fivethirtyeight--2020-12-17--Split-Ticket Voters Are A Small Group, But They Could Decide The Georgia Runoffs

Contrary to popular belief , there just weren ’ t that many people who voted for different parties in the presidential and Senate races this year .
And where split-ticket voting did occur , it appeared to have more to do with the candidates on the ballot than the voters themselves .
For example , Republican Sen. Susan Collins ran far ahead of President Trump in every corner of Maine , and Republican Sen. Steve Daines ran a bit behind him in almost every county in Montana .
In other words , ticket-splitting didn ’ t vary that much within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , pretty minimal .
But some counties had more ticket-splitters than others , and those voters could be particularly important in Georgia .
On Jan. 5 , control of the U.S. Senate will be decided by a pair of runoff elections in the Peach State , and Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock will likely need to win some votes from people who didn ’ t vote for them last time , as Democrats got fewer votes than Republicans in both races on Nov. 3 .
Both Democrats in the runoffs also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia 49.5 percent to 49.3 percent .
There weren ’ t too many of these split-ticket voters ( Biden outran Ossoff by only 1.6 percentage points statewide ) , but as you can see in the map below , we have a sense of where Ossoff and Warnock need to make up ground : Suburban or well-educated areas , such as the Atlanta metropolitan area , including Fulton ( where Biden did 2.8 points better than Ossoff ) , Cobb ( 2.4 points better ) and Forsyth ( 2.1 points better ) counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use Ossoff ’ s vote share as the comparison point because multiple Democratic candidates were on the ballot in the other Senate race , so Warnock advanced to the runoff with less than 33 percent of the vote .
However , the numbers are still similar when you compare Biden with the total Democratic vote share in the special election . )
The greater Atlanta area was not the only spot where Biden outperformed Ossoff , though .
He also did so in well-educated Clarke and Oconee counties to the east — perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s presence there .
( The pattern also shows up in a handful of rural counties , such as Early County in the southwest , but this is probably less important .
These counties are so small that just a few Biden-but-not-Ossoff voters can produce what looks like a big swing .
So the most efficient strategy for Ossoff and Warnock is probably to focus on squeezing more votes out of metro Atlanta .
The top six counties where Biden outperformed Ossoff the most in terms of raw votes were all located there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as the one done by Lenny Bronner at The Washington Post , reveals that upper-class white neighborhoods in these counties , such as Buckhead , drove Biden ’ s overperformance .
Bronner found that the Atlanta-area precincts where Biden outperformed Ossoff had a median household income that was $ 41,000 higher than the average precinct in the 10 counties he categorized as part of the city ’ s metro area .
The number of adults with a bachelor ’ s degree was also 37 percent higher , and the share of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And this trend extended far beyond Georgia .
For example , Biden did 1.6 percentage points better than Democratic Senate candidate Cal Cunningham in North Carolina .
But according to analyst J .
Miles Coleman of Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball , he outran Cunningham by 6.1 points in North Carolina state Senate District 37 , which covers a wealthy white neighborhood of Charlotte colloquially referred to as “ the Wedge.
” Or look at Iowa .
Democratic Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield did 0.3 percentage points better than Biden statewide , but Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dallas County , a fast-growing exurban county just to the west of Des Moines that has the state ’ s highest median household income .
That was Biden ’ s best performance relative to Greenfield anywhere in the state ( although , notably , he also outran Greenfield in Des Moines ’ s Polk County and Iowa State University ’ s Story County ) .
Similarly , Biden ’ s vote share was significantly higher than the Democratic Senate candidate ’ s vote share in the counties that contain and surround cities such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota , the Research Triangle in North Carolina , and a host of other metropolitan areas nationwide .
The fact that ticket-splitting was higher in upper-class white communities jibes with research by political scientist Ashley Jardina , who studies the individual voting behavior of white voters ( though not specifically in the suburbs ) .
Jardina told FiveThirtyEight that Trump ’ s culture-war appeals and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic have turned off many wealthy , white , traditionally Republican voters , which led some of them to not vote for Trump but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down-ballot races .
If anti-Trump Republicans were indeed the reason Biden outran Democratic Senate candidates in the nation ’ s suburbs , it could be a bad omen for Democrats in future elections .
If these high-profile new Biden voters are still voting Republican further down the ballot , it suggests they are not yet fully ready to leave the GOP behind — and could return to the fold in the 2022 midterms or in the 2024 presidential election , if Republicans nominate a candidate who ’ s closer to George W. Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could move the suburbs , that newfound source of Democratic strength , back to the right .
Or not .
America ’ s suburbs are also getting more racially diverse and better-educated , two traits that correlate with voting Democratic .
And despite all the ink spilled over Biden-Republican ticket-splitters ( perhaps because many members of the media share their well-educated white demographic profile ) , it ’ s important to remember that there simply aren ’ t that many of them : Throughout this article , we ’ ve only been talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The difference between Biden getting 46 percent of the vote and a Democratic Senate candidate getting 44 percent really isn ’ t all that significant — except , of course , in a close election like the Georgia runoffs .
But in a race that close , any bloc , no matter how small , is an important constituency .

Contrary to popular belief, there just weren’t that many people who voted for different parties in the presidential and Senate races this year. And where split-ticket voting did occur, it appeared to have more to do with the candidates on the ballot than the voters themselves. For example, Republican Sen. Susan Collins ran far ahead of President Trump in every corner of Maine, and Republican Sen. Steve Daines ran a bit behind him in almost every county in Montana. In other words, ticket-splitting didn’t vary that much within each state and was, in most cases, pretty minimal.
But some counties had more ticket-splitters than others, and those voters could be particularly important in Georgia. On Jan. 5, control of the U.S. Senate will be decided by a pair of runoff elections in the Peach State, and Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock will likely need to win some votes from people who didn’t vote for them last time, as Democrats got fewer votes than Republicans in both races on Nov. 3. Both Democrats in the runoffs also ran behind Joe Biden, who won Georgia 49.5 percent to 49.3 percent.
How Trump’s pardons compare to other presidents | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
There weren’t too many of these split-ticket voters (Biden outran Ossoff by only 1.6 percentage points statewide), but as you can see in the map below, we have a sense of where Ossoff and Warnock need to make up ground: Suburban or well-educated areas, such as the Atlanta metropolitan area, including Fulton (where Biden did 2.8 points better than Ossoff), Cobb (2.4 points better) and Forsyth (2.1 points better) counties. (It’s easiest to use Ossoff’s vote share as the comparison point because multiple Democratic candidates were on the ballot in the other Senate race, so Warnock advanced to the runoff with less than 33 percent of the vote. However, the numbers are still similar when you compare Biden with the total Democratic vote share in the special election.)
The greater Atlanta area was not the only spot where Biden outperformed Ossoff, though. He also did so in well-educated Clarke and Oconee counties to the east — perhaps owing to the University of Georgia’s presence there. (The pattern also shows up in a handful of rural counties, such as Early County in the southwest, but this is probably less important. These counties are so small that just a few Biden-but-not-Ossoff voters can produce what looks like a big swing. So the most efficient strategy for Ossoff and Warnock is probably to focus on squeezing more votes out of metro Atlanta. The top six counties where Biden outperformed Ossoff the most in terms of raw votes were all located there.)
Metro Atlanta will be critical The six Georgia counties where Biden outperformed Ossoff the most in terms of total votes on Nov. 3 county Biden Votes Over Ossoff Fulton 16,943 Cobb 10,996 DeKalb 9,683 Gwinnett 8,443 Forsyth 2,979 Cherokee 2,851 Source: ABC News
And a precinct-level analysis, such as the one done by Lenny Bronner at The Washington Post, reveals that upper-class white neighborhoods in these counties, such as Buckhead, drove Biden’s overperformance. Bronner found that the Atlanta-area precincts where Biden outperformed Ossoff had a median household income that was $41,000 higher than the average precinct in the 10 counties he categorized as part of the city’s metro area. The number of adults with a bachelor’s degree was also 37 percent higher, and the share of white people was 21 percentage points higher.
And this trend extended far beyond Georgia. For example, Biden did 1.6 percentage points better than Democratic Senate candidate Cal Cunningham in North Carolina. But according to analyst J. Miles Coleman of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, he outran Cunningham by 6.1 points in North Carolina state Senate District 37, which covers a wealthy white neighborhood of Charlotte colloquially referred to as “the Wedge.”
[Warnock And Ossoff Are Testing A New Strategy For Democrats In The South]
Or look at Iowa. Democratic Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield did 0.3 percentage points better than Biden statewide, but Biden did 2.2 points better than Greenfield in Dallas County, a fast-growing exurban county just to the west of Des Moines that has the state’s highest median household income. That was Biden’s best performance relative to Greenfield anywhere in the state (although, notably, he also outran Greenfield in Des Moines’s Polk County and Iowa State University’s Story County).
Similarly, Biden’s vote share was significantly higher than the Democratic Senate candidate’s vote share in the counties that contain and surround cities such as Chicago, the Twin Cities in Minnesota, the Research Triangle in North Carolina, and a host of other metropolitan areas nationwide.
The fact that ticket-splitting was higher in upper-class white communities jibes with research by political scientist Ashley Jardina, who studies the individual voting behavior of white voters (though not specifically in the suburbs). Jardina told FiveThirtyEight that Trump’s culture-war appeals and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic have turned off many wealthy, white, traditionally Republican voters, which led some of them to not vote for Trump but to continue to support the GOP in down-ballot races.
If anti-Trump Republicans were indeed the reason Biden outran Democratic Senate candidates in the nation’s suburbs, it could be a bad omen for Democrats in future elections. If these high-profile new Biden voters are still voting Republican further down the ballot, it suggests they are not yet fully ready to leave the GOP behind — and could return to the fold in the 2022 midterms or in the 2024 presidential election, if Republicans nominate a candidate who’s closer to George W. Bush than Donald Trump in temperament. This could move the suburbs, that newfound source of Democratic strength, back to the right.
[Related: Why The Suburbs Have Shifted Blue]
Or not. America’s suburbs are also getting more racially diverse and better-educated, two traits that correlate with voting Democratic. And despite all the ink spilled over Biden-Republican ticket-splitters (perhaps because many members of the media share their well-educated white demographic profile), it’s important to remember that there simply aren’t that many of them: Throughout this article, we’ve only been talking about differences of a few percentage points. The difference between Biden getting 46 percent of the vote and a Democratic Senate candidate getting 44 percent really isn’t all that significant — except, of course, in a close election like the Georgia runoffs. But in a race that close, any bloc, no matter how small, is an important constituency.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-17--What Did All Those Books About Trump Accomplish?

