fivethirtyeight--2020-03-19--Tulsi Gabbard Finally Ended Her Increasingly Quixotic Campaign

Many people might be surprised to learn that Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was still running for president ; indeed , she stuck around far longer than it probably made sense to .
After Tuesday ’ s primaries , she was mathematically eliminated , as there weren ’ t enough pledged delegates left for her to win the Democratic nomination .
But on Thursday morning , she finally called it quits .
Gabbard entered the race in January 2019 with an intriguing profile : a woman of color , a military veteran , a millennial who advocated for new voices within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting record that skewed more moderate than the rest of the party , she resigned as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders ) .
But it was hard for Gabbard to make inroads with Democratic voters — the more Democrats got to know her over the course of the campaign , the less they liked her .
This was probably compounded by the fact that perhaps the most attention Gabbard received all cycle long was when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested Republicans were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third-party spoiler and when Gabbard was one of only three Democrats who did not vote in favor of impeaching President Trump .
There were many other long-shot candidates in 2020 , but what set Gabbard apart was how long she stayed in the race despite not winning more than 4 percent of the vote in any contest except tiny American Samoa ( where she was born ) .
Other candidates stuck in the 1 to 2 percent range in national polls dropped out once voting began , if not before .
She even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay in the presidential race , announcing in October that she would not run for reelection even though Hawaii is one of the few states that allows candidates to run for Congress and president at the same time .
Even by March , after candidates like former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who were polling above 10 percent nationally , were dropping out of the race , Gabbard pushed on .
By then , Gabbard ’ s campaign looked more like a protest campaign than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She did not contest multiple key states on the primary calendar , including Iowa , where she did not hold a public event after Oct. 24 , 2019 .
In early March , she told ABC News she was staying in the race in order to speak to Americans “ about the sea change we need in our foreign policy ” and promote her pet issue of ending military intervention abroad .
It was beginning to look like Gabbard would take her campaign almost all the way to the convention , following in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were misfits in their own party , like former Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul .
But money may have been an issue for Gabbard ; in January , she raised only $ 1.1 million but spent $ 1.8 million , an obviously unsustainable rate .
Upon dropping out of the race , Gabbard also endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden , despite the fact that her 2016 pick , Sanders , is still in the race , albeit a heavy underdog .
It was an interesting olive branch to the establishment wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ openly feuded so much in the past .
It would also seem to foreclose the possibility that Gabbard will run as a third-party candidate in the general election , perhaps splitting the Democratic vote and throwing the election to Trump .
She has previously denied that she would do so , but it would be especially difficult for her now to turn around and campaign against a candidate she has endorsed .
And although her withdrawal from the race may be a mere formality at this point , it is symbolic because she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was nonwhite , as well as the last woman in the race .
America ’ s first elected female president will have to wait at least four more years .
Another less significant but more surprising streak will also continue : With Gabbard ’ s departure , Democrats still have never nominated a presidential candidate from the West .

Many people might be surprised to learn that Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was still running for president; indeed, she stuck around far longer than it probably made sense to. After Tuesday’s primaries, she was mathematically eliminated, as there weren’t enough pledged delegates left for her to win the Democratic nomination. But on Thursday morning, she finally called it quits.
Gabbard entered the race in January 2019 with an intriguing profile: a woman of color, a military veteran, a millennial who advocated for new voices within the Democratic Party (despite a congressional voting record that skewed more moderate than the rest of the party, she resigned as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders).
But it was hard for Gabbard to make inroads with Democratic voters — the more Democrats got to know her over the course of the campaign, the less they liked her. This was probably compounded by the fact that perhaps the most attention Gabbard received all cycle long was when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested Republicans were “grooming” her to be a third-party spoiler and when Gabbard was one of only three Democrats who did not vote in favor of impeaching President Trump.
There were many other long-shot candidates in 2020, but what set Gabbard apart was how long she stayed in the race despite not winning more than 4 percent of the vote in any contest except tiny American Samoa (where she was born). Other candidates stuck in the 1 to 2 percent range in national polls dropped out once voting began, if not before. She even gave up a safe House seat to stay in the presidential race, announcing in October that she would not run for reelection even though Hawaii is one of the few states that allows candidates to run for Congress and president at the same time. Even by March, after candidates like former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who were polling above 10 percent nationally, were dropping out of the race, Gabbard pushed on.
By then, Gabbard’s campaign looked more like a protest campaign than one with any intention of winning. She did not contest multiple key states on the primary calendar, including Iowa, where she did not hold a public event after Oct. 24, 2019. In early March, she told ABC News she was staying in the race in order to speak to Americans “about the sea change we need in our foreign policy” and promote her pet issue of ending military intervention abroad. It was beginning to look like Gabbard would take her campaign almost all the way to the convention, following in the footsteps of past presidential candidates who were misfits in their own party, like former Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. But money may have been an issue for Gabbard; in January, she raised only $1.1 million but spent $1.8 million, an obviously unsustainable rate.
