the election are diminishing after cases have begun to rise again in many states .
His campaign , somehow , is struggling to hold on to enough cash to run ads in the places it most needs to run them .
The New York Times and other news organizations are likely to continue publishing damaging stories on his taxes and personal finances from now until the election .
And now he ’ s seemingly lost the first debate .
If Trump intuits that he ’ s unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not hard to imagine him escalating his anti-democratic rhetoric and behavior .
It ’ s also not hard to imagine this rhetoric further eroding his position in polls .
It ’ s highly unpopular in focus groups ( yes , take those with a huge grain of salt ) and Trump ’ s polling over the past several days has been particularly bad ( although there ’ s been a lot of other news , too ) .
So we could be headed for a vicious cycle where Trump increasingly gives up on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and voters increasingly give up on him .
But from a polling standpoint , this is one of the clearer elections to diagnose : Biden isn ’ t home-free , but he ’ s in a strong position .
Nonetheless , the outlook for what ’ s actually in store for America has rarely been more cloudy .

President Trump’s quest to win a second term is not in good shape. He entered Tuesday night’s debate with roughly a 7- or 8-point deficit in national polls, putting him further behind at this stage of the race than any other candidate since Bob Dole in 1996.
If we look at potential tipping-point states, the race is a bit closer, but not that much closer. After a couple of strong polls for Joe Biden earlier this week in Pennsylvania — the state that’s currently most likely to decide the election — Trump now trails there by 5 to 6 points. He’s down by about 7 points in Michigan and Wisconsin, meanwhile. Those states, along with Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire — where Biden has also polled strongly lately — suggest that Biden is winning back some of the Obama-Trump white working-class voters who flocked to Trump four years ago. Indeed, Biden is as close to winning South Carolina or Alaska as Trump is to winning Michigan and Wisconsin, based on recent polls of those states.
At a time when Trump desperately needed a boost, the debate probably didn’t help him either — it may have hurt him. Every scientific poll we’ve seen had Trump losing the debate, some by narrow margins and some by wide ones.
That includes the poll FiveThirtyEight conducted with Ipsos, which surveyed the same group of voters before and after the debate. While the poll didn’t show a massive swing — most voters stuck to their initial preferences — more voters did rate Biden’s performance favorably, and Biden gained ground relative to Trump based on the number of voters who said they were certain to vote for him, roughly tantamount to a 3-point swing toward Biden in head-to-head polls.
How Trump could spark a full-blown election crisis | FiveThirtyEight
Now, I’m not predicting this will happen, but if Biden’s national lead were to expand to 9 or 10 points, which is consistent with the sorts of polling bounces we’ve seen in the past for candidates who were perceived to win debates — especially challengers debating an incumbent for the first time — Trump’s situation could become quite desperate.
To be clear, none of this means that Trump’s chances are kaput. As of this writing, our forecast still gives him around a 21 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. That’s not great, but it’s a lot better than zero.
But it’s possible Trump’s chances may decline further after post-debate polling begins to roll into our forecast. Furthermore, the mere passage of time helps Biden in our model, because every day that Trump doesn’t gain ground is a day when his fate becomes slightly more sealed. (Lots of people have already voted!) Case in point: In an election held today — Trump has no more time to make up ground — his chances would be 9 percent, not 21 percent, according to our forecast.
Then again, there are some possibilities that our model doesn’t account for, and they have become more pertinent after Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and declined to commit to respecting the election results. As we wrote when launching the forecast:
We assume that there are reasonable efforts to allow eligible citizens to vote and to count all legal ballots, and that electors are awarded to the popular-vote winner in each state. The model also does not account for the possibility of extraconstitutional shenanigans by Trump or by anyone else, such as trying to prevent mail ballots from being counted.
Let’s back up for a second. This is FiveThirtyEight’s fourth presidential election campaign. And in the previous three, there was at least some question about who was ahead in the stretch run of the race. John McCain, for instance, briefly pulled ahead of Barack Obama following the 2008 Republican convention, and Obama didn’t really solidify his lead until early October. In 2012, national polls were very tight between Obama and Mitt Romney following the first presidential debate, and remained fairly tight thereafter (although Obama always maintained an Electoral College edge). And people forget how close the 2016 race was for stretches of the campaign; it was not such a huge upset. In fact, Hillary Clinton led by only 1.4 points in our national polling average heading into the first debate that year.
But there isn’t any of that ambiguity this time. Since we launched our general election polling averages on June 18, Biden has never led by less than 6.6 points nationally. Literally only one national poll — a Rasmussen Reports poll that put Trump ahead by less than a full percentage point — has shown Trump leading by any margin during that period. It’s been an exceptionally stable race.
But, amazingly, that hasn’t really shaken people’s confidence in Trump’s ability to win. In our own poll with Ipsos, we found respondents thought Biden and Trump had roughly equally likely chances of winning. And maybe that boils down to three perpetual sources of anxiety I hear in conversation with liberal friends or liberal readers:
Trump could win the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by a wide margin. There could be a large polling error in Trump’s favor. Trump could somehow steal the election.
All three are legitimate sources of concern for Biden backers. The first two are relatively easy to quantify, however. Indeed, the whole purpose of a model like FiveThirtyEight’s presidential forecast is to answer questions like those. The third one, however, is harder to get a handle on, so let’s talk about No. 1 and 2 first..
The Electoral College could still help Trump, but it only goes so far
The possibility of an Electoral College, popular vote split remains a point in Trump’s favor. In fact, there’s an 11 percent chance that Trump wins the Electoral College but not the popular vote in our forecast (but less than a 1 percent chance the other way around). At the same time, Biden’s strength in the Upper Midwest relative to Clinton’s — at least, if polls are correct there — potentially mitigates this disadvantage to some extent. The table below shows Biden’s probability of winning the Electoral College given various popular vote margins, according to our forecast as of Wednesday afternoon. And as you can see, Biden is only truly safe to win the Electoral College once he has a popular vote margin of 5 points or more! But, he’s a fairly heavy favorite with a 3- to 5-point margin, and has roughly break-even odds with a 2- to 3-point margin.
Biden’s favored, if he wins the popular vote by +2 to +3 points Chances of Biden winning the Electoral College under different popular vote scenarios, according to the FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast, as of Sept. 30 POPULAR VOTE MARGIN scenarios Biden’s chances
of winning the ELECTORAL COLLEGE Biden +6 to Biden +7 >99% Biden +5 to Biden +6 98 Biden +4 to Biden +5 93 Biden +3 to Biden +4 77 Biden +2 to Biden +3 54 Biden +1 to Biden +2 29 TIE to Biden +1 11 Trump +1 to TIE 3 Trump +2 to Trump +1 <1
So, for practical purposes, you can take Biden’s lead in national polls and subtract 2 or 2.5 points from it to infer his margin in tipping-point states. In other words, if he’s ahead by around 7.5 points in national polls, that’s more like the equivalent of a 5-point lead in the Electoral College. That’s still a reasonably large advantage; empirically, it’s not that easy to overcome a 5-point deficit at this stage of the race.
A big polling error could help Trump … or Biden
One of the misconceptions I hear about FiveThirtyEight’s forecast is that “it assumes that polls are right.” Actually, in some sense the whole purpose of the forecast is to estimate the chance that the polls are wrong. In 2016, the polls did show Clinton ahead, but between tight margins in tipping-point states and the large number of undecided voters, there was a fairly high probability — around 30 percent, according to our forecast — that Trump was going to win anyway.
So while a polling error is possible — indeed, our forecast assumes there’s likely additional error this year because of an uptick in mail voting — it would still take a bigger error than in 2016 for Trump to win.
Assume that current polls hold until Election Day, and subtract 3 points from Biden’s margin in every state (roughly the average error in swing state polls in 2016) … Biden still wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin fairly comfortably, and therefore, the Electoral College; he’d also be a slight favorite in Arizona. And as our friends at the Upshot have calculated, even if you had a polling error of the exact same magnitude in the exact same states as in 2016, Biden would still win, albeit narrowly.
Of course, nothing intrinsically rules out a larger polling error. We had one in 1948 — when Dewey didn’t defeat Truman, after all — and in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won in an epic landslide instead of the narrow margin that polls predicted.
But there’s no guarantee such an error would favor Trump. Historically, the direction of polling bias has not been predictable from cycle to cycle; the same polls that underestimated Trump in 2016 tended to underestimate Obama and Democrats in 2012, for instance. If anything, to the extent there are polling errors, they sometimes come in the opposite direction of what the conventional wisdom expects.
I want to spend more time on this topic in the coming days, so I won’t go on at too much length here. But for now, know that a 7-point Biden lead on Election Day could, indeed, turn into a 2-point Biden popular vote win where Trump narrowly wins the Electoral College.
As I wrote earlier in the piece, our forecast gives Trump about a 9 percent chance of winning an election held today despite his current deficit in polls — not bad when you’re 7 points down! But it’s about equally likely that a 7-point Biden lead could translate into a 12-point Biden win, in which he’d not only carry states like Georgia and Texas, but would also have a shot in South Carolina, Alaska and Montana.
Trump’s comments on respecting the election outcome are deeply worrisome, but it’s hard to estimate his chances of overturning the result
Hoo, boy. At some point I’m going to have to write a column about this too, I suppose. As I said at the outset, our forecast assumes that the election is free and fair — at least to the extent that past elections that we used to train the model were free and fair. (Throughout American history, there has always been plenty of voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement.)
But for now, let me advance a few propositions:
Even a small probability that the U.S. could become a failed or manifestly undemocratic state is worth taking seriously.
There are a wide range of things that Trump could attempt to do, many of which would be quite damaging to the country, but they are not necessarily equally likely to succeed.
to do, many of which would be quite damaging to the country, but they are not necessarily equally likely to succeed. Trump’s actions are much more likely to actually change the result of the election if the outcome is close, and right now, the most likely scenario is that Biden wins by a not-so-close margin.
Beyond that, it’s hard to estimate the probability that Trump could steal the election to any degree of precision. It requires, at a minimum, some knowledge of the probabilities in a free and fair election plus some knowledge of election law and how many votes could realistically come under dispute plus some theory of the institutional incentives of the Supreme Court and various other courts plus some opinions on how Congress might interpret the Constitution in the event of a disputed election. Maybe a panel of experts could get together and try to put together some reasonable bounds on the probability of various scenarios, but I don’t know that any individual could — certainly not me.
After Trump’s actions over the past few weeks, though, I wonder if there’s some tradeoff between Trump’s chances of winning legitimately and his willingness to engage in authoritarian rhetoric and behavior, even if it probably wouldn’t succeed at stealing the election. It’s not like this is coming entirely out of left field; Trump also said in 2016 that he wouldn’t necessarily respect the election results. But his recent statements have come at a moment of increasing peril for his campaign. It’s hard to know for sure, but I think Trump’s comments might be more tempered if he were 2 points ahead in Wisconsin instead of 7 points down.
It’s not easy to see which cards Trump has left to play or which contingencies could work in his favor enough for him to win — other than if the polls have been wrong all along.
Consider that Trump’s convention produced, at best, a very meager bounce in his favor. His attempt to pivot the campaign to a “law and order” theme fell completely flat in polls of the upper Midwest. He’s thrown the kitchen sink at Biden and not really been able to pull down Biden’s favorables. His hopes that we’d turn the corner on COVID-19 before the election are diminishing after cases have begun to rise again in many states. His campaign, somehow, is struggling to hold on to enough cash to run ads in the places it most needs to run them. The New York Times and other news organizations are likely to continue publishing damaging stories on his taxes and personal finances from now until the election. And now he’s seemingly lost the first debate.
If Trump intuits that he’s unlikely to win legitimately — it’s not hard to imagine him escalating his anti-democratic rhetoric and behavior. It’s also not hard to imagine this rhetoric further eroding his position in polls. It’s highly unpopular in focus groups (yes, take those with a huge grain of salt) and Trump’s polling over the past several days has been particularly bad (although there’s been a lot of other news, too).
So we could be headed for a vicious cycle where Trump increasingly gives up on trying to persuade or turn out voters and voters increasingly give up on him. But from a polling standpoint, this is one of the clearer elections to diagnose: Biden isn’t home-free, but he’s in a strong position. Nonetheless, the outlook for what’s actually in store for America has rarely been more cloudy.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-30--The Debate Was One Of The Few Opportunities For Trump To Shake Up The Race. He Probably Didn’t.