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke speaks with Carlos Lozada , the nonfiction book critic @ @ @ @ @ about what he learned from reading over 150 books written about Trump in the past @ @ @

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with Carlos Lozada, the nonfiction book critic at the Washington Post, about what he learned from reading over 150 books written about Trump in the past five years.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-17--Politics Podcast: What Do 1,200 Books About Trump Really Tell Us?

President Trump has been the sun around which our political and cultural thinking has orbited for the past five years .
According to one count , more than 1,200 books were written about President Trump during his first term in office , compared to 500 books about President Obama during a similar period .
After all that coverage , what did we actually learn ?
To answer that question , in this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke speaks with the nonfiction book critic at the Washington Post , Carlos Lozada .
He read about 150 books @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his book , “ What Were We Thinking : A Brief Intellectual History Of The Trump Era.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

President Trump has been the sun around which our political and cultural thinking has orbited for the past five years. According to one count, more than 1,200 books were written about President Trump during his first term in office, compared to 500 books about President Obama during a similar period. After all that coverage, what did we actually learn? To answer that question, in this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with the nonfiction book critic at the Washington Post, Carlos Lozada. He read about 150 books from the Trump canon and reviewed them in his book, “What Were We Thinking: A Brief Intellectual History Of The Trump Era.”
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--2020-12-18--Both Republicans And Democrats Want Congress To Approve A New Coronavirus Stimulus Package

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
All eyes have been on Congress this week as Republicans and Democrats have worked feverishly to hammer out another COVID-19 economic relief bill .
As of Thursday afternoon , it looked like the sides were coming together on a roughly $ 900 billion package that would provide funding to struggling businesses , extend unemployment benefits and send checks to individual Americans — but not protect businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits or bail out local governments .
If and when the stimulus bill passes , it should be popular with the American public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted Dec. 8-11 , 86 percent of registered voters approved of Congress “ passing an additional economic relief package that would provide funds to people and businesses impacted by the coronavirus outbreak.
” That support cut across party lines , too : 94 percent of Democrats , 85 percent of independents and 79 percent of Republicans all said they approved of such a package .
In fact , Americans are so desperate for congressional action on the coronavirus that they would support a relief package that doesn ’ t send them each a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have found extremely popular .
However , support for such a bill was significantly lower than for the one described by YouGov/CBS News : Registered voters supported it 63 percent to 37 percent , according to a Dec. 3-7 poll from HarrisX/The Hill .
That ’ s looking pretty hypothetical at this point , though : Congress is likely to pass some form of stimulus payments this time around ( though they are likely to be only $ 600 per person , not $ 1,200 as in the spring ) .
Unsurprisingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s tracker of such polls , 53.1 percent of Americans say they are very concerned about the coronavirus ’ s effect on the economy , and 32.6 percent say they are somewhat concerned .
But recent news — not just the likely passage of another stimulus bill , but also the rollout of what looks like a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine — may lessen the intensity of their concern .
Some Americans seem to have switched from the “ very concerned ” camp to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our tracker over the past couple weeks , driven largely by this week ’ s Ipsos/Axios poll in which “ only ” 48 percent of adults said they were either extremely or very concerned about an economic collapse .
The country may also be feeling more optimistic given the upcoming presidential transition .
Morning Consult/Politico ’ s poll this week asked registered voters whom they trusted more to handle the economic recovery following the coronavirus : 52 percent said President-elect Biden , while 38 percent said President Trump .
And other polls this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current stimulus bill to be the government ’ s last action to address the crisis .
For example , in the latest installment of Navigator Research ’ s regular tracking poll on the coronavirus , 65 percent of registered voters chose the pandemic as one of the top four issues they want Biden and the new Congress to focus on in January — by far the highest share of any issue .
In second place , with 48 percent , is “ jobs and the economy.
” • The Kaiser Family Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor , which uses polls and focus groups to track Americans ’ feelings about getting a COVID-19 vaccine .
Its initial findings are that 71 percent of Americans would get the vaccine if it is available at no cost and if scientists deem it safe — but that Republicans and Black adults are especially skeptical of getting vaccinated .
That jibes with other recent polling on the topic , as FiveThirtyEight ’ s Perry Bacon Jr. wrote in this space last week .
• Having served just one term as president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comeback attempt in 2024 .
A new Fox News poll this week , however , finds little appetite for this idea : Only 37 percent of registered voters said they ’ d like him to run for president again , while 57 percent said they would not .
However , 79 percent of Trump voters and 71 percent of Republicans did want him to run again , suggesting he may not encounter much resistance within his own party .
• Political engagement was through the roof this year , as shown not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by this new poll from the Pew Research Center .
Pew found that , over the past six months , 53 percent of 2020 voters also engaged in one of six political activities listed , such as expressing support for a candidate on social media ( 36 percent ) , donating money to a candidate or outside group ( 25 percent ) or working or volunteering for a political campaign ( 5 percent ) .
• A different Pew poll quantifies what we ’ ve all long suspected : People almost never pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers .
Only 19 percent of adults told Pew they did so , while 80 percent let it go to voicemail .
• After 105 years as the “ Indians , ” Cleveland ’ s Major League Baseball team announced on Monday it would retire the controversial moniker after the 2021 season .
A YouGov poll conducted quickly thereafter found that 49 percent of MLB fans supported the name change , while 45 percent opposed it .
In addition , Republican adults ( not just MLB fans ) said 59 percent to 21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name to be changed , perhaps explaining why Trump seized on the renaming as an example of “ cancel culture ” in a tweet .
• ’ Tis the season for holiday-themed surveys .
In YouGov ’ s latest “ North Poll ” ( please direct all hate mail to YouGov ; we didn ’ t come up with the name ! )
, 75 percent of Americans said they had been nice this year , while 13 percent said they had been naughty .
A full 73 percent also approved of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while only 10 percent disapproved .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.5 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -8.9 points ) .
At this time last week , 43.3 percent approved and 52.4 percent disapproved ( a net approval rating of -9.1 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 44.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.0 percent , for a net approval rating of @ @ @