Upon dropping out of the race, Gabbard also endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden, despite the fact that her 2016 pick, Sanders, is still in the race, albeit a heavy underdog. It was an interesting olive branch to the establishment wing of the party with which Gabbard has openly feuded so much in the past. It would also seem to foreclose the possibility that Gabbard will run as a third-party candidate in the general election, perhaps splitting the Democratic vote and throwing the election to Trump. She has previously denied that she would do so, but it would be especially difficult for her now to turn around and campaign against a candidate she has endorsed.
And although her withdrawal from the race may be a mere formality at this point, it is symbolic because she was the last major presidential candidate who was nonwhite, as well as the last woman in the race. America’s first elected female president will have to wait at least four more years. Another less significant but more surprising streak will also continue: With Gabbard’s departure, Democrats still have never nominated a presidential candidate from the West.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-19--Is One Generation Taking The Coronavirus Less Seriously Than Others? Not Really.

There ’ s been a lot of finger pointing in the past few days over who isn ’ t taking the coronavirus seriously .
Some have pointed to millennials out at bars or brunch , saying they are not taking recommendations to stay home and avoid crowds to prevent the spread of the virus .
Others have gotten frustrated with baby boomers stubbornly carrying on with their weekly gatherings and travel plans .
( President Trump asked Americans to avoid unnecessary travel in new national guidelines Monday . )
But when you look at recent polls , there just isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group is more concerned than another about the spread of the disease .
And furthermore , there doesn ’ t seem to be an age gap in people ’ s willingness to adopt preventive measures .
We looked at five polls conducted in the past eight days that asked Americans whether they were concerned that they or someone they knew ( including a family member ) would contract the virus , and in every age group , a majority said they were concerned .
That doesn ’ t mean there weren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , they just didn ’ t add up to a clear trend .
Of the five polls we looked at , two found an 11-point gap between the share of people in the oldest age group who said they were worried that they or someone in their family would catch the virus and the share of people in the youngest age group who said the same .
( Around 65 percent of the oldest group in both surveys said they were “ somewhat ” or “ very ” concerned , while that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the youngest group . )
One poll found a 10-point gap in the opposite direction : 68 percent of the youngest age group said they were worried , while 58 percent of the oldest age group said the same .
And two polls found smaller variations — one found that older respondents were about 7 points more likely to be worried , while the other found essentially no difference between the oldest and youngest groups .
How Should You Social Distance ?
We do have a little bit of evidence that younger people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than older Americans .
In an Elon University poll conducted March 16-17 , about two-thirds of 18-to-24-year-olds and 24-to-44-year-olds said they were worried about spreading the coronavirus to others , while only 48 percent of those 65 and older said the same .
This is important because , according to experts like Gillian SteelFisher , a researcher at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health who has studied public response to pandemics , people are motivated to take preventive action based on how much risk they believe they personally face and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others .
SteelFisher told me that people can be motivated to change their behavior when they feel their actions will be effective in helping reduce the spread of a disease .
“ Social distancing is hard , and so , when we can see other countries where case counts are coming down [ after social distancing started ] … , it can really be motivating for people to see that those things are having an effect .
Otherwise , it ’ s like , gosh , is this worth it ?
” SteelFisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least , three polls show that both young and old Americans are adopting preventive measures like social distancing at similar rates : • Almost half of baby boomers ( ages 55-73 ) and members of the silent generation ( age 73 and up ) said they had canceled plans to avoid crowds , as did 54 percent of millennials and Generation Z ( ages 18 to 38 ) , according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted March 13-14 .
• And in a YouGov poll conducted Tuesday , while the youngest age group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoiding mass gatherings and maintaining distance of approximately 6 feet from others when possible , other age groups all said they were adopting social distancing practices at similar rates .
About two-thirds of 18-to-24-year-olds said they were doing so , while the other age groups ranged from 73 percent ( among respondents 25-34 and 35-44 ) to 79 percent ( among those older than 55 ) .
• Finally , 45 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds said they were now less likely to go to restaurants or cafes , per a Morning Consult poll conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and older , 49 percent said the same .
The attitudes and behaviors among younger and older people during this pandemic are not set in stone , though .
In fact , they could change very quickly , particularly since so much about the coronavirus is still unknown , and maybe an age gap will appear as we get more data .
But right now , there just isn ’ t a sign of one .

There’s been a lot of finger pointing in the past few days over who isn’t taking the coronavirus seriously. Some have pointed to millennials out at bars or brunch, saying they are not taking recommendations to stay home and avoid crowds to prevent the spread of the virus. Others have gotten frustrated with baby boomers stubbornly carrying on with their weekly gatherings and travel plans. (President Trump asked Americans to avoid unnecessary travel in new national guidelines Monday.)
But when you look at recent polls, there just isn’t any evidence that one age group is more concerned than another about the spread of the disease. And furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be an age gap in people’s willingness to adopt preventive measures.