The Debate Was One Of The Few Opportunities For Trump To Shake Up The Race .
He Probably Didn ’ @ @


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-30--Politics Podcast: Trump Interrupts To Point Of Chaos In First Debate

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to a chaotic first presidential debate .
@ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s few remaining opportunities to shake up the dynamics of the 2020 race @ @ @ @ @ likely didn ’ t help him .
You can listen to the episode by clicking @ @ @ @ @ in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App @ @ @ @ @ .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight @ @ @ @ @ and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and @ @ @ @ @ a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ , on Twitter or in the comments .

In a late-night installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to a chaotic first presidential debate. It was one of President Trump’s few remaining opportunities to shake up the dynamics of the 2020 race, but his aggressive interruptions likely didn’t help him.
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 is recorded 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--2020-10-01--What It Means When Democrats Talk About Packing The Court

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , law professor Daniel Epps talks to Galen Druke about some Democrats @ @ @ @ @ Court be expanded .

What It Means When Democrats Talk About Packing The Court
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, law professor Daniel Epps talks to Galen Druke about some Democrats’ suggestion that the Supreme Court be expanded.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-01--Politics Podcast: Is The Supreme Court Losing Legitimacy?

In response to Republicans ’ move to fill a Supreme Court vacancy so close to the election , some Democrats @ @ @ @ @ expanding or restructuring the court .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , @ @ @ @ @ with Galen Druke about whether the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in jeopardy and @ @ @ @ @ and scholars are considering .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ @ @ @ @ @ audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your @ @ @ @ @ you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

In response to Republicans’ move to fill a Supreme Court vacancy so close to the election, some Democrats have floated the idea of expanding or restructuring the court. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, law professor Daniel Epps speaks with Galen Druke about whether the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in jeopardy and what kinds of reforms activists and scholars are considering.
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 is recorded 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--2020-10-01--How Trump Could Spark A Full-Blown Election Crisis

President Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose reelection .
So what happens @ @ @ @ @ election in November ?
Elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley explains just how complex our electoral system @ @ @ @ @ possible scenarios .

President Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose reelection. So what happens if we have a contested election in November? Elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley explains just how complex our electoral system is and runs through some possible scenarios.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-01--We’ve Had 56 Statewide Elections During The Pandemic. Here’s What We Learned From Them.

The 2020 primary season finally ended last month , meaning there have now been 56 statewide elections ( presidential primaries , state-level primaries and even the occasional runoff ) since the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in mid-March — dress rehearsals of sorts for opening night on Nov. 3 .
And while , through mid-July , these “ pandemic primaries ” had an inconsistent record of success , more recent elections have settled into more of a groove .
Here are three takeaways from a primary season like no other , and what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 .
Mail voting is still way up , but more people are voting in person The most obvious change that states have made to the way elections are held during the pandemic is to encourage mail voting .
Going into the year , 16 states did not allow anyone who wanted to to vote absentee , but only two ( Louisiana and Texas ) kept that restriction in place for their primary after the pandemic hit .
And voters largely embraced the new method of voting : In every election except Colorado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted elections by mail before the pandemic ) , a greater share of people — and usually many more people — cast absentee ballots in 2020 than in the equivalent election in 2016 .
Overall , in 44 of the 55 elections for which we have data , at least 40 percent of the ballots cast were absentees .
And 15 of the elections were almost entirely ( 95+ percent ) conducted via absentee ballot .
But in recent months , there have been noticeably fewer of these universal mail-voting elections .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still choosing to vote absentee , there have been more numbers like Connecticut ’ s 59 percent absentee-voting rate than Maryland ’ s 97 percent absentee-voting rate from earlier in the summer .
Overall , 74 percent of voters cast absentee ballots in an average pandemic primary through the end of June — but only 50 percent have done so in the average statewide election since then .
And that latter number would be even lower if it weren ’ t for the presence of states like Arizona and Washington that vote heavily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances .
The absentee-voting rate has increased by an average of 32 percentage points in primaries since July 1 , whereas it increased by an average of 55 points in primaries between March 17 and June 30 .
This may partly be because people have adjusted to our new reality and have grown more comfortable reengaging in in-person activities — from eating out to seeing friends to , yes , voting .
But of course , it ’ s also because states are more open now than they were in the spring .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the shaded rows in the table , several states eliminated in-person voting altogether in their April , May and June primaries ( although some still offered the option for voters who physically could not vote by mail , such as people with disabilities or without mailing addresses ) .
And even those that did not , such as Kentucky , Montana , Nevada , New Mexico , and Washington , D.C. , still decreased access to in-person voting by closing many polling places .
By contrast , every election since the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and some states were even able to open their full suite of polling places .
A great example of this is in Rhode Island and Delaware , which opened 47 and 80 polling places , respectively , for their early-summer presidential primaries but , given more time to prepare sites and recruit poll workers , were able to open 280 and 286 polling places , respectively , for their state-level primaries in September .
This also bodes well for in-person voting access for the general election ; most polling places are expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , the downward trend of mail voting suggests that the popular perception that the pandemic would prompt a national , predominantly mail election — an idea crystallized during the spring and early summer — is outdated .
According to virtually every recent poll , only about 30 to 40 percent of voters are planning to vote by mail in the general election .
Simply put , fewer people are voting by mail these days than in the first few months of the pandemic ( though still a lot more than before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of the pandemic , the effect on turnout was uncertain .
The first four states to hold statewide elections during the pandemic saw their voting eligible population turnout rates decrease significantly compared with the equivalent election in 2016 — perhaps unsurprisingly , given that these states had so little time to prepare for holding an election amid a public-health crisis .
( Of course , the fact that the Democratic presidential primary race ceased to be competitive around this time also probably contributed . )
And although some spring primaries ( e.g.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout records , almost as many ( e.g.
, in Indiana and Ohio ) saw turnout plunge from 2016 levels .
But then , as the uncontested presidential primary drew to a close and state-level primaries began to dominate the calendar , turnout decreases were less common .
In fact , every election after the Louisiana presidential primary on July 11 saw higher turnout than its 2016 equivalent — at least among those for which it is possible to make an apples-to-apples comparison .
Overall , through the end of June , turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of just 2 percentage points higher than 2016 levels .
But in elections after July 1 , turnout was an average of 9 percentage points higher .
To be sure , some of these turnout increases can be attributed to some of these primaries being much more competitive than they were in 2016 .
Massachusetts , home of the biggest turnout increase of all ( +26 points ) , is exhibit A : The Democratic primary for Senate there was as bitterly contested as any election this year , primary or general .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had pretty boring primaries this year and still saw turnout rise .
And it may not have escaped your notice that the states with the highest turnout rates included those that held their primaries predominantly by mail : Washington , Montana , Oregon , Hawaii , Colorado .
Given that some studies have shown that mail voting boosts political participation , the increased popularity of vote-by-mail in 2020 is a plausible explanation for why turnout is up this year despite a deadly pandemic .
That said , we ’ ll probably never be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since there are also plenty of other potential factors .
For example , Colorado opened its primaries up to unaffiliated voters , and Kentucky and Nebraska went from holding only one party ’ s presidential primary in 2016 to two in 2020 , doubling the potential electorate .
But even if we can ’ t credit mail voting ( and therefore , indirectly , the pandemic ) for increasing turnout , we can at least be confident that the pandemic hasn ’ t lowered it ( at least not since the spring ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look ahead to the general election , which before the pandemic was inspiring historic levels of voter enthusiasm .
This led some analysts to predict extraordinarily high turnout in 2020 , a forecast that now seems like it is on firmer footing given what we saw in the primaries .
Finally , elections in the first few months of the pandemic were plagued by problems that threatened to disenfranchise voters — or else put them at risk of being exposed to the coronavirus .
Of the 29 pandemic primaries from March 17 through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems of some sort .
The most common issues were long lines outside polling places ( which happened in at least 14 elections during this time frame ) and voters not receiving absentee ballots they had requested ( at least 11 elections ) .
But since June 30 , more elections appear to have gone off without a hitch .
According to my research , there have been reports of electoral problems in only 10 of the 27 statewide elections during this period ( and while it ’ s possible I missed one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty closely ! )
.
However , truant absentee ballots still remained a problem in Connecticut , Michigan , Minnesota , Missouri , Tennessee and Texas .
And some polling places opened late in Delaware ( for the state-level primary ) , Michigan and Tennessee thanks to machine errors or poll worker no-shows .
But other problems tended to be less severe than those reported in the spring .
For example , while there were scattered social-media reports of lines at polling places in Delaware ( both for the presidential primary and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey , they did not appear to be as widespread or interminable as those in , say , Nevada or Washington , D.C. , in early June .
And in Massachusetts , the biggest problem was that some voters were mailed the wrong ballot — a mistake that election officials quickly rectified by sending replacements .
In summary , it seems like states are getting better at avoiding election snafus — and hopefully this means they will be minimal in November .
The three evolutions that primaries have made since July — with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems with voting — are , of course , interconnected .
The consistently higher turnout rates are probably related to the increased access to mail voting .
However , the fact that fewer people are taking advantage of that option may explain why there have been fewer problems reported with recent elections .
And the relatively smooth sailing in those elections may even have contributed to the higher turnout .
Altogether , the pandemic primaries suggest that the climactic election of 2020 will be heavily ( but not predominantly ) vote-by-mail , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be sporadic ( but not crippling ) problems with lines and absentee-ballot delivery .
Based on other evidence , that ’ s a very plausible scenario for November .
But of course , the general election is not a primary — and Trump is waging a campaign to undermine the election results — so any precedent for it is imperfect .
Anything can still happen .