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
All eyes have been on Congress this week as Republicans and Democrats have worked feverishly to hammer out another COVID-19 economic relief bill. As of Thursday afternoon, it looked like the sides were coming together on a roughly $900 billion package that would provide funding to struggling businesses, extend unemployment benefits and send checks to individual Americans — but not protect businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits or bail out local governments.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come
If and when the stimulus bill passes, it should be popular with the American public. According to a YouGov/CBS News poll conducted Dec. 8-11, 86 percent of registered voters approved of Congress “passing an additional economic relief package that would provide funds to people and businesses impacted by the coronavirus outbreak.” That support cut across party lines, too: 94 percent of Democrats, 85 percent of independents and 79 percent of Republicans all said they approved of such a package.
[What We Know About ‘Long COVID’]
In fact, Americans are so desperate for congressional action on the coronavirus that they would support a relief package that doesn’t send them each a personal stimulus payment — something past polls have found extremely popular. However, support for such a bill was significantly lower than for the one described by YouGov/CBS News: Registered voters supported it 63 percent to 37 percent, according to a Dec. 3-7 poll from HarrisX/The Hill. That’s looking pretty hypothetical at this point, though: Congress is likely to pass some form of stimulus payments this time around (though they are likely to be only $600 per person, not $1,200 as in the spring).
Unsurprisingly, Americans remain worried about the economic impact of the pandemic. According to FiveThirtyEight’s tracker of such polls, 53.1 percent of Americans say they are very concerned about the coronavirus’s effect on the economy, and 32.6 percent say they are somewhat concerned.
But recent news — not just the likely passage of another stimulus bill, but also the rollout of what looks like a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine — may lessen the intensity of their concern. Some Americans seem to have switched from the “very concerned” camp to the “somewhat concerned” camp in our tracker over the past couple weeks, driven largely by this week’s Ipsos/Axios poll in which “only” 48 percent of adults said they were either extremely or very concerned about an economic collapse.
[Related: Does It Matter Which COVID-19 Vaccine You Get?]
The country may also be feeling more optimistic given the upcoming presidential transition. Morning Consult/Politico’s poll this week asked registered voters whom they trusted more to handle the economic recovery following the coronavirus: 52 percent said President-elect Biden, while 38 percent said President Trump.
And other polls this week suggest that Americans do not want the current stimulus bill to be the government’s last action to address the crisis. For example, in the latest installment of Navigator Research’s regular tracking poll on the coronavirus, 65 percent of registered voters chose the pandemic as one of the top four issues they want Biden and the new Congress to focus on in January — by far the highest share of any issue. In second place, with 48 percent, is “jobs and the economy.”
Other polling bites
The Kaiser Family Foundation has launched an ongoing project, the COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor, which uses polls and focus groups to track Americans’ feelings about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Its initial findings are that 71 percent of Americans would get the vaccine if it is available at no cost and if scientists deem it safe — but that Republicans and Black adults are especially skeptical of getting vaccinated. That jibes with other recent polling on the topic, as FiveThirtyEight’s Perry Bacon Jr. wrote in this space last week.
Having served just one term as president, Trump is reportedly flirting with a comeback attempt in 2024. A new Fox News poll this week, however, finds little appetite for this idea: Only 37 percent of registered voters said they’d like him to run for president again, while 57 percent said they would not. However, 79 percent of Trump voters and 71 percent of Republicans did want him to run again, suggesting he may not encounter much resistance within his own party.
want him to run again, suggesting he may not encounter much resistance within his own party. Political engagement was through the roof this year, as shown not only by the record-setting turnout numbers but also by this new poll from the Pew Research Center. Pew found that, over the past six months, 53 percent of 2020 voters also engaged in one of six political activities listed, such as expressing support for a candidate on social media (36 percent), donating money to a candidate or outside group (25 percent) or working or volunteering for a political campaign (5 percent).
A different Pew poll quantifies what we’ve all long suspected: People almost never pick up calls on their cellphones from unknown numbers. Only 19 percent of adults told Pew they did so, while 80 percent let it go to voicemail.
After 105 years as the “Indians,” Cleveland’s Major League Baseball team announced on Monday it would retire the controversial moniker after the 2021 season. A YouGov poll conducted quickly thereafter found that 49 percent of MLB fans supported the name change, while 45 percent opposed it. In addition, Republican adults (not just MLB fans) said 59 percent to 21 percent that they did not want the name to be changed, perhaps explaining why Trump seized on the renaming as an example of “cancel culture” in a tweet.
’Tis the season for holiday-themed surveys. In YouGov’s latest “North Poll” (please direct all hate mail to YouGov; we didn’t come up with the name!), 75 percent of Americans said they had been nice this year, while 13 percent said they had been naughty. A full 73 percent also approved of the way Santa Claus was handling his job, while only 10 percent disapproved.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.5 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -8.9 points). At this time last week, 43.3 percent approved and 52.4 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -9.1 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 44.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.0 percent, for a net approval rating of -7.2 points.
How Trump’s pardons compare to other presidents | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-18--Americans Overwhelmingly Want Congress To Approve Another Coronavirus Stimulus Package

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
All eyes have been on Congress this week as Republicans and Democrats have worked feverishly to hammer out another COVID-19 economic relief bill .
As of Thursday afternoon , it looked like the sides were coming together on a roughly $ 900 billion package that would provide funding to struggling businesses , extend unemployment benefits and send checks to individual Americans — but not protect businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits or bail out local governments .
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come If and when the stimulus bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American public .
According to a YouGov/CBS News poll conducted Dec. 8-11 , 86 percent of registered voters approved of Congress “ passing an additional economic relief package that would provide funds to people and businesses impacted by the coronavirus outbreak.
” That support cut across party lines , too : 94 percent of Democrats , 85 percent of independents and 79 percent of Republicans all said they approved of such a package .
[ What We Know About ‘ Long COVID ’ ] In fact , Americans are so desperate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would support a relief package that doesn ’ t send them each a personal stimulus payment — something past polls have found extremely popular .
However , support for such a bill was significantly lower than for the one described by YouGov/CBS News : Registered voters supported it 63 percent to 37 percent , according to a Dec. 3-7 poll from HarrisX/The Hill .
That ’ s looking pretty hypothetical at this point , though : Congress is likely to pass some form of stimulus payments this time around ( though they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , not $ 1,200 as in the spring ) .
Unsurprisingly , Americans remain worried about the economic impact of the pandemic .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s tracker of such polls , 53.1 percent of Americans say they are very concerned about the coronavirus ’ s effect on the economy , and 32.6 percent say they are somewhat concerned .
But recent news — not just the likely passage of another stimulus bill , but also the rollout of what looks like a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine — may lessen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans seem to have switched from the “ very concerned ” camp to the “ somewhat concerned ” camp in our tracker over the past couple weeks , driven largely by this week ’ s Ipsos/Axios poll in which “ only ” 48 percent of adults said they were either extremely or very concerned about an economic collapse .
[ Related : Does It Matter Which COVID-19 Vaccine You Get ? ]
The country may also be feeling more optimistic given the upcoming presidential transition .
Morning Consult/Politico ’ s poll this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to handle the economic recovery following the coronavirus : 52 percent said President-elect Biden , while 38 percent said President Trump .
And other polls this week suggest that Americans do not want the current stimulus bill to be the government ’ s last action to address the crisis .
For example , in the latest installment of Navigator Research ’ s regular tracking poll on the coronavirus , 65 percent of registered voters chose the pandemic as one of the top four issues they want Biden and the new Congress to focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest share of any issue .
In second place , with 48 percent , is “ jobs and the economy.
” • The Kaiser Family Foundation has launched an ongoing project , the COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor , which uses polls and focus groups to track Americans ’ feelings about getting a COVID-19 vaccine .
Its initial findings are that 71 percent of Americans would get the vaccine if it is available at no cost and if scientists deem it safe — but that Republicans and Black adults are especially skeptical of getting vaccinated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the topic , as FiveThirtyEight ’ s Perry Bacon Jr. wrote in this space last week .
• Having served just one term as president , Trump is reportedly flirting with a comeback attempt in 2024 .
A new Fox News poll this week , however , finds little appetite for this idea : Only 37 percent of registered voters said they ’ d like him to run for president again , while 57 percent said they would not .
However , 79 percent of Trump voters and 71 percent of Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting he may not encounter much resistance within his own party .
• Political engagement was through the roof this year , as shown not only by the record-setting turnout numbers but also by this new poll from the Pew Research Center .
Pew found that , over the past six months , 53 percent of 2020 voters also engaged in one of six political activities listed , such as expressing support for a candidate on social media ( 36 percent ) , donating money to a candidate or outside group ( 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political campaign ( 5 percent ) .
• A different Pew poll quantifies what we ’ ve all long suspected : People almost never pick up calls on their cellphones from unknown numbers .
Only 19 percent of adults told Pew they did so , while 80 percent let it go to voicemail .
• After 105 years as the “ Indians , ” Cleveland ’ s Major League Baseball team announced on Monday it would retire the controversial moniker after the 2021 season .
A YouGov poll conducted quickly thereafter found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name change , while 45 percent opposed it .
In addition , Republican adults ( not just MLB fans ) said 59 percent to 21 percent that they did not want the name to be changed , perhaps explaining why Trump seized on the renaming as an example of “ cancel culture ” in a tweet .
• ’ Tis the season for holiday-themed surveys .
In YouGov ’ s latest “ North Poll ” ( please direct all hate mail to YouGov ; we didn ’ t come up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans said they had been nice this year , while 13 percent said they had been naughty .
A full 73 percent also approved of the way Santa Claus was handling his job , while only 10 percent disapproved .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.5 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -8.9 points ) .
At this time last week , 43.3 percent approved and 52.4 percent disapproved ( a net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 44.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.0 percent , for a net approval rating of -7.2 points .
How Trump ’ s pardons compare to other presidents | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-15--Updated: A Record-Breaking Number Of Women Could Be In Biden’s Cabinet