We looked at five polls conducted in the past eight days that asked Americans whether they were concerned that they or someone they knew (including a family member) would contract the virus, and in every age group, a majority said they were concerned.
That doesn’t mean there weren’t some differences among age groups. There were, they just didn’t add up to a clear trend. Of the five polls we looked at, two found an 11-point gap between the share of people in the oldest age group who said they were worried that they or someone in their family would catch the virus and the share of people in the youngest age group who said the same. (Around 65 percent of the oldest group in both surveys said they were “somewhat” or “very” concerned, while that number was just under 55 percent for the youngest group.) One poll found a 10-point gap in the opposite direction: 68 percent of the youngest age group said they were worried, while 58 percent of the oldest age group said the same. And two polls found smaller variations — one found that older respondents were about 7 points more likely to be worried, while the other found essentially no difference between the oldest and youngest groups.
How should you social distance?
We do have a little bit of evidence that younger people are more concerned about spreading the coronavirus than older Americans. In an Elon University poll conducted March 16-17, about two-thirds of 18-to-24-year-olds and 24-to-44-year-olds said they were worried about spreading the coronavirus to others, while only 48 percent of those 65 and older said the same.
This is important because, according to experts like Gillian SteelFisher, a researcher at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who has studied public response to pandemics, people are motivated to take preventive action based on how much risk they believe they personally face and how they think their actions might affect others.
SteelFisher told me that people can be motivated to change their behavior when they feel their actions will be effective in helping reduce the spread of a disease.
“Social distancing is hard, and so, when we can see other countries where case counts are coming down [after social distancing started] …, it can really be motivating for people to see that those things are having an effect. Otherwise, it’s like, gosh, is this worth it?” SteelFisher said.
But right now, at least, three polls show that both young and old Americans are adopting preventive measures like social distancing at similar rates:
Almost half of baby boomers (ages 55-73) and members of the silent generation (age 73 and up) said they had canceled plans to avoid crowds, as did 54 percent of millennials and Generation Z (ages 18 to 38), according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted March 13-14.
And in a YouGov poll conducted Tuesday, while the youngest age group was less likely to say they were avoiding mass gatherings and maintaining distance of approximately 6 feet from others when possible, other age groups all said they were adopting social distancing practices at similar rates. About two-thirds of 18-to-24-year-olds said they were doing so, while the other age groups ranged from 73 percent (among respondents 25-34 and 35-44) to 79 percent (among those older than 55).
age group was less likely to say they were avoiding mass gatherings and maintaining distance of approximately 6 feet from others when possible, other age groups all said they were adopting social distancing practices at similar rates. About two-thirds of 18-to-24-year-olds said they were doing so, while the other age groups ranged from 73 percent (among respondents 25-34 and 35-44) to 79 percent (among those older than 55). Finally, 45 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds said they were now less likely to go to restaurants or cafes, per a Morning Consult poll conducted March 13-16. Among those 65 years and older, 49 percent said the same.
The attitudes and behaviors among younger and older people during this pandemic are not set in stone, though. In fact, they could change very quickly, particularly since so much about the coronavirus is still unknown, and maybe an age gap will appear as we get more data. But right now, there just isn’t a sign of one.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-17--How Coronavirus Could Alter The 2020 Election

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned American society upside down inside of a week .
That includes the presidential campaign , which has already taken a backseat to news of quarantines , lockdowns and hospitals preparing to be overrun with sick people .
Social distancing means an end to conventional retail politics ; kissing a baby or giving a hug to an older supporter could mean spreading an invisible killer .
Holding a rally — one shudders to think of the amount of infected spittle that could be sprayed — when public officials are urging the closure of schools , churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last week , both Sanders and Joe Biden canceled large public events in Cleveland because of worries over the spread of COVID-19 , which last Wednesday the World Health Organization officially called a pandemic .
When Biden made a victory speech Tuesday night after his win in several primary states , he did so in the presence of a cheering crowd in Philadelphia that was cordoned off from him .
On Wednesday , his campaign said in an email that it was cancelling large in-person events in Illinois and Florida and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced tele-town halls for their surrogates and Jill Biden held a virtual debate watch party Sunday — the debate was not held in front of a crowd .
Trump canceled a rally in Wisconsin scheduled for March 19 , while Sanders live-streamed a fireside chat on Saturday .
All three men in the running for the presidency are in their 70s , placing them at high risk for serious repercussions if they contracted the virus .
So will the candidates lose any great value to their campaigns as they lose large in-person gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a presidential campaign with no rallies ?
American campaigns and campaign coverage are driven by what historian Daniel Boorstin called “ pseudo-events ” — artificial inflection points meant to “ drive the message.
” Rallies are the crown jewel pseudo-events in our age of populist politics .
In 2016 , President Trump calibrated his rallies — earned-media bonanzas — to be uplifting , comedic , dark and cathartically angry all at once .