The 2020 primary season finally ended last month, meaning there have now been 56 statewide elections (presidential primaries, state-level primaries and even the occasional runoff) since the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in mid-March — dress rehearsals of sorts for opening night on Nov. 3. And while, through mid-July, these “pandemic primaries” had an inconsistent record of success, more recent elections have settled into more of a groove.
Here are three takeaways from a primary season like no other, and what they could mean for the general election:
1. Mail voting is still way up, but more people are voting in person
The most obvious change that states have made to the way elections are held during the pandemic is to encourage mail voting. Going into the year, 16 states did not allow anyone who wanted to to vote absentee, but only two (Louisiana and Texas) kept that restriction in place for their primary after the pandemic hit. And voters largely embraced the new method of voting: In every election except Colorado, Oregon and Washington (which already conducted elections by mail before the pandemic), a greater share of people — and usually many more people — cast absentee ballots in 2020 than in the equivalent election in 2016. Overall, in 44 of the 55 elections for which we have data, at least 40 percent of the ballots cast were absentees. And 15 of the elections were almost entirely (95+ percent) conducted via absentee ballot.
Mail voting spiked in 2020 primaries, especially early on Share of ballots cast absentee in statewide elections held during the pandemic, and how much that share increased from 2016 Date State Absentee Access share Absentee Change from 2016 March 17 AZ Anyone could vote absentee 89% +8 FL Anyone could vote absentee 46 +16 IL Anyone could vote absentee 9 +6 April 7 WI Anyone could vote absentee 75 +65 April 10 AK Mailed ballots 100 +100 April 17 WY Mailed ballots 100 +100 April 28 OH Mailed instructions 99 +85 May 2 KS Mailed ballots 100 +100 May 12 NE Mailed ballot applications 84 +63 May 19 OR Mailed ballots 100 0 May 22 HI Mailed ballots 100 +100 June 2 ID Mailed ballot applications 100 +86 IN Anyone could vote absentee 51 +35 IA Mailed ballot applications 78 +59 MD Mailed ballots 97 +93 MT Mailed ballots 100 +30 NM Mailed ballot applications 63 +56 PA Mailed instructions 51 +48 RI Mailed ballot applications 83 +79 SD Mailed ballot applications 58 +44 DC Mailed ballot applications 71 +64 June 9 GA Mailed ballot applications 48 — NV Mailed ballots 100 +89 ND Mailed ballot applications 100 +73 SC Anyone could vote absentee 22 +10 WV* Mailed ballot applications 50 +48 June 23 KY Mailed instructions 72 +69 VA Anyone could vote absentee 21 — June 30 CO Mailed ballots 99 0 OK Anyone could vote absentee 14 +10 UT Mailed ballots 100 — July 7 DE Mailed ballot applications 45 +42 NJ Mailed ballots or applications 88 +83 July 11 LA Excuse required 19 +16 July 14 AL Anyone could vote absentee 5 — ME Anyone could vote absentee 60 +50 TX Excuse required 16 — Aug. 4 AZ Mailed ballot applications 88 +4 KS Anyone could vote absentee 41 +28 MI Mailed ballot applications 65 +30 MO Anyone could vote absentee 15 +9 WA Mailed ballots 100 0 Aug. 6 TN* Anyone could vote absentee 10 +8 Aug. 8 HI Mailed ballots 99 +37 Aug. 11 CT Mailed ballot applications 59 — MN Anyone could vote absentee 59 +45 VT Mailed ballot applications 73 +54 WI* Anyone could vote absentee 64 +52 Aug. 18 AK Anyone could vote absentee 36 +25 FL Anyone could vote absentee 60 +17 WY Mailed ballot applications 47 +25 Sept. 1 MA Mailed ballot applications 48 +40 Sept. 8 NH Anyone could vote absentee 30 +25 RI Anyone could vote absentee 41 +36 Sept. 15 DE Mailed ballot applications 43 +38 *2020 data is preliminary. Elections highlighted in gray did not offer any in-person voting or offered it only to those who could not vote by mail (e.g., people with disabilities or without mailing addresses). No 2020 data was available in New York, so it has been omitted from the table. No 2016 data was available in Utah. Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Texas and Virginia did not have a 2016 election to make an apples-to-apples comparison to. Figures do not necessarily reflect the percentage of ballots cast by mail. Most states do not distinguish between absentee ballots cast by mail and those cast in person at a local election office. In addition, Arizona and Nebraska do not distinguish between in-person early voting and absentee voting. Source: State election offices
But in recent months, there have been noticeably fewer of these universal mail-voting elections. Although a significant chunk of the electorate is still choosing to vote absentee, there have been more numbers like Connecticut’s 59 percent absentee-voting rate than Maryland’s 97 percent absentee-voting rate from earlier in the summer. Overall, 74 percent of voters cast absentee ballots in an average pandemic primary through the end of June — but only 50 percent have done so in the average statewide election since then. And that latter number would be even lower if it weren’t for the presence of states like Arizona and Washington that vote heavily absentee or by mail even under normal circumstances. The absentee-voting rate has increased by an average of 32 percentage points in primaries since July 1, whereas it increased by an average of 55 points in primaries between March 17 and June 30.
This may partly be because people have adjusted to our new reality and have grown more comfortable reengaging in in-person activities — from eating out to seeing friends to, yes, voting. But of course, it’s also because states are more open now than they were in the spring. For instance, as you can see from the shaded rows in the table, several states eliminated in-person voting altogether in their April, May and June primaries (although some still offered the option for voters who physically could not vote by mail, such as people with disabilities or without mailing addresses). And even those that did not, such as Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C., still decreased access to in-person voting by closing many polling places.
By contrast, every election since the beginning of July has offered in-person voting options, and some states were even able to open their full suite of polling places. A great example of this is in Rhode Island and Delaware, which opened 47 and 80 polling places, respectively, for their early-summer presidential primaries but, given more time to prepare sites and recruit poll workers, were able to open 280 and 286 polling places, respectively, for their state-level primaries in September. This also bodes well for in-person voting access for the general election; most polling places are expected to be open in most states.
Overall, the downward trend of mail voting suggests that the popular perception that the pandemic would prompt a national, predominantly mail election — an idea crystallized during the spring and early summer — is outdated. According to virtually every recent poll, only about 30 to 40 percent of voters are planning to vote by mail in the general election. Simply put, fewer people are voting by mail these days than in the first few months of the pandemic (though still a lot more than before the pandemic).
2. The pandemic isn’t depressing turnout