UPDATE ( Dec. 17 , 2020 , 3:30 p.m. ) : On Thursday , President-elect Joe Biden tapped Deb Haaland to be the first Native American secretary of the interior .
As we wrote earlier this week , Biden is on track to name a historic number of women and people of color to his Cabinet .
Though the president ’ s Cabinet is meant to expose him to a diverse set of perspectives and backgrounds , until recently , that meant diversity of geography or ideology , not diversity of gender or race .
It took until 1933 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Cabinet position ( Labor Secretary Frances Perkins ) and 1966 for the first African American ( Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert Weaver ) .
And even since then , women and people of color have consistently been underrepresented in the Cabinet .
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come But Joe Biden ’ s administration seems determined to change that .
The president-elect has chosen 11 people of color for Cabinet-level posts so far and has promised that his Cabinet will be the most racially diverse in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec. 17 , he has now chosen 10 women ( compared with nine men ) to serve in these positions as well .
According to our research , if they ’ re all confirmed , it would break the record for the most women ever to serve in the 25 current Cabinet-level positions .
It also raises the possibility that Biden ’ s Cabinet could be the first in American history to include at least as many women as men .
But while gender parity represents progress , numeric representation in and of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and women have equal political power and influence .
For example , women have historically been underrepresented in the “ inner Cabinet ” — the vice president , attorney general and secretaries of state , defense and treasury — who typically have the closest ties to the president .
And although we can expect a number of firsts under Biden ( the country ’ s first female vice president , treasury secretary and director of national intelligence ) , a handful of Cabinet-level posts still have yet to be led by a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women than men in careers relevant to these roles , and those who are floated for these offices often run up against gender stereotypes that women lack the traits to succeed in them .
[ How Black , Latino And Progressive Democrats Are Forcing Biden To Rethink His Cabinet Picks ] For example , a woman has never led the stereotypically male-dominated Department of Defense — and that is one barrier that the Biden administration will not break in 2021 .
Although former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy was initially considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually opted for retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin ( who , notably , would also make history as the first Black defense secretary ) .
Research by political scientists Tiffany Barnes and Diana O ’ Brien may explain why a woman has yet to hold this office .
Focusing on the post-Cold War era , they found that women were less likely to be appointed as defense ministers in countries engaged in international conflicts with at least one death or where military spending is high .
“ Women are stereotyped as more dovish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , noting that one reason a woman hasn ’ t been named secretary of defense is that “ our defense position fits a stereotype about conflict and war.
” However , Barnes and O ’ Brien found that this isn ’ t the case everywhere : In countries that are more concerned with peacekeeping or with breaking from former military abuses of power , women are more likely to be appointed as defense minister .
[ 5 Ways Biden Might Differ From — Or Agree With — Trump On Technology ] These dynamics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have held other national-security- or military-related Cabinet posts .
President Trump ’ s outgoing appointee Gina Haspel is the only woman to have led the Central Intelligence Agency , and Avril Haines is slated to be the first female head of the U.S. intelligence community .
And since the Department of Veterans Affairs became a Cabinet department in 1989 , it has never been led by a woman — a streak that will continue under Biden with his appointment of Denis McDonough .
In the same vein , there has never been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American history ; Biden appointee Janet Yellen would be the first .
What ’ s more , there are only a handful of women who have held the equivalent post in other countries with large economies .
However , ongoing research by Barnes and O ’ Brien has also found that women are more likely to be appointed to economic posts in precarious times , such as during , or following , a financial crisis or economic scandal .
This finding is especially troubling , as they argue this phenomenon often fosters the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these roles — often referred to as the “ glass cliff.
” And given the economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic , Yellen ’ s appointment certainly fits this pattern , making her appointment high-stakes for future female treasury secretaries .
By contrast , other Cabinet-level departments — such as the Small Business Administration , the Department of Labor , the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — have seen more women at the helm .
This stems partly from the fact that these departments are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership or draw from career paths in which there are simply more female professionals .
Women ’ s presumed issue expertise in areas like welfare and health care doesn ’ t map neatly onto all Cabinet positions filled by more women , but it ’ s one possible explanation for why more women are appointed to some roles and not others .
[ Related : What We ’ ve Learned About The Biden Administration From His Staffing Choices So Far ] The Small Business Administration is particularly interesting in that its explicit economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this framework .
Nevertheless , almost an equal number of men ( eight ) and women ( seven ) have led it since 1977 , making it the Cabinet position that has historically come the closest to gender equality .
Similarly , six of the 13 labor secretaries since Jimmy Carter ’ s administration have been women — and , as we mentioned at the outset , the first woman to ever serve in a president ’ s Cabinet , Perkins , was tasked with running the Labor Department .
Perkins was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position and helped implement aspects of the New Deal , including unemployment insurance , child-labor laws and other protections for workers like a minimum wage .
Even today , more than 80 years later , this department is concerned with safeguarding workers , which increasingly includes fair employment practices and a more female workforce .
This , in turn , might help explain why women often head this agency , as research has shown that they are often perceived as better able to handle these issues , and , in fact , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So while you may think that Biden didn ’ t appoint enough women to his inner Cabinet , or that the lack of women leading stereotypically masculine departments continues to be a problem , Biden ’ s appointment of a record number of women does matter .
Picking more women as Cabinet officials has a snowball effect .
As Barnes told us , “ Once you start on a trajectory of nominating more women , it ’ s hard to roll it back.
” And , as you saw in the first chart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely maintain ) the momentum of the previous administration , a phenomenon often referred to as the “ concrete floor.
” For instance , Carter started his administration with two female Cabinet members , Ronald Reagan with two , George H.W .
Bush with three , Bill Clinton with five , George W. Bush with four and Barack Obama with eight .
( Granted , Trump represented a step back , starting his administration with just four women in his Cabinet . )
But , generally speaking , the more opportunities women see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their motivation will become to pursue professional opportunities .
In turn , the more women who populate these pipelines to power , the better-positioned they will be to assume political leadership .