Bernie Sanders has relied on his to prove the passion of his support , even in the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as intrinsic to the American political fabric as flag pins , sex scandals , and elected officials saying , “ folks.
” The content of rallies matter , but as my colleague Nathanial Rakich wrote earlier this primary cycle , one shouldn ’ t let crowd sizes lead them into a false sense that a candidate will outperform their polls .
Biden , who is the front-runner in the Democratic primary and who seems all but a shoo-in for the nomination , hasn ’ t been known for his crowds at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who dropped out of the race , both made massive rallies centerpieces of their campaigns .
For Sanders , the rally proved critical in his rise in the 2016 primary .
Political scientists John Sides , Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck ’ s book , “ Identity Crisis , ” pointed to the large rallies that followed Sanders ’ s May 2015 campaign kickoff as a large part of the reason “ Sanders ’ s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls.
” He drew estimated crowds of 4,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 5,500 in Denver on June 20 , 9,600 in Madison on July 1 , 11,000 in Phoenix on July 18 , and from August 8 to August 10 , 15,000 in Seattle , 28,000 in Portland , Oregon , and 27,500 in Los Angeles .
In an email , Sides said the cancellation of 2020 events seems different and less likely to make an impact on the outcome of the primary campaign .
“ We ’ re not in the invisible primary anymore and not even really early in the primary season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question whether a rally or two , and the accompanying news coverage , would do much to change any voters ’ mind .
I guess since Sanders is currently trailing , he ’ d prefer to get all the attention he possibly can.
” The question of how to get attention for your campaign — the good kind , not the “ yikes , someone at my rally got coronavirus ” kind — is likely to dog a rally-less 2020 campaign .
It ’ s unclear how many people will tune into live-streamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch parties .
In-person events are critical to campaigns since they help build lists of supporters and garner local media coverage .
( I reached out to the Biden and Sanders campaigns about their plans for events in the foreseeable future but did not hear back . )
In an email , political scientist and FiveThirtyEight contributor Joshua Darr pointed to studies that have shown “ positive effects of candidate appearances , and those effects are often tied to media coverage.
” Political scientists Scott L. Althaus , Peter F. Nardulli & Daron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often make a disproportionate number of campaign appearances in states with Electoral College importance ( makes sense ! )
.
The point of those events isn ’ t just to connect with the people at the event , it ’ s to broadcast their appearance over local news , which campaigns see as friendlier than national media .
Plus , the authors write , “ candidates know that voters perceive local news media reports to be much more credible than television advertisements.
” But do these rallies really change minds ?
A 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Broockman argued that advertising and candidate contact with voters actually has no clear effect in persuading voters in a general election ( primaries are a different story ) .
Early on in a general election , campaigns can have persuadable effects , but those dissipate during the closing months of the election .
That said , the authors note that “ campaigns can sometimes identify pockets of persuadable voters ” in some elections with special circumstances .
One of the examples of persuadable subgroups in an unusual election came from the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant effects ” in an analysis of the presidential race in Ohio .
“ This was a highly unusual race because ( a ) a Republican candidate ( Donald Trump ) taking many positions out of step with the party , and ( b ) the prevailing campaign messages from the Democratic candidate ’ s ( Hillary Clinton ) campaign did not focus on the economic messages one might expect to persuade Ohio voters , ” they wrote .
What will undoubtedly change is the way campaigns try to reach voters .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different , ” Darr said .
“ Campaigns would need to find ways to earn media and connect their candidate with supporters virtually , attracting earned media coverage of their creative solutions.
” He noted that text message outreach and phone banking will become more important as the campaigns continue during the uncertainty of the pandemic .
The 2020 general election race between Trump and whoever comes out of the Democratic contest might well become a precisely tailored endeavor , with campaigns targeting specific communities in specific states with as personalized an outreach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , they ’ ll have to maintain a national image via novel earned-media strategies .
Though he dropped out of the presidential race , Pete Buttigieg demonstrated a creative solution for earned media coverage recently .
Last week , he guest-hosted “ Jimmy Kimmel Live , ” using the opening monologue to rib Trump , promote an emergency COVID-19 response bill , and generally cultivate his image as a smart , likeable guy .
The Buttigieg campaign was ahead of the curve in its earned media strategy — the digital-native fluency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be underrated .
It remains to be seen whether the septuagenarians still running for president will prove to be as creative .
Their political futures may depend on it .

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned American society upside down inside of a week. That includes the presidential campaign, which has already taken a backseat to news of quarantines, lockdowns and hospitals preparing to be overrun with sick people. Social distancing means an end to conventional retail politics; kissing a baby or giving a hug to an older supporter could mean spreading an invisible killer. Holding a rally — one shudders to think of the amount of infected spittle that could be sprayed — when public officials are urging the closure of schools, churches, bars and restaurants is nearly unthinkable.