In the first few months of the pandemic, the effect on turnout was uncertain. The first four states to hold statewide elections during the pandemic saw their voting eligible population turnout rates decrease significantly compared with the equivalent election in 2016 — perhaps unsurprisingly, given that these states had so little time to prepare for holding an election amid a public-health crisis. (Of course, the fact that the Democratic presidential primary race ceased to be competitive around this time also probably contributed.) And although some spring primaries (e.g., in Iowa and Nebraska) broke turnout records, almost as many (e.g., in Indiana and Ohio) saw turnout plunge from 2016 levels.
But then, as the uncontested presidential primary drew to a close and state-level primaries began to dominate the calendar, turnout decreases were less common. In fact, every election after the Louisiana presidential primary on July 11 saw higher turnout than its 2016 equivalent — at least among those for which it is possible to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
Overall, through the end of June, turnout in the pandemic primaries was an average of just 2 percentage points higher than 2016 levels. But in elections after July 1, turnout was an average of 9 percentage points higher.
Primary turnout was generally higher in 2020 than in 2016 Turnout as a share of the voting eligible population in statewide elections held during the pandemic, and how much it changed from 2016 Date State Turnout Change from 2016 March 17 Arizona 12% -12 Florida 20 -9 Illinois 25 -14 April 7 Wisconsin 35 -14 April 10 Alaska 4 +2 April 17 Wyoming 4 +2 April 28 Ohio 21 -17 May 2 Kansas 7 +5 May 12 Nebraska 36 +13 May 19 Oregon 42 +1 May 22 Hawaii 3 0 June 2 Idaho 26 +11 Indiana 22 -15 Iowa 23 +14 Maryland 32 -1 Montana 46 +9 New Mexico 28 +5 Pennsylvania 30 -4 Rhode Island 16 -8 South Dakota 24 +4 Washington, D.C. 22 +2 June 9 Georgia 30 — Nevada 22 +10 North Dakota 28 +4 South Carolina 20 +8 West Virginia 32 -2 June 23 Kentucky 31 +11 Virginia 9 — June 30 Colorado 38 +21 Oklahoma 24 +12 Utah 27 +10 July 7 Delaware 17 -6 New Jersey 24 +1 July 11 Louisiana 16 -3 July 14 Alabama 17 — Maine 25 +16 Texas 10 — Aug. 4 Arizona 28 +7 Kansas 31 +11 Michigan 33 +15 Missouri 29 +5 Washington 47 +19 Aug. 6 Tennessee* 19 +8 Aug. 8 Hawaii 40 +16 Aug. 11 Connecticut 13 — Minnesota 22 +15 Vermont 34 +10 Wisconsin* 22 +7 Aug. 18 Alaska 26 +9 Florida 25 +5 Wyoming 33 +6 Sept. 1 Massachusetts 34 +26 Sept. 8 New Hampshire 28 +10 Rhode Island 12 +3 Sept. 15 Delaware 25 +11 *2020 data is preliminary. No 2020 data was available in New York, so it has been omitted from the table. Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Texas and Virginia did not have a 2016 election to make an apples-to-apples comparison to. Sources: State election offices, United States Elections Project
To be sure, some of these turnout increases can be attributed to some of these primaries being much more competitive than they were in 2016. Massachusetts, home of the biggest turnout increase of all (+26 points), is exhibit A: The Democratic primary for Senate there was as bitterly contested as any election this year, primary or general. But plenty of states, frankly, had pretty boring primaries this year and still saw turnout rise.
And it may not have escaped your notice that the states with the highest turnout rates included those that held their primaries predominantly by mail: Washington, Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, Colorado. Given that some studies have shown that mail voting boosts political participation, the increased popularity of vote-by-mail in 2020 is a plausible explanation for why turnout is up this year despite a deadly pandemic. That said, we’ll probably never be able to say so for sure, since there are also plenty of other potential factors. For example, Colorado opened its primaries up to unaffiliated voters, and Kentucky and Nebraska went from holding only one party’s presidential primary in 2016 to two in 2020, doubling the potential electorate.
But even if we can’t credit mail voting (and therefore, indirectly, the pandemic) for increasing turnout, we can at least be confident that the pandemic hasn’t lowered it (at least not since the spring). That’s reassuring as we look ahead to the general election, which before the pandemic was inspiring historic levels of voter enthusiasm. This led some analysts to predict extraordinarily high turnout in 2020, a forecast that now seems like it is on firmer footing given what we saw in the primaries.
3. Fewer problems are being reported
Finally, elections in the first few months of the pandemic were plagued by problems that threatened to disenfranchise voters — or else put them at risk of being exposed to the coronavirus. Of the 29 pandemic primaries from March 17 through June 23, at least 21 experienced problems of some sort. The most common issues were long lines outside polling places (which happened in at least 14 elections during this time frame) and voters not receiving absentee ballots they had requested (at least 11 elections).
But since June 30, more elections appear to have gone off without a hitch. According to my research, there have been reports of electoral problems in only 10 of the 27 statewide elections during this period (and while it’s possible I missed one or two, I follow this stuff pretty closely!). However, truant absentee ballots still remained a problem in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas. And some polling places opened late in Delaware (for the state-level primary), Michigan and Tennessee thanks to machine errors or poll worker no-shows.
But other problems tended to be less severe than those reported in the spring. For example, while there were scattered social-media reports of lines at polling places in Delaware (both for the presidential primary and the state-level one), Missouri and New Jersey, they did not appear to be as widespread or interminable as those in, say, Nevada or Washington, D.C., in early June. And in Massachusetts, the biggest problem was that some voters were mailed the wrong ballot — a mistake that election officials quickly rectified by sending replacements.
In summary, it seems like states are getting better at avoiding election snafus — and hopefully this means they will be minimal in November.
The three evolutions that primaries have made since July — with regard to mail voting, turnout and problems with voting — are, of course, interconnected. The consistently higher turnout rates are probably related to the increased access to mail voting. However, the fact that fewer people are taking advantage of that option may explain why there have been fewer problems reported with recent elections. And the relatively smooth sailing in those elections may even have contributed to the higher turnout.
Altogether, the pandemic primaries suggest that the climactic election of 2020 will be heavily (but not predominantly) vote-by-mail, that turnout will outstrip 2016 and that there will be sporadic (but not crippling) problems with lines and absentee-ballot delivery. Based on other evidence, that’s a very plausible scenario for November. But of course, the general election is not a primary — and Trump is waging a campaign to undermine the election results — so any precedent for it is imperfect. Anything can still happen.
How Trump could spark a full-blown election crisis | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-02--Republicans Are Less Confident Than Democrats That The Election Will Be Conducted Fairly