UPDATE (Dec. 17, 2020, 3:30 p.m.): On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden tapped Deb Haaland to be the first Native American secretary of the interior. As we wrote earlier this week, Biden is on track to name a historic number of women and people of color to his Cabinet.
Though the president’s Cabinet is meant to expose him to a diverse set of perspectives and backgrounds, until recently, that meant diversity of geography or ideology, not diversity of gender or race. It took until 1933 for the first woman to be appointed to a Cabinet position (Labor Secretary Frances Perkins) and 1966 for the first African American (Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert Weaver). And even since then, women and people of color have consistently been underrepresented in the Cabinet.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come
But Joe Biden’s administration seems determined to change that. The president-elect has chosen 11 people of color for Cabinet-level posts so far and has promised that his Cabinet will be the most racially diverse in history. And as of Thursday, Dec. 17, he has now chosen 10 women (compared with nine men) to serve in these positions as well. According to our research, if they’re all confirmed, it would break the record for the most women ever to serve in the 25 current Cabinet-level positions. It also raises the possibility that Biden’s Cabinet could be the first in American history to include at least as many women as men.
But while gender parity represents progress, numeric representation in and of itself doesn’t mean that men and women have equal political power and influence. For example, women have historically been underrepresented in the “inner Cabinet” — the vice president, attorney general and secretaries of state, defense and treasury — who typically have the closest ties to the president. And although we can expect a number of firsts under Biden (the country’s first female vice president, treasury secretary and director of national intelligence ), a handful of Cabinet-level posts still have yet to be led by a woman. Historically there have just been fewer women than men in careers relevant to these roles, and those who are floated for these offices often run up against gender stereotypes that women lack the traits to succeed in them.
[How Black, Latino And Progressive Democrats Are Forcing Biden To Rethink His Cabinet Picks]
For example, a woman has never led the stereotypically male-dominated Department of Defense — and that is one barrier that the Biden administration will not break in 2021. Although former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy was initially considered the front-runner for defense secretary, Biden eventually opted for retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin (who, notably, would also make history as the first Black defense secretary).
Research by political scientists Tiffany Barnes and Diana O’Brien may explain why a woman has yet to hold this office. Focusing on the post-Cold War era, they found that women were less likely to be appointed as defense ministers in countries engaged in international conflicts with at least one death or where military spending is high. “Women are stereotyped as more dovish,” O’Brien told FiveThirtyEight, noting that one reason a woman hasn’t been named secretary of defense is that “our defense position fits a stereotype about conflict and war.” However, Barnes and O’Brien found that this isn’t the case everywhere: In countries that are more concerned with peacekeeping or with breaking from former military abuses of power, women are more likely to be appointed as defense minister.
[5 Ways Biden Might Differ From — Or Agree With — Trump On Technology]
These dynamics may also explain why so few women have held other national-security- or military-related Cabinet posts. President Trump’s outgoing appointee Gina Haspel is the only woman to have led the Central Intelligence Agency, and Avril Haines is slated to be the first female head of the U.S. intelligence community. And since the Department of Veterans Affairs became a Cabinet department in 1989, it has never been led by a woman — a streak that will continue under Biden with his appointment of Denis McDonough.
In the same vein, there has never been a female treasury secretary in 231 years of American history; Biden appointee Janet Yellen would be the first. What’s more, there are only a handful of women who have held the equivalent post in other countries with large economies.
However, ongoing research by Barnes and O’Brien has also found that women are more likely to be appointed to economic posts in precarious times, such as during, or following, a financial crisis or economic scandal. This finding is especially troubling, as they argue this phenomenon often fosters the perception that women are less effective leaders in these roles — often referred to as the “glass cliff.” And given the economic recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic, Yellen’s appointment certainly fits this pattern, making her appointment high-stakes for future female treasury secretaries.
By contrast, other Cabinet-level departments — such as the Small Business Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — have seen more women at the helm.
This stems partly from the fact that these departments are more in line with stereotypes of female leadership or draw from career paths in which there are simply more female professionals. Women’s presumed issue expertise in areas like welfare and health care doesn’t map neatly onto all Cabinet positions filled by more women, but it’s one possible explanation for why more women are appointed to some roles and not others.
[Related: What We’ve Learned About The Biden Administration From His Staffing Choices So Far]
The Small Business Administration is particularly interesting in that its explicit economic focus doesn’t fit neatly into this framework. Nevertheless, almost an equal number of men (eight) and women (seven) have led it since 1977, making it the Cabinet position that has historically come the closest to gender equality.
Similarly, six of the 13 labor secretaries since Jimmy Carter’s administration have been women — and, as we mentioned at the outset, the first woman to ever serve in a president’s Cabinet, Perkins, was tasked with running the Labor Department. Perkins was an advocate for workers’ rights in this position and helped implement aspects of the New Deal, including unemployment insurance, child-labor laws and other protections for workers like a minimum wage. Even today, more than 80 years later, this department is concerned with safeguarding workers, which increasingly includes fair employment practices and a more female workforce. This, in turn, might help explain why women often head this agency, as research has shown that they are often perceived as better able to handle these issues, and, in fact, have had an impact in these roles.
So while you may think that Biden didn’t appoint enough women to his inner Cabinet, or that the lack of women leading stereotypically masculine departments continues to be a problem, Biden’s appointment of a record number of women does matter. Picking more women as Cabinet officials has a snowball effect. As Barnes told us, “Once you start on a trajectory of nominating more women, it’s hard to roll it back.”
And, as you saw in the first chart, administrations tend to maintain (or closely maintain) the momentum of the previous administration, a phenomenon often referred to as the “concrete floor.” For instance, Carter started his administration with two female Cabinet members, Ronald Reagan with two, George H.W. Bush with three, Bill Clinton with five, George W. Bush with four and Barack Obama with eight. (Granted, Trump represented a step back, starting his administration with just four women in his Cabinet.) But, generally speaking, the more opportunities women see available in leadership roles, the greater their motivation will become to pursue professional opportunities. In turn, the more women who populate these pipelines to power, the better-positioned they will be to assume political leadership.
What Trump revealed about America | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-15--What The Pandemic Revealed About American Politics

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses the challenges presented by both the ongoing pandemic @ @ @ @ @ continued attempts to overturn the election results .
[ Related : Why A Big Bloc @ @ @ @ @ The COVID-19 Vaccine — Even As Experts Hope To See Widespread Immunization ]

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the challenges presented by both the ongoing pandemic and President Trump’s continued attempts to overturn the election results.
[Related: Why A Big Bloc of Americans Is Wary Of The COVID-19 Vaccine — Even As Experts Hope To See Widespread Immunization]
Which celebrity would Dr. Anthony Fauci like to publicly get the vaccine?


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-21--The 40 Weirdest (And Best) Charts We Made In This Long, Strange Year

Over the course of 2020 , FiveThirtyEight ’ s visual journalists covered a historic election , an unprecedented year in @ @ @ @ @ and an economy in free fall .
So to cap off this long , strange @ @ @ @ @ ’ re continuing our tradition of celebrating the best — and weirdest — charts we @ @ @ @ @ last 12 months .
Charts are grouped by topic , but they ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ beyond that .
Click any of them to read the story where they originally ran @ @ @ @ @ enjoy this long list of weird charts ?
Then boy do we have content in @ @ @ @ @ Check out our lists from 2019 , 2018 , 2016 , 2015 and 2014 .

Over the course of 2020, FiveThirtyEight’s visual journalists covered a historic election, an unprecedented year in sports, a raging pandemic and an economy in free fall. So to cap off this long, strange, difficult year, we’re continuing our tradition of celebrating the best — and weirdest — charts we’ve published in the last 12 months. Charts are grouped by topic, but they’re not listed in any particular order beyond that. Click any of them to read the story where they originally ran. Enjoy!
Politics
Election 2020
Sports
COVID-19 and its economic fallout
Did you enjoy this long list of weird charts? Then boy do we have content in the archives for you! Check out our lists from 2019, 2018, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come
Why are people hesitant to trust a COVID-19 vaccine?
What do 1,200 books about Trump really tell us? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Why Emily Oster made her own COVID-19 database| FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-22--Politics Podcast: What The Stimulus Tells Us About Compromise In D.C.

Lawmakers reached an agreement over the weekend on a $ 900 billion relief package aimed at stemming the economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic .
It ’ s a rare example of compromise in a highly polarized Washington , D.C. , which was spearheaded by a group of moderate senators .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew debates whether this is a one-off attempt to avert crisis or a model for compromise in the Washington that President-Elect Biden is inheriting .
They also discuss what makes the runoff elections in Georgia different from elections in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn about the Biden administration and the Democratic Party from his cabinet picks so far .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

Lawmakers reached an agreement over the weekend on a $900 billion relief package aimed at stemming the economic damage from the coronavirus pandemic. It’s a rare example of compromise in a highly polarized Washington, D.C., which was spearheaded by a group of moderate senators. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew debates whether this is a one-off attempt to avert crisis or a model for compromise in the Washington that President-Elect Biden is inheriting. They also discuss what makes the runoff elections in Georgia different from elections in other battleground states and what we can learn about the Biden administration and the Democratic Party from his cabinet picks so far.
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--2020-12-22--Democrats And Republicans Should Argue More — Not Less