Last week, both Sanders and Joe Biden canceled large public events in Cleveland because of worries over the spread of COVID-19, which last Wednesday the World Health Organization officially called a pandemic. When Biden made a victory speech Tuesday night after his win in several primary states, he did so in the presence of a cheering crowd in Philadelphia that was cordoned off from him. On Wednesday, his campaign said in an email that it was cancelling large in-person events in Illinois and Florida and that it would hold them virtually. They announced tele-town halls for their surrogates and Jill Biden held a virtual debate watch party Sunday — the debate was not held in front of a crowd. Trump canceled a rally in Wisconsin scheduled for March 19, while Sanders live-streamed a fireside chat on Saturday. All three men in the running for the presidency are in their 70s, placing them at high risk for serious repercussions if they contracted the virus.
So will the candidates lose any great value to their campaigns as they lose large in-person gatherings like rallies? What happens when there’s a presidential campaign with no rallies?
American campaigns and campaign coverage are driven by what historian Daniel Boorstin called “pseudo-events” — artificial inflection points meant to “drive the message.” Rallies are the crown jewel pseudo-events in our age of populist politics. In 2016, President Trump calibrated his rallies — earned-media bonanzas — to be uplifting, comedic, dark and cathartically angry all at once. Bernie Sanders has relied on his to prove the passion of his support, even in the face of establishment skepticism. The rally is as intrinsic to the American political fabric as flag pins, sex scandals, and elected officials saying, “folks.”
The content of rallies matter, but as my colleague Nathanial Rakich wrote earlier this primary cycle, one shouldn’t let crowd sizes lead them into a false sense that a candidate will outperform their polls. Biden, who is the front-runner in the Democratic primary and who seems all but a shoo-in for the nomination, hasn’t been known for his crowds at all, while Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who dropped out of the race, both made massive rallies centerpieces of their campaigns.
For Sanders, the rally proved critical in his rise in the 2016 primary. Political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck’s book, “Identity Crisis,” pointed to the large rallies that followed Sanders’s May 2015 campaign kickoff as a large part of the reason “Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls.” He drew estimated crowds of 4,000 in Minneapolis on May 31, 2015, 5,500 in Denver on June 20, 9,600 in Madison on July 1, 11,000 in Phoenix on July 18, and from August 8 to August 10, 15,000 in Seattle, 28,000 in Portland, Oregon, and 27,500 in Los Angeles.
In an email, Sides said the cancellation of 2020 events seems different and less likely to make an impact on the outcome of the primary campaign. “We’re not in the invisible primary anymore and not even really early in the primary season. So it’s an open question whether a rally or two, and the accompanying news coverage, would do much to change any voters’ mind. I guess since Sanders is currently trailing, he’d prefer to get all the attention he possibly can.”
The question of how to get attention for your campaign — the good kind, not the “yikes, someone at my rally got coronavirus” kind — is likely to dog a rally-less 2020 campaign. It’s unclear how many people will tune into live-streamed fireside chats or digital rally events or watch parties. In-person events are critical to campaigns since they help build lists of supporters and garner local media coverage. (I reached out to the Biden and Sanders campaigns about their plans for events in the foreseeable future but did not hear back.)
In an email, political scientist and FiveThirtyEight contributor Joshua Darr pointed to studies that have shown “positive effects of candidate appearances, and those effects are often tied to media coverage.”
Political scientists Scott L. Althaus, Peter F. Nardulli & Daron R. Shaw noted in 2002 that candidates often make a disproportionate number of campaign appearances in states with Electoral College importance (makes sense!). The point of those events isn’t just to connect with the people at the event, it’s to broadcast their appearance over local news, which campaigns see as friendlier than national media. Plus, the authors write, “candidates know that voters perceive local news media reports to be much more credible than television advertisements.”
But do these rallies really change minds? A 2017 paper by political scientists Joshua Kalla and David Broockman argued that advertising and candidate contact with voters actually has no clear effect in persuading voters in a general election (primaries are a different story). Early on in a general election, campaigns can have persuadable effects, but those dissipate during the closing months of the election. That said, the authors note that “campaigns can sometimes identify pockets of persuadable voters” in some elections with special circumstances. One of the examples of persuadable subgroups in an unusual election came from the 2016 presidential race. There were “statistically significant effects” in an analysis of the presidential race in Ohio. “This was a highly unusual race because (a) a Republican candidate (Donald Trump) taking many positions out of step with the party, and (b) the prevailing campaign messages from the Democratic candidate’s (Hillary Clinton) campaign did not focus on the economic messages one might expect to persuade Ohio voters,” they wrote.
What will undoubtedly change is the way campaigns try to reach voters. “A campaign without rallies would be very different,” Darr said. “Campaigns would need to find ways to earn media and connect their candidate with supporters virtually, attracting earned media coverage of their creative solutions.” He noted that text message outreach and phone banking will become more important as the campaigns continue during the uncertainty of the pandemic.
The 2020 general election race between Trump and whoever comes out of the Democratic contest might well become a precisely tailored endeavor, with campaigns targeting specific communities in specific states with as personalized an outreach as they can muster. At the same time, they’ll have to maintain a national image via novel earned-media strategies.