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
During Tuesday ’ s presidential debate , President Trump once again refused to commit to accepting the results of the 2020 election .
He also repeatedly made misleading or false claims about the integrity of the election .
It ’ s no surprise , then , that many Americans are pessimistic about whether the election will be free and fair .
At the moment , these doubts are most pronounced among Republicans , who are far more likely to trust or believe the president than Democrats or independents .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released ahead of Tuesday ’ s debate , 56 percent of Americans said they were “ not too confident ” or “ not at all confident ” that the election would be conducted in a free and equal way , including 65 percent of Republicans .
And as the chart below shows , Republicans in that tracking poll have consistently been more likely to say they lack confidence in the electoral process than Democrats or independents .
One reason Republicans are more concerned at this point is because Trump and the GOP have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electoral process , in particular the use of mail voting .
Historically , mail voting hadn ’ t been a partisan issue , but now most Republicans don ’ t trust it : In that NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll , 79 percent of Republicans said they opposed changing election laws to allow everyone to vote by mail , though 53 percent of Americans overall supported the idea .
Other surveys have also found that Republicans have more doubts about the fairness of the election .
A poll released on Monday by Monmouth University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t confident that the election would be conducted fairly and accurately , including 44 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Democrats .
Meanwhile , in The Economist/YouGov ’ s weekly poll , 28 percent of registered voters said they had only a little confidence or none at all that the 2020 election would be held fairly .
The differences by party were smaller here — 30 percent of Republicans and 24 percent of Democrats held this view — but Democrats were more likely to say they had a great deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election ( 44 percent ) than Republicans ( 32 percent ) .
Overall , Democrats have more confidence about the election than Republicans , but there is plenty of doubt , too .
In the latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll , half of all Democrats said they were confident the election process would be free and equal , the first time since early August that at least 50 percent of Democratic respondents to this survey ’ s question felt that way .
However , a new Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 36 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election would be free and fair , including 41 percent of Democrats and just 31 percent of Republicans .
Democrats also expressed slightly less trust in the U.S. electoral system ( 62 percent ) than Republicans ( 72 percent ) .
It ’ s worth noting , though , that question wording and which part of the electoral process is being asked about can influence how people respond .
For instance , an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll asked if voters were confident that their state and local governments would run a fair and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of likely voters said they weren ’ t confident .
Republicans were still more likely to express doubts ( 30 percent ) than Democrats ( 18 percent ) , but those numbers suggest that respondents have comparatively more faith in state and local officials carrying out the election than they have in the electoral process more generally .
Similarly , 57 percent of registered voters told The Economist/YouGov that they had a great deal or quite a bit of confidence that their own vote would be counted , while only 36 percent expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election as a whole would be held fairly .
The bottom line , however , is that a lot of Americans don ’ t trust the electoral system , and more probably had faith in the electoral process four years ago than they do now .
In September 2016 , 59 percent of registered voters in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey said that the result of the election would be counted accurately , while only 34 percent disagreed .
But this past August , the same pollster found registered voters split on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence that the results would be accurately counted and 45 percent saying they weren ’ t confident .
• Morning Consult asked Americans about how the recent news about Trump ’ s tax returns and business losses affected their views of the president .
The poll found that before being told about the news , 54 percent felt Trump was a successful businessman , but after hearing the story , that figure fell to 44 percent .
The poll also found that 50 percent of voters thought Trump ’ s business interests were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his decision-making as president , while just 31 percent viewed them as a good thing .
And 47 percent said it was a “ major issue ” that Trump had misled Americans about his financial success .
• A new poll from Reuters/Ipsos found that 48 percent of Americans believed the New York Times ’ s report about Trump ’ s tax returns , while 25 percent did not ( 27 percent said they didn ’ t know ) .
However , a plurality ( 47 percent ) said the Times ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businessman who knew how to avoid paying taxes , while 32 percent said it depicted the president as an unsuccessful businessman drowning in debt .
That said , a majority ( 51 percent ) still said Trump had not been paying his fair share in taxes , while just 26 percent said he had .
• With the possibility the Supreme Court will have a 6-3 conservative majority if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed by the Senate , NBC News/SurveyMonkey found that 66 percent of Americans did not want Roe v. Wade “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Republicans were more likely to express support for dismantling the ruling that protects a women ’ s constitutional right to an abortion , but 47 percent of Republicans still opposed overturning the law , as did 86 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independents .
• In terms of filling the Supreme Court vacancy , Monmouth University found that 51 percent of registered voters disapproved of Trump filling the seat before the election , while 46 percent approved .
However , a majority ( 53 percent ) thought the U.S. Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nominee .
Meanwhile , the New York Times/Siena College found that 56 percent of likely voters felt the winner of the election should get to fill the seat , but they were split on whether the Senate should act ( 47 percent ) or not act ( 48 percent ) on Trump ’ s nominee ahead of the election .
The Times/Siena survey also found more voters trusted Biden ( 50 percent ) than Trump ( 43 percent ) to pick the next justice .
• A new study from the Pew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans believe the federal government should be responsible for health care coverage .
Overall , 63 percent supported either a single national government program or a mix of government and private programs to achieve that aim , up from 59 percent in 2019 .
Meanwhile , 37 percent preferred the current system of Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor , or said they didn ’ t want government involvement of any kind .
• Speaking of governmental intervention , a new poll from Gallup found that 54 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to solve the nation ’ s problems , while 41 percent said the government is doing too much .
Gallup has been polling on this question for about three decades , and this marked the first time an outright majority of Americans have preferred more government intervention .
• In a survey by Univision News/Latino Decisions/North Star Opinion Research , 66 percent of Latino registered voters planned to support Biden , compared to 24 percent who plan to back Trump .
But it also found Biden ahead by only 16 points among Latino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36 percent .
If Biden struggles to run up his margins among Latino voters in that key swing state , Trump could carry Florida , which is critical to his chances of winning the election .
• The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding released the 2020 American Muslim Poll , an annual snapshot of the views and experiences of American Muslims .
The survey found that Muslims were more likely to support working with Black Lives Matter and more likely to attend town hall meetings than other religious groups , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote .
Additionally , 60 percent reported experiencing religious discrimination , and compared to the non-Muslim population , they were far more likely to say they ’ d encountered discrimination at the airport or when applying for a job .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 43.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.8 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -8.9 points ) .
At this time last week , 42.9 percent approved and 53.2 percent disapproved ( a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 43.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 53.0 percent , for a net approval rating of -9.7 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 6.1 percentage points ( 48.8 percent to 42.7 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 6.4 points ( 48.8 percent to 42.3 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 7.3 points ( 48.5 percent to 41.2 percent ) @