This holiday season , as COVID-19 cases spike across the country , many Americans will forgo family celebrations .
But for some people , these canceled plans may come with a silver lining : no squabbling about politics with in-laws , uncles or cousins .
Of course , most Americans avoid talking politics at family get-togethers in the first place because they worry that political disagreements will ruin the holidays .
But this is a mistake .
On the heels of a contentious presidential election , it may seem strange to be advocating for more , not less , partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t support the kind of social media sniping that has become a mainstay of public discourse .
But at its heart , political disagreement is actually critical to a democracy , so when we ’ re able to have these kinds of disagreements with people we know and trust , like family , we should .
Given the polarized era we live in , though , we find ourselves increasingly isolated from those we disagree with , and political disagreement is surprisingly rare .
Consider the results of a survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American Enterprise Institute ’ s Survey Center on American Life , where I serve as director .
Nearly identical majorities of Democrats and Republicans ( 55 percent versus 53 percent , respectively ) reported having no one in their immediate social circle who had opposing political views .
This lack of political diversity is on the rise in our friendships and in our marriages , too .
According to a recent YouGov survey , all Americans ( but Democrats in particular ) are less likely now than they were four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different from their own .
Politics also increasingly influences whom we marry .
Our tendency to surround ourselves with people who have beliefs or backgrounds similar to our own is well-established in social science , and what ’ s more , it is not inherently a bad thing .
It would be difficult , for instance , to pass on our religious values and traditions or to maintain a shared cultural heritage if our social groups were completely random .
Historically , this has had benefits , too , with some research finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family are more likely to participate in politics .
But our recent survey casts doubt on how true that still is , finding that Americans with politically uniform social networks are not any more politically active than those with less uniform connections .
It ’ s true that interacting with people who disagree with us politically can be difficult .
In our social network survey , a majority ( 57 percent ) of Americans say it is a stressful and frustrating experience to talk about politics with people who disagree with them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with the fact that we ’ re just really bad at understanding our political opponents .
A study from 2015 , for instance , found that Americans routinely overestimated just how divided the Democratic and Republican parties were .
Across a range of issues , such as taxes , immigration and trade , people perceived their political opponents as being more extreme than they actually were .
And a 2018 survey of 2,100 Americans conducted by More in Common , an international think tank , revealed that Democrats and Republicans widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on basic questions of race , immigration and gender equality .
This misperception even extends to how we think about our political opponents ’ wealth , sexual and gender identity , religious beliefs or racial identity .
A 2017 study found that Americans held consistently biased perceptions about the type of people who identified as Democrat or Republican .
The irony here is that by studiously avoiding political disagreement , the potential for political conflict often becomes much worse .
We become less able to understand our political opponents or empathize with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclined to believe their ideas are not just wrong-headed but dangerous .
This is bad for our democracy , creating an environment where many Americans are primed to accept misinformation and conspiracy theories .
There is hope , though .
In a novel experiment , a group of researchers working with NORC at the University of Chicago , recruited over 500 registered voters from diverse backgrounds to discuss politics with one another over a four-day period .
The researchers found that political discussions yielded a profound change in views about American democracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiment reported that “ the share of participants who said they thought American democracy worked well doubled , to 60 percent.
” And after just a few days of talking to people with different political beliefs , participants expressed considerably more favorable views about their political opponents as well .
But despite these promising results , scaling up this experiment would be difficult , and it ’ s unclear how lasting these changes will prove to be .
At the very least , availing ourselves of diverse political viewpoints may reaffirm our trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we don ’ t like the outcomes .
Our survey showed that when our social circles include a more diverse mix of political beliefs , we are more open to argument and less ideologically extreme .
And , arguably , the best way to get to this point is to discuss — and disagree about — politics more .

This holiday season, as COVID-19 cases spike across the country, many Americans will forgo family celebrations. But for some people, these canceled plans may come with a silver lining: no squabbling about politics with in-laws, uncles or cousins.
Of course, most Americans avoid talking politics at family get-togethers in the first place because they worry that political disagreements will ruin the holidays.
But this is a mistake.
What the COVID-19 vaccine means for political battles to come
On the heels of a contentious presidential election, it may seem strange to be advocating for more, not less, partisan bickering. And to be clear, I don’t support the kind of social media sniping that has become a mainstay of public discourse. But at its heart, political disagreement is actually critical to a democracy, so when we’re able to have these kinds of disagreements with people we know and trust, like family, we should.
[California’s New Senator Will Make History. But Can He Win A Full Term In 2022?]
Given the polarized era we live in, though, we find ourselves increasingly isolated from those we disagree with, and political disagreement is surprisingly rare. Consider the results of a survey on social networks conducted this summer by the American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life, where I serve as director. Nearly identical majorities of Democrats and Republicans (55 percent versus 53 percent, respectively) reported having no one in their immediate social circle who had opposing political views.
This lack of political diversity is on the rise in our friendships and in our marriages, too. According to a recent YouGov survey, all Americans (but Democrats in particular) are less likely now than they were four years ago to have friends with political views very different from their own. Politics also increasingly influences whom we marry.
Our tendency to surround ourselves with people who have beliefs or backgrounds similar to our own is well-established in social science, and what’s more, it is not inherently a bad thing. It would be difficult, for instance, to pass on our religious values and traditions or to maintain a shared cultural heritage if our social groups were completely random. Historically, this has had benefits, too, with some research finding that people with politically like-minded friends and family are more likely to participate in politics. But our recent survey casts doubt on how true that still is, finding that Americans with politically uniform social networks are not any more politically active than those with less uniform connections.
It’s true that interacting with people who disagree with us politically can be difficult. In our social network survey, a majority (57 percent) of Americans say it is a stressful and frustrating experience to talk about politics with people who disagree with them. But some of this anxiety may have to do with the fact that we’re just really bad at understanding our political opponents. A study from 2015, for instance, found that Americans routinely overestimated just how divided the Democratic and Republican parties were. Across a range of issues, such as taxes, immigration and trade, people perceived their political opponents as being more extreme than they actually were. And a 2018 survey of 2,100 Americans conducted by More in Common, an international think tank, revealed that Democrats and Republicans widely misunderstood the views of the opposing party on basic questions of race, immigration and gender equality. This misperception even extends to how we think about our political opponents’ wealth, sexual and gender identity, religious beliefs or racial identity. A 2017 study found that Americans held consistently biased perceptions about the type of people who identified as Democrat or Republican.
[Why Georgia Isn’t Like The Other Battleground States]
The irony here is that by studiously avoiding political disagreement, the potential for political conflict often becomes much worse. We become less able to understand our political opponents or empathize with their positions. Instead, we are more inclined to believe their ideas are not just wrong-headed but dangerous. This is bad for our democracy, creating an environment where many Americans are primed to accept misinformation and conspiracy theories.
There is hope, though. In a novel experiment, a group of researchers working with NORC at the University of Chicago, recruited over 500 registered voters from diverse backgrounds to discuss politics with one another over a four-day period. The researchers found that political discussions yielded a profound change in views about American democracy. A New York Times account of the experiment reported that “the share of participants who said they thought American democracy worked well doubled, to 60 percent.” And after just a few days of talking to people with different political beliefs, participants expressed considerably more favorable views about their political opponents as well. But despite these promising results, scaling up this experiment would be difficult, and it’s unclear how lasting these changes will prove to be.
At the very least, availing ourselves of diverse political viewpoints may reaffirm our trust in democratic institutions and processes, even if we don’t like the outcomes. Our survey showed that when our social circles include a more diverse mix of political beliefs, we are more open to argument and less ideologically extreme. And, arguably, the best way to get to this point is to discuss — and disagree about — politics more.
Why Georgia isn’t like the other battleground states


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-22--Why Georgia Isn’t Like The Other Battleground States

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew debates whether the new $ 900 billion stimulus package @ @ @ @ @ avert crisis or a model for compromise in the Washington that President-elect Biden will inherit @ @ @ @ @ makes the runoff elections in Georgia different from elections in other battleground states

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew debates whether the new $900 billion stimulus package is a one-off attempt to avert crisis or a model for compromise in the Washington, D.C., that President-elect Biden will inherit. They also discuss what makes the runoff elections in Georgia different from elections in other battleground states.
What do 1,200 books about Trump really tell us? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-22--California’s New Senator Will Make History. But Can He Win A Full Term In 2022?