Though he dropped out of the presidential race, Pete Buttigieg demonstrated a creative solution for earned media coverage recently. Last week, he guest-hosted “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” using the opening monologue to rib Trump, promote an emergency COVID-19 response bill, and generally cultivate his image as a smart, likeable guy. The Buttigieg campaign was ahead of the curve in its earned media strategy — the digital-native fluency of the first millennial presidential candidate can’t be underrated. It remains to be seen whether the septuagenarians still running for president will prove to be as creative. Their political futures may depend on it.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-20--Americans’ Views On The Coronavirus Are Shifting Fast

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
The new coronavirus is the topic on everyone ’ s minds these days , and pollsters are stepping up to tell us what people are thinking about it .
Since the end of last week , pollsters have released over a dozen surveys that have asked about all aspects of the coronavirus — how worried people are , what precautions they ’ re taking , how policymakers are handling the crisis , etc .
Here ’ s a summary of the American mindset in the age of COVID-19 .
Last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Butchireddygari noted that between 45 and 57 percent of Americans told pollsters they were concerned that they or someone around them would contract COVID-19 .
That number appears to have risen as the threat has begun to disrupt everyday life .
After 47 percent of adults told YouGov/The Economist on March 1-3 that they were “ very ” or “ somewhat ” worried about experiencing the coronavirus , 56 percent did so in the pollster ’ s March 15-17 survey .
And three other polls released this week found that more than three-fifths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they or someone in their family would get the disease : YouGov/HuffPost ( 61 percent ) , the Kaiser Family Foundation ( 62 percent ) , and SurveyMonkey/Fortune ( 69 percent ) .
Large majorities of Americans also reported being anxious about the coronavirus more broadly .
In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Monday and Tuesday , 79 percent of Americans were either “ very ” or “ somewhat ” concerned about the “ spread ” of the virus , while just 19 percent said they were not very concerned or concerned at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 13-16 found that nearly identical shares were concerned about the coronavirus “ outbreak.
” Some of those respondents , though , may be more worried about the economic impacts of the pandemic than about getting sick .
Already as of March 13-14 , when an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll was conducted , 18 percent of working adults said that they or someone in their household had been let go or had their work hours reduced due to the virus .
According to a March 13-16 Morning Consult poll , 84 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the impact the coronavirus would have on the U.S. economy .
And according to the Pew Research Center , 70 percent of Americans view the coronavirus outbreak as a major threat to the U.S. economy , while only 27 percent view it as a major threat to their personal health .
( To our point above , Pew ’ s poll was conducted March 10-16 , and the later respondents were contacted , the more likely they were to say the virus is a big threat . )
Americans also appear to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how he has handled the crisis following a week in which he has appeared to take it more seriously , giving a prime-time address to the nation and announcing strict guidelines to slow the virus ’ s spread .
In this week ’ s Reuters/Ipsos poll , respondents were split 47 percent to 47 percent on whether they approved or disapproved of the way Trump was handling the coronavirus .
That ’ s an improvement from March 2-3 , when Reuters/Ipsos found that 38 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved .
Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump a 45 percent approval rating on the coronavirus and a 46 percent disapproval rating .
In the pollster ’ s March 1-3 survey , 37 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved .
Interestingly , both polls showed little change in the number of Americans who disapproved of Trump ’ s performance on the issue , just more people approving of it .
That said , other polls , including some very high-quality ones , still found Trump underwater on the issue .
For example , an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered voters approved of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus , while 51 percent disapproved .
And the aforementioned NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey gave Trump a 44 percent approval rating on the coronavirus and a 49 percent disapproval rating ( among all adults ) .
And Trump ’ s overall approval rating remains in the low 40s , where it has hovered throughout almost all of his presidency .
According to this week ’ s YouGov/The Economist poll , though , there is broad support for the coronavirus relief package that Congress passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve of it and 14 percent disapprove .
And when asked about the bill ’ s specific provisions , even more Americans are supportive .
For example , free coronavirus testing has the backing of 76 percent of Americans according to Data for Progress and 89 percent according to YouGov/The Economist .
And paid sick leave ( which the bill provides for some , but not all , workers ) enjoys 66 percent support per Data for Progress and 84 percent per YouGov/The Economist .
The YouGov/The Economist poll also gave us a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans ’ behavior .
While 53 percent said they were eating out less and 48 percent said they had been planning to attend an event that was canceled by the coronavirus , only 27 percent said they were working from home , and only 9 percent said they had worn a medical face mask in public .
Oh , and despite the reports of people buying out all the toilet paper , just 22 percent said they had bought extra toilet paper .
Yet about half of Americans seem to think the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same poll , 45 percent of adults think most Americans are overreacting to the risks of contracting COVID-19 , while 24 percent think most people are behaving appropriately , and another 20 percent think most Americans are not taking the risks seriously enough .