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
During Tuesday’s presidential debate, President Trump once again refused to commit to accepting the results of the 2020 election. He also repeatedly made misleading or false claims about the integrity of the election.
It’s no surprise, then, that many Americans are pessimistic about whether the election will be free and fair. At the moment, these doubts are most pronounced among Republicans, who are far more likely to trust or believe the president than Democrats or independents.
In a NBC News/SurveyMonkey’s weekly tracking poll released ahead of Tuesday’s debate, 56 percent of Americans said they were “not too confident” or “not at all confident” that the election would be conducted in a free and equal way, including 65 percent of Republicans. And as the chart below shows, Republicans in that tracking poll have consistently been more likely to say they lack confidence in the electoral process than Democrats or independents.
One reason Republicans are more concerned at this point is because Trump and the GOP have for many months now cast doubt on the electoral process, in particular the use of mail voting. Historically, mail voting hadn’t been a partisan issue, but now most Republicans don’t trust it: In that NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, 79 percent of Republicans said they opposed changing election laws to allow everyone to vote by mail, though 53 percent of Americans overall supported the idea.
Other surveys have also found that Republicans have more doubts about the fairness of the election. A poll released on Monday by Monmouth University found that 39 percent of registered voters weren’t confident that the election would be conducted fairly and accurately, including 44 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Democrats. Meanwhile, in The Economist/YouGov’s weekly poll, 28 percent of registered voters said they had only a little confidence or none at all that the 2020 election would be held fairly. The differences by party were smaller here — 30 percent of Republicans and 24 percent of Democrats held this view — but Democrats were more likely to say they had a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in the election (44 percent) than Republicans (32 percent).
Overall, Democrats have more confidence about the election than Republicans, but there is plenty of doubt, too. In the latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, half of all Democrats said they were confident the election process would be free and equal, the first time since early August that at least 50 percent of Democratic respondents to this survey’s question felt that way. However, a new Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 36 percent of voters didn’t think the election would be free and fair, including 41 percent of Democrats and just 31 percent of Republicans. Democrats also expressed slightly less trust in the U.S. electoral system (62 percent) than Republicans (72 percent).
It’s worth noting, though, that question wording and which part of the electoral process is being asked about can influence how people respond. For instance, an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll asked if voters were confident that their state and local governments would run a fair and accurate election, and only 26 percent of likely voters said they weren’t confident. Republicans were still more likely to express doubts (30 percent) than Democrats (18 percent), but those numbers suggest that respondents have comparatively more faith in state and local officials carrying out the election than they have in the electoral process more generally. Similarly, 57 percent of registered voters told The Economist/YouGov that they had a great deal or quite a bit of confidence that their own vote would be counted, while only 36 percent expressed the same level of confidence that the election as a whole would be held fairly.
The bottom line, however, is that a lot of Americans don’t trust the electoral system, and more probably had faith in the electoral process four years ago than they do now. In September 2016, 59 percent of registered voters in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey said that the result of the election would be counted accurately, while only 34 percent disagreed. But this past August, the same pollster found registered voters split on that question, with 45 percent expressing confidence that the results would be accurately counted and 45 percent saying they weren’t confident.
Other polling bites
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.8 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -8.9 points). At this time last week, 42.9 percent approved and 53.2 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -10.3 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 43.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 53.0 percent, for a net approval rating of -9.7 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 6.1 percentage points (48.8 percent to 42.7 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 6.4 points (48.8 percent to 42.3 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.3 points (48.5 percent to 41.2 percent).