With Sen. Kamala Harris about to become Vice President Kamala Harris , California is getting a new U.S. senator for only the second time in 25 years .
On Tuesday , Gov .
Gavin Newsom announced that he would appoint Democratic Secretary of State Alex Padilla to Harris ’ s soon-to-be vacant seat .
For months , Padilla has been seen as a logical choice for the job .
He ’ s got plenty of experience in California politics — Los Angeles city councilor ( 1999-2006 ) , state senator ( 2006-2015 ) and secretary of state ( 2015-present ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the governor , and like Newsom he is more of a technocrat than someone who identifies clearly with either the progressive or moderate wing of the party .
He also brings geographical balance to the California delegation as the first senator from Southern California since John Seymour left office in 1992 .
Most notably , though , the son of Mexican immigrants will be California ’ s first senator of Hispanic descent — pretty surprising given that California has the third-highest share of Hispanic residents of any state in the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents are Hispanic ( 39 percent , compared with 37 percent who are non-Hispanic white , 14 percent who are Asian and 6 percent who are Black ) , making Padilla ’ s appointment a long overdue milestone .
Nevertheless , Newsom ’ s decision won ’ t please everyone .
The governor has been under pressure from virtually every constituency and interest group in the Democratic Party to pick a senator who represents them .
For instance , many civil-rights leaders and women ’ s groups were pressuring Newsom to choose a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bass or Rep. Barbara Lee .
With Harris ’ s departure , there will be no Black women in the next Senate , and there have been only two in all of American history ( there are four current senators , and five former senators , of Hispanic descent ) .
So there is potential downside here for Newsom ’ s own political prospects as well .
“ This is not something that I wish even on my worst enemy , because you create enemies in this process , ” he lamented last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a terrible time for Newsom to alienate potential allies ; he ’ s recently been raked over the coals for attending a crowded dinner party at a posh Napa Valley restaurant in violation of his own COVID-19 protocols . )
On the bright side for him ( and other ambitious California politicians ) , though , he does have more chances to placate these groups : He will also be tasked with appointing a replacement for Padilla as secretary of state , as well as a replacement for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden ’ s secretary of health and human services .
( There may yet be another Senate vacancy from California , too , as 87-year-old Dianne Feinstein is stepping down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee , and some liberals have called on her to resign from the Senate entirely . )
So regardless of the health of Newsom ’ s own political career , he has the enviable — and extremely rare — opportunity to shape California politics for years to come .
How many years , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have to face the voters in 2022 , when Harris ’ s Senate seat is up for election , and appointed incumbents do not enjoy the electoral advantage that elected incumbents do .
Being a senator from California is also an extremely desirable job : It ’ s one of the most powerful positions in the most populous state in the union , and given California ’ s strong Democratic lean ( Biden just won it by 29 percentage points ) , its Democratic senators have quite a bit of job security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face a stiff challenge for his seat from some of the state ’ s other ambitious Democrats .
For example , many progressives would love to see Rep. Katie Porter , a protégée of Sen. Elizabeth Warren , seek a promotion , and Rep. Adam Schiff has $ 13.7 million in his campaign bank account despite his congressional district not being even remotely competitive .
Padilla also probably won ’ t be helped by California ’ s unusual top-two primary system , whereby all candidates run on the same ballot in the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regardless of party — advance to the general election .
That means a potential Democratic challenger wouldn ’ t have to get more votes than the incumbent , as in most states ; instead , he or she would simply need to get more votes than the leading Republican ( or third-party ) candidate .
Again , given how blue California is , that ’ s an easy scenario to imagine : Indeed , two of California ’ s three Senate elections since the top-two primary was implemented have gone to a Democrat-on-Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t in danger of losing California ’ s Senate seat to Republicans in 2022 , it might still be a competitive election worth watching all the way until November .

With Sen. Kamala Harris about to become Vice President Kamala Harris, California is getting a new U.S. senator for only the second time in 25 years. On Tuesday, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he would appoint Democratic Secretary of State Alex Padilla to Harris’s soon-to-be vacant seat.
For months, Padilla has been seen as a logical choice for the job. He’s got plenty of experience in California politics — Los Angeles city councilor (1999-2006), state senator (2006-2015) and secretary of state (2015-present). He’s a close ally of the governor, and like Newsom he is more of a technocrat than someone who identifies clearly with either the progressive or moderate wing of the party. He also brings geographical balance to the California delegation as the first senator from Southern California since John Seymour left office in 1992.
What do 1,200 books about Trump really tell us? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Most notably, though, the son of Mexican immigrants will be California’s first senator of Hispanic descent — pretty surprising given that California has the third-highest share of Hispanic residents of any state in the country. In fact, a plurality of California residents are Hispanic (39 percent, compared with 37 percent who are non-Hispanic white, 14 percent who are Asian and 6 percent who are Black), making Padilla’s appointment a long overdue milestone.
Nevertheless, Newsom’s decision won’t please everyone. The governor has been under pressure from virtually every constituency and interest group in the Democratic Party to pick a senator who represents them. For instance, many civil-rights leaders and women’s groups were pressuring Newsom to choose a Black woman, such as Rep. Karen Bass or Rep. Barbara Lee. With Harris’s departure, there will be no Black women in the next Senate, and there have been only two in all of American history (there are four current senators, and five former senators, of Hispanic descent).
[Democrats And Republicans Should Argue More — Not Less]
So there is potential downside here for Newsom’s own political prospects as well. “This is not something that I wish even on my worst enemy, because you create enemies in this process,” he lamented last month. (It’s also a terrible time for Newsom to alienate potential allies; he’s recently been raked over the coals for attending a crowded dinner party at a posh Napa Valley restaurant in violation of his own COVID-19 protocols.) On the bright side for him (and other ambitious California politicians), though, he does have more chances to placate these groups: He will also be tasked with appointing a replacement for Padilla as secretary of state, as well as a replacement for California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has been nominated to be Joe Biden’s secretary of health and human services. (There may yet be another Senate vacancy from California, too, as 87-year-old Dianne Feinstein is stepping down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and some liberals have called on her to resign from the Senate entirely.) So regardless of the health of Newsom’s own political career, he has the enviable — and extremely rare — opportunity to shape California politics for years to come.
How many years, though, is an open question. Padilla will have to face the voters in 2022, when Harris’s Senate seat is up for election, and appointed incumbents do not enjoy the electoral advantage that elected incumbents do. Being a senator from California is also an extremely desirable job: It’s one of the most powerful positions in the most populous state in the union, and given California’s strong Democratic lean (Biden just won it by 29 percentage points), its Democratic senators have quite a bit of job security. So Padilla can probably expect to face a stiff challenge for his seat from some of the state’s other ambitious Democrats. For example, many progressives would love to see Rep. Katie Porter, a protégée of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, seek a promotion, and Rep. Adam Schiff has $13.7 million in his campaign bank account despite his congressional district not being even remotely competitive.
[What The Stimulus Tells Us About Compromise In D.C.]
Padilla also probably won’t be helped by California’s unusual top-two primary system, whereby all candidates run on the same ballot in the primary, and the top two finishers — regardless of party — advance to the general election. That means a potential Democratic challenger wouldn’t have to get more votes than the incumbent, as in most states; instead, he or she would simply need to get more votes than the leading Republican (or third-party) candidate. Again, given how blue California is, that’s an easy scenario to imagine: Indeed, two of California’s three Senate elections since the top-two primary was implemented have gone to a Democrat-on-Democrat general election. So while Democrats probably aren’t in danger of losing California’s Senate seat to Republicans in 2022, it might still be a competitive election worth watching all the way until November.


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-28--Politics Podcast: Goodbye To 2020

Politics Podcast: Goodbye To 2020

In the final 2020 installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew looks back at the rough and wild @ @ @ @ @ They consider the most surprising political stories of the year , fess up to what @ @ @ @ @ ( or wrong ) and answer questions from listeners .
They also assess whether many @ @ @ @ @ out the Georgia Senate runoffs is a “ good or bad use of polling.
” @ @ @ @ @ episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by @ @ @ @ @ the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts @ @ @ @ @ .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover @ @ @ @ @ a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for @ @ @ @ @ polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments @

In the final 2020 installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew looks back at a rough and wild year. They consider the most surprising political stories of the year, fess up to what they think they got right (or wrong) and answer questions from listeners. They also assess whether many pollsters’ decision to sit out the Georgia Senate runoffs is a good or bad use of polling.
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--2020-12-29--What The Early Vote In Georgia Can — And Can’t — Tell Us