However , majorities of the country are on board with some of the preventive measures the government has taken .
Respondents told YouGov/The Economist , 62 percent to 26 percent , that public officials did not overreact by closing bars and restaurants in major cities ; similarly , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and universities 64 percent to 23 percent .
And a whopping 77 percent approved of the travel ban between the U.S. and Europe ; only 14 percent disapproved .
Many of these precautions have only been in place for a few days , yet they look like they will be with us for weeks , if not longer .
Therefore , this is likely to be only the beginning of how public opinion responds to these measures .
For as long as the coronavirus crisis persists , we ’ ll be keeping an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our fellow Americans are holding up .
• According to Associated Press VoteCast data from the three states that held primaries on Tuesday , large majorities of Democratic voters supported a single-payer health care system similar to that proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders : 70 percent in Illinois , 72 percent in Florida and 76 percent in Arizona .
However , support for a public option — former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s preferred plan — was even higher : 87 percent in Illinois , 89 percent in Florida and 91 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McSally already looked like one of the most vulnerable Republicans on the ballot in 2020 , and two new , very high-quality polls this week delivered her more bad news .
According to an NBC News/Marist poll , Democrat Mark Kelly has 48 percent support to McSally ’ s 45 percent , and according to Monmouth University , Kelly leads McSally 50 percent to 44 percent .
• Montana Gov .
Steve Bullock also recently delighted Democrats when he decided to run for Senate , and a new poll from Public Policy Polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could indeed make the race competitive .
The survey found Bullock and incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines tied at 47 percent support .
• A new YouGov poll finds that 39 percent of Americans think it is very or somewhat important for a male presidential candidate to pick a female running mate , while 51 percent think it is not very important or not important at all .
Among Democrats , however , 55 percent believe it is important and 37 percent believe it is not important .
• In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 57 percent of respondents nationally said they supported a ban on plastic straws , and 60 percent supported a ban on single-use plastic bags .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 43.3 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.6 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -9.3 points ) .
At this time last week , 42.3 percent approved and 53.2 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -10.9 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disapproval rating of 51.0 percent , for a net approval rating of -6.7 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 7.4 percentage points ( 48.8 percent to 41.4 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 7.1 points ( 48.8 percent to 41.7 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 6.4 points ( 47.7 percent to 41.3 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 @ @

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
The new coronavirus is the topic on everyone’s minds these days, and pollsters are stepping up to tell us what people are thinking about it. Since the end of last week, pollsters have released over a dozen surveys that have asked about all aspects of the coronavirus — how worried people are, what precautions they’re taking, how policymakers are handling the crisis, etc. Here’s a summary of the American mindset in the age of COVID-19.
Last week in this space, my colleague Likhitha Butchireddygari noted that between 45 and 57 percent of Americans told pollsters they were concerned that they or someone around them would contract COVID-19. That number appears to have risen as the threat has begun to disrupt everyday life. After 47 percent of adults told YouGov/The Economist on March 1-3 that they were “very” or “somewhat” worried about experiencing the coronavirus, 56 percent did so in the pollster’s March 15-17 survey. And three other polls released this week found that more than three-fifths of Americans were very or somewhat concerned that they or someone in their family would get the disease: YouGov/HuffPost (61 percent), the Kaiser Family Foundation (62 percent), and SurveyMonkey/Fortune (69 percent).
Large majorities of Americans also reported being anxious about the coronavirus more broadly. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Monday and Tuesday, 79 percent of Americans were either “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the “spread” of the virus, while just 19 percent said they were not very concerned or concerned at all. A Morning Consult/Politico poll conducted March 13-16 found that nearly identical shares were concerned about the coronavirus “outbreak.”
Some of those respondents, though, may be more worried about the economic impacts of the pandemic than about getting sick. Already as of March 13-14, when an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College poll was conducted, 18 percent of working adults said that they or someone in their household had been let go or had their work hours reduced due to the virus. According to a March 13-16 Morning Consult poll, 84 percent of registered voters were very or somewhat concerned about the impact the coronavirus would have on the U.S. economy. And according to the Pew Research Center, 70 percent of Americans view the coronavirus outbreak as a major threat to the U.S. economy, while only 27 percent view it as a major threat to their personal health. (To our point above, Pew’s poll was conducted March 10-16, and the later respondents were contacted, the more likely they were to say the virus is a big threat.)
Americans also appear to be giving President Trump higher marks for how he has handled the crisis following a week in which he has appeared to take it more seriously, giving a prime-time address to the nation and announcing strict guidelines to slow the virus’s spread. In this week’s Reuters/Ipsos poll, respondents were split 47 percent to 47 percent on whether they approved or disapproved of the way Trump was handling the coronavirus. That’s an improvement from March 2-3, when Reuters/Ipsos found that 38 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved. Similarly, the most recent YouGov/The Economist poll gave Trump a 45 percent approval rating on the coronavirus and a 46 percent disapproval rating. In the pollster’s March 1-3 survey, 37 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved. Interestingly, both polls showed little change in the number of Americans who disapproved of Trump’s performance on the issue, just more people approving of it.