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-02--Trump Has An Elevated Risk Of Severe COVID-19. But It Helps To Be The President.

President Trump has COVID-19 .
In some ways , that seems inevitable — the campaign trail is a high-contact sport , and the president was cavalier about public health guidelines .
But what comes next is anything but certain .
And it depends on who the president is , not just what he does .
Though Trump is in overall good health according to his publicly released annual physicals ( which , it ’ s worth noting , only includes details at the discretion of the president ’ s doctor ) , he has a few risk factors that increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalization , and death .
He is 74 years old , male , and obese — at 6 feet , 3 inches tall and 244 pounds , his body mass index is 30.5 , just over the line for the definition of obesity .
While Trump doesn ’ t have hypertension , his latest physical said his blood pressure is 121 over 79 , which is considered “ elevated.
” But just how risky are these factors ?
Let ’ s start with age .
When it comes to COVID-19 , the older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of severe illness , hospitalization , ventilation and death .
Underlying issues like high blood pressure and diabetes increase risk , too , and are often associated with age , but the riskiest comorbidity is just how long you ’ ve been alive .
“ Even when controlling for a huge number of comorbidities , age is still the most important predictor of death , ” said Marm Kilpatrick , an infectious disease biologist at the University of California , Santa Cruz .
This has been documented in lots of studies over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most comprehensive was published in Nature in July .
Researchers from Oxford and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at the medical records of more than 17 million adult patients in the U.K. ( some of whom tested positive for COVID-19 and some of whom did not ) and found that the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age , even when adjusting for all other risk factors .
Patients aged 70-79 were 6.07 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than those 50-59 , and patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to die compared to the 50-somethings .
In the U.S. , 8 out of 10 COVID-19-related deaths have been in adults age 65 and older , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , and patients aged 65-74 were 5 times more likely to be hospitalized and 90 times more likely to die from COVID-19 when compared to those aged 18-29 .
Why ?
Older people tend to have a higher prevalence of underlying illnesses that we know increase risk , along with declining immune responses .
Being a man also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adverse effects than the first lady , who also tested positive for COVID-19 .
Again , multiple studies have documented the correlation between sex and more severe outcomes for a COVID-19 infection , though the precise numbers vary .
In the U.S. , nearly 1.5 times more men than women in Trump ’ s age cohort have died because of COVID-19 .
Part of this sex difference is still a mystery to researchers , but a new paper published last week in Science found that a genetic predisposition to certain immune responses was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partially explain the gap .
Lastly , we know that the president ’ s weight also likely puts him at a greater risk of a severe or deadly bout of COVID-19 .
One meta-analysis of research published in August found that , when compared to patients of a healthy weight , people with obesity who contracted COVID-19 were 113 percent more likely to be hospitalized , 74 percent more likely to be admitted to an ICU , and 48 percent more likely to die .
The CDC has stated that obesity could triple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And similar to age , obesity is one factor that can increase a person ’ s risk of adverse effects independent of other factors — even young , otherwise healthy patients are at a greater risk of severe infection , hospitalization , and death if they ’ re obese , according to Dr. Nitin Mohan , an infectious disease specialist at Western University in Canada .
“ It ’ s one of those risk factors that , regardless of age , it ’ s a serious risk to have with COVID , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body goes through any kind of disease process , your immune system is taxed and it works quite hard .
The healthier you are , the better chance you have.
” Though Trump is on the cusp of obesity , being overweight is a risk factor as well , so his weight is still a concern even if he ’ s dropped a few pounds since his last physical .
That said , there is at least some dispute among the scientific community about how big a role weight plays as a risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 88 , 747 veterans in the U.S. found obesity was not a statistically significant risk factor for death .
But the president is , well , the president .
And while his biology may be putting him in a riskier category , his social status is working in his favor .
Being wealthy , white and in possession of a college degree all make you less vulnerable to hospitalization for COVID-19 .
Why ?
Basically because of the way our economy works .
Being a person of color , or a part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not having a college degree — all of those things are associated with both a lack of access to health care ( both after a COVID-19 diagnosis and throughout their earlier lives ) and a higher likelihood of working in the service industry or a similar field where exposure risk is high .
And even though there hasn ’ t been a lot of research into differential outcomes between the kind of health care an average rich white man might get and the kind of health care available to Trump right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt .
“ If anyone has better odds of surviving than any other 74-year-old with his characteristics , it ’ s probably the president of the United States , ” said Andrew Azman , an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University .
Right now , the president reportedly has only mild symptoms and we can assume he is under constant , high-quality medical care .
Those are things that could indicate a milder course of the disease , Azman said .
And while comparing to his demographic cohort is far from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will fare , it ’ s our best indicator of the likelihood he could face more severe outcomes .
“ Our best guess is the population average for people that look like him , ” Azman said .
“ But we know that he is not the average person .
”