Through Monday , more people — 2,337,477 — have officially voted in Georgia ’ s upcoming Senate runoff than in any other runoff in Georgia history .
That ’ s a meaningful milestone considering that the eight previous runoff elections have all been low-turnout affairs .
But it doesn ’ t necessarily tell us anything about who is going to win this year ’ s races .
For instance , we don ’ t know how those 2.3 million voters voted ( while turnout numbers are released on a daily basis , no actual election results are reported until polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 ) .
And because Georgia does not register voters by party , we don ’ t know whether those voters are disproportionately Democrats or Republicans either .
We do have some clues about who has voted thanks to demographic information in the voter file : namely , voters ’ race .
Voters so far in Georgia are 55 percent non-Hispanic white , 32 percent non-Hispanic Black and 13 percent of other races ( or of unknown race ) .
That ’ s a more diverse electorate than at this point in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times/Upshot ’ s Nate Cohn , fewer than 30 percent of early voters were Black .
At first glance , that might seem like a good omen for Democrats given their strength with Black voters .
And there are other rosy signs for Democrats in the early-voting data too , like turnout being lowest in two heavily Republican congressional districts in north Georgia .
But none of that will matter if hordes of white voters and north Georgia Republicans turn out to vote on election day , which is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to vote , and because the type of person who votes early is different from the type of person who votes on election day , those voters could completely change the face of the electorate .
( Indeed , more than 975,000 Georgians voted on Election Day in November , and President Trump won them 60 percent to 38 percent .
The Black share of the electorate wound up lower than the Black share of the early vote in November as well . )
As the saying goes , don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and don ’ t form any opinions about who is going to win Georgia based on the early vote .
The one thing the early-voting data tells us for sure is that a lot of people are voting ( including almost 80,000 who didn ’ t vote in the November election ! )
.
As mentioned , the 2.3 million Georgians who have voted so far surpasses the 2,137,956 who voted in total in the state ’ s 2008 Senate runoff , which held the previous record for highest turnout in a runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican since the state enacted runoffs in 1968 . )
As a result , turnout in the runoffs will be at least 32 percent of eligible voters ( as estimated by Michael McDonald of the University of Florida ) and 47 percent of the number of people who voted in the regular Senate race in the general election .
And , of course , turnout will eventually be far higher than that , considering there is still a week left until election day .
Consider that at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3,028,676 people had voted , which was about three-fifths of the final turnout , according to www.georgiavotes.com , an unofficial vote-tracking website that uses publicly available data from the secretary of state .
If that pattern holds for the runoff ( a big if , considering that the early-voting period was disrupted by Christmas ) , turnout in the runoff could be around 3.8 million .
That ’ s more than half of eligible voters and more than three-quarters of general-election turnout — both of which would be record-shattering .
Once again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ridiculously high turnout could favor Democrats .
As my colleague Geoffrey Skelley and I wrote last month , turnout always drops sharply from general elections to runoffs in Georgia , and Black voters are disproportionately likely to stay home when that happens .
As a result , Republicans have improved on their general-election margins in seven of Georgia ’ s eight previous runoffs .
But this runoff , with its unprecedentedly high stakes , looks like it will have far less turnout dropoff than in the past — so maybe the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoffs won ’ t hold true .
On the other hand , a small dropoff is still a dropoff , so maybe Republicans will still increase their vote share — just by less than they would have in a low-turnout scenario .
And because Republican candidates did 1-2 percentage points better than Democratic candidates in both the regular and special Senate elections in November , the GOP would still win the runoffs even if the margins stay exactly the same .
( In other words , Democrats are the ones who need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only happened in one runoff in Georgia history : an obscure 1998 special election for public service commissioner . )
And while conventional wisdom holds that high turnout helps Democrats , that ’ s not necessarily true — as we just saw in the 2020 election , where Republicans often improved upon their past margins and won many key races in the highest-turnout election in more than a century .
So once again , the safest conclusion to draw from these early-voting numbers is that either party could benefit .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @

Through Monday, more people — 2,337,477 — have officially voted in Georgia’s upcoming Senate runoff than in any other runoff in Georgia history. That’s a meaningful milestone considering that the eight previous runoff elections have all been low-turnout affairs. But it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about who is going to win this year’s races.
For instance, we don’t know how those 2.3 million voters voted (while turnout numbers are released on a daily basis, no actual election results are reported until polls close at 7 p.m. Eastern on Jan. 5). And because Georgia does not register voters by party, we don’t know whether those voters are disproportionately Democrats or Republicans either.
Why many pollsters are sitting out the Georgia runoffs
We do have some clues about who has voted thanks to demographic information in the voter file: namely, voters’ race. Voters so far in Georgia are 55 percent non-Hispanic white, 32 percent non-Hispanic Black and 13 percent of other races (or of unknown race). That’s a more diverse electorate than at this point in the general election, when, according to The New York Times/Upshot’s Nate Cohn, fewer than 30 percent of early voters were Black. At first glance, that might seem like a good omen for Democrats given their strength with Black voters. And there are other rosy signs for Democrats in the early-voting data too, like turnout being lowest in two heavily Republican congressional districts in north Georgia.
[Will The Debate Over $2,000 Stimulus Checks Help Democrats In Georgia?]
But none of that will matter if hordes of white voters and north Georgia Republicans turn out to vote on election day, which is very possible. Potentially millions of people have yet to vote, and because the type of person who votes early is different from the type of person who votes on election day, those voters could completely change the face of the electorate. (Indeed, more than 975,000 Georgians voted on Election Day in November, and President Trump won them 60 percent to 38 percent. The Black share of the electorate wound up lower than the Black share of the early vote in November as well.) As the saying goes, don’t count your chickens before they hatch, and don’t form any opinions about who is going to win Georgia based on the early vote.
The one thing the early-voting data tells us for sure is that a lot of people are voting (including almost 80,000 who didn’t vote in the November election!). As mentioned, the 2.3 million Georgians who have voted so far surpasses the 2,137,956 who voted in total in the state’s 2008 Senate runoff, which held the previous record for highest turnout in a runoff. (Georgia’s held eight runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican since the state enacted runoffs in 1968.) As a result, turnout in the runoffs will be at least 32 percent of eligible voters (as estimated by Michael McDonald of the University of Florida) and 47 percent of the number of people who voted in the regular Senate race in the general election.
Turnout in the Georgia runoffs has hit a record high Three ways to measure turnout in every runoff election in Georgia Cycle Office Runoff Turnout Share of Nov. Turnout Share of Eligible Voters 2020 U.S. Senate* 2,337,477 47% 32% 2008 U.S. Senate 2,137,956 57 34 2008 Public Service Commission 2,010,329 56 32 2018 Secretary of State 1,473,904 38 20 2018 Public Service Commission 1,465,820 38 20 1992 U.S. Senate 1,253,991 56 26 1992 Public Service Commission 1,159,605 57 24 2006 Public Service Commission 215,092 11 4 1998 Public Service Commission 114,343 9 2 *Through Dec. 28. Includes all ballots cast, not necessarily counted. The share of November turnout is based on the number of general-election voters in the regular Senate election. Sources: Georgia secretary of state, United States Elections Project
And, of course, turnout will eventually be far higher than that, considering there is still a week left until election day. Consider that at this point in the general election, 3,028,676 people had voted, which was about three-fifths of the final turnout, according to www.georgiavotes.com, an unofficial vote-tracking website that uses publicly available data from the secretary of state. If that pattern holds for the runoff (a big if, considering that the early-voting period was disrupted by Christmas), turnout in the runoff could be around 3.8 million. That’s more than half of eligible voters and more than three-quarters of general-election turnout — both of which would be record-shattering.
Once again, it’s tempting to conclude that that ridiculously high turnout could favor Democrats. As my colleague Geoffrey Skelley and I wrote last month, turnout always drops sharply from general elections to runoffs in Georgia, and Black voters are disproportionately likely to stay home when that happens. As a result, Republicans have improved on their general-election margins in seven of Georgia’s eight previous runoffs. But this runoff, with its unprecedentedly high stakes, looks like it will have far less turnout dropoff than in the past — so maybe the political axiom that Republicans always do better in runoffs won’t hold true.
[Why Georgia Isn’t Like The Other Battleground States]
On the other hand, a small dropoff is still a dropoff, so maybe Republicans will still increase their vote share — just by less than they would have in a low-turnout scenario. And because Republican candidates did 1-2 percentage points better than Democratic candidates in both the regular and special Senate elections in November, the GOP would still win the runoffs even if the margins stay exactly the same. (In other words, Democrats are the ones who need to improve their performance, something that has only happened in one runoff in Georgia history: an obscure 1998 special election for public service commissioner.)
And while conventional wisdom holds that high turnout helps Democrats, that’s not necessarily true — as we just saw in the 2020 election, where Republicans often improved upon their past margins and won many key races in the highest-turnout election in more than a century. So once again, the safest conclusion to draw from these early-voting numbers is that either party could benefit. We’ll know which one next week.
Geoffrey Skelley contributed research.
Trump’s refusal to concede hasnât made life easier for GOP in Georgia runoffs: Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-12-29--Why Many Pollsters Are Sitting Out The Georgia Runoffs

In 2020 ’ s final installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew looks back at the year that @ @ @ @ @ surprising political stories of the year .
They also assess why many pollsters are sitting @ @ @ @ @ and take some time to answer listener questions .

In 2020’s final installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew looks back at the year that was and discusses the most surprising political stories of the year. They also assess why many pollsters are sitting out the Georgia Senate runoffs and take some time to answer listener questions.
Why Georgia isn’t like the other battleground states