President Trump has COVID-19. In some ways, that seems inevitable — the campaign trail is a high-contact sport, and the president was cavalier about public health guidelines. But what comes next is anything but certain. And it depends on who the president is, not just what he does.
Though Trump is in overall good health according to his publicly released annual physicals (which, it’s worth noting, only includes details at the discretion of the president’s doctor), he has a few risk factors that increase the odds of a severe infection, hospitalization, and death. He is 74 years old, male, and obese — at 6 feet, 3 inches tall and 244 pounds, his body mass index is 30.5, just over the line for the definition of obesity. While Trump doesn’t have hypertension, his latest physical said his blood pressure is 121 over 79, which is considered “elevated.” But just how risky are these factors?
Let’s start with age. When it comes to COVID-19, the older you are, the more elevated your risk of severe illness, hospitalization, ventilation and death. Underlying issues like high blood pressure and diabetes increase risk, too, and are often associated with age, but the riskiest comorbidity is just how long you’ve been alive.
“Even when controlling for a huge number of comorbidities, age is still the most important predictor of death,” said Marm Kilpatrick, an infectious disease biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
This has been documented in lots of studies over the last few months, but one of the most comprehensive was published in Nature in July. Researchers from Oxford and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looked at the medical records of more than 17 million adult patients in the U.K. (some of whom tested positive for COVID-19 and some of whom did not) and found that the risk of death from COVID-19 increased with age, even when adjusting for all other risk factors. Patients aged 70-79 were 6.07 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than those 50-59, and patients over 80 were 20.6 times more likely to die compared to the 50-somethings.
In the U.S., 8 out of 10 COVID-19-related deaths have been in adults age 65 and older, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and patients aged 65-74 were 5 times more likely to be hospitalized and 90 times more likely to die from COVID-19 when compared to those aged 18-29. Why? Older people tend to have a higher prevalence of underlying illnesses that we know increase risk, along with declining immune responses.
Being a man also puts Trump at a higher risk of adverse effects than the first lady, who also tested positive for COVID-19. Again, multiple studies have documented the correlation between sex and more severe outcomes for a COVID-19 infection, though the precise numbers vary. In the U.S., nearly 1.5 times more men than women in Trump’s age cohort have died because of COVID-19. Part of this sex difference is still a mystery to researchers, but a new paper published last week in Science found that a genetic predisposition to certain immune responses was more prevalent in men, which could partially explain the gap.
Lastly, we know that the president’s weight also likely puts him at a greater risk of a severe or deadly bout of COVID-19. One meta-analysis of research published in August found that, when compared to patients of a healthy weight, people with obesity who contracted COVID-19 were 113 percent more likely to be hospitalized, 74 percent more likely to be admitted to an ICU, and 48 percent more likely to die. The CDC has stated that obesity could triple the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19. And similar to age, obesity is one factor that can increase a person’s risk of adverse effects independent of other factors — even young, otherwise healthy patients are at a greater risk of severe infection, hospitalization, and death if they’re obese, according to Dr. Nitin Mohan, an infectious disease specialist at Western University in Canada.
“It’s one of those risk factors that, regardless of age, it’s a serious risk to have with COVID,” Mohan said. “When the body goes through any kind of disease process, your immune system is taxed and it works quite hard. The healthier you are, the better chance you have.”
Though Trump is on the cusp of obesity, being overweight is a risk factor as well, so his weight is still a concern even if he’s dropped a few pounds since his last physical. That said, there is at least some dispute among the scientific community about how big a role weight plays as a risk factor in COVID-19: A recent study of 88, 747 veterans in the U.S. found obesity was not a statistically significant risk factor for death.
But the president is, well, the president. And while his biology may be putting him in a riskier category, his social status is working in his favor. Being wealthy, white and in possession of a college degree all make you less vulnerable to hospitalization for COVID-19. Why? Basically because of the way our economy works. Being a person of color, or a part of a lower socioeconomic class, or not having a college degree — all of those things are associated with both a lack of access to health care (both after a COVID-19 diagnosis and throughout their earlier lives) and a higher likelihood of working in the service industry or a similar field where exposure risk is high. And even though there hasn’t been a lot of research into differential outcomes between the kind of health care an average rich white man might get and the kind of health care available to Trump right now, his political status probably doesn’t hurt.
“If anyone has better odds of surviving than any other 74-year-old with his characteristics, it’s probably the president of the United States,” said Andrew Azman, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.
Right now, the president reportedly has only mild symptoms and we can assume he is under constant, high-quality medical care. Those are things that could indicate a milder course of the disease, Azman said. And while comparing to his demographic cohort is far from a crystal ball predictor of exactly how Trump will fare, it’s our best indicator of the likelihood he could face more severe outcomes.
“Our best guess is the population average for people that look like him,” Azman said. “But we know that he is not the average person.”


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-02--Trump Tested Positive For COVID-19. Now What?

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the team reacts to the news that President Trump tested positive @ @ @

Trump Tested Positive For COVID-19. Now What?
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team reacts to the news that President Trump tested positive for COVID-19.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-02--Emergency Politics Podcast: Trump Tests Positive For COVID-19

President Trump announced early Friday morning that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19 .
In @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , science writer Maggie Koerth joins the crew to discuss what ’ @ @ @ @ @ You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the @ @ @ @ @ downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If @ @ @ @ @ , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays @ @ @ @ @ the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment @ @ @ @ @ “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on @ @ @ @ @ .

President Trump announced early Friday morning that he and first lady Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. In this emergency edition of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, science writer Maggie Koerth joins the crew to discuss what’s possible going forward.
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 is recorded 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.