That said, other polls, including some very high-quality ones, still found Trump underwater on the issue. For example, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from March 11-13 found that 45 percent of registered voters approved of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, while 51 percent disapproved. And the aforementioned NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey gave Trump a 44 percent approval rating on the coronavirus and a 49 percent disapproval rating (among all adults). And Trump’s overall approval rating remains in the low 40s, where it has hovered throughout almost all of his presidency.
Why we shouldnât hope COVID-19 is seasonal like the flu
According to this week’s YouGov/The Economist poll, though, there is broad support for the coronavirus relief package that Congress passed this week: 60 percent of Americans approve of it and 14 percent disapprove. And when asked about the bill’s specific provisions, even more Americans are supportive. For example, free coronavirus testing has the backing of 76 percent of Americans according to Data for Progress and 89 percent according to YouGov/The Economist. And paid sick leave (which the bill provides for some, but not all, workers) enjoys 66 percent support per Data for Progress and 84 percent per YouGov/The Economist.
The YouGov/The Economist poll also gave us a glimpse into how the coronavirus is changing Americans’ behavior. While 53 percent said they were eating out less and 48 percent said they had been planning to attend an event that was canceled by the coronavirus, only 27 percent said they were working from home, and only 9 percent said they had worn a medical face mask in public. Oh, and despite the reports of people buying out all the toilet paper, just 22 percent said they had bought extra toilet paper.
Yet about half of Americans seem to think the coronavirus panic is overblown. According to the same poll, 45 percent of adults think most Americans are overreacting to the risks of contracting COVID-19, while 24 percent think most people are behaving appropriately, and another 20 percent think most Americans are not taking the risks seriously enough.
However, majorities of the country are on board with some of the preventive measures the government has taken. Respondents told YouGov/The Economist, 62 percent to 26 percent, that public officials did not overreact by closing bars and restaurants in major cities; similarly, they agreed with the decision to close colleges and universities 64 percent to 23 percent. And a whopping 77 percent approved of the travel ban between the U.S. and Europe; only 14 percent disapproved.
Many of these precautions have only been in place for a few days, yet they look like they will be with us for weeks, if not longer. Therefore, this is likely to be only the beginning of how public opinion responds to these measures. For as long as the coronavirus crisis persists, we’ll be keeping an eye on the polls to see how our fellow Americans are holding up.
Other polling bites
According to Associated Press VoteCast data from the three states that held primaries on Tuesday, large majorities of Democratic voters supported a single-payer health care system similar to that proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders: 70 percent in Illinois, 72 percent in Florida and 76 percent in Arizona. However, support for a public option — former Vice President Joe Biden’s preferred plan — was even higher: 87 percent in Illinois, 89 percent in Florida and 91 percent in Arizona.
Arizona Sen. Martha McSally already looked like one of the most vulnerable Republicans on the ballot in 2020, and two new, very high-quality polls this week delivered her more bad news. According to an NBC News/Marist poll, Democrat Mark Kelly has 48 percent support to McSally’s 45 percent, and according to Monmouth University, Kelly leads McSally 50 percent to 44 percent.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock also recently delighted Democrats when he decided to run for Senate, and a new poll from Public Policy Polling for liberal group End Citizens United suggests that he could indeed make the race competitive. The survey found Bullock and incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines tied at 47 percent support.
A new YouGov poll finds that 39 percent of Americans think it is very or somewhat important for a male presidential candidate to pick a female running mate, while 51 percent think it is not very important or not important at all. Among Democrats, however, 55 percent believe it is important and 37 percent believe it is not important.
In a climate-change-focused poll by St. Leo University, 57 percent of respondents nationally said they supported a ban on plastic straws, and 60 percent supported a ban on single-use plastic bags.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.3 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.6 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -9.3 points). At this time last week, 42.3 percent approved and 53.2 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -10.9 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 44.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.0 percent, for a net approval rating of -6.7 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.4 percentage points (48.8 percent to 41.4 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.1 points (48.8 percent to 41.7 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 6.4 points (47.7 percent to 41.3 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-20--Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 Is Changing The Economy

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on the American economy in just a few weeks .
In this installment of @ @ @ @ @ economist Tara Sinclair joins Galen Druke and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux to discuss the disruptions to the @ @ @ @ @ is responding .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” @ @ @ @ @ above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast @ @ @ @ @ new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays @ @ @ @ @ listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have @ @ @ @ @ suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email @ @ @ @ @ the comments .

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on the American economy in just a few weeks. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, economist Tara Sinclair joins Galen Druke and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux to discuss the disruptions to the economy and how the government is responding.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 is changing the economy
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-20--What Commitments Can Sanders And The Left Get From Biden?

Sen. Bernie Sanders almost certainly won ’ t win the Democratic nomination after his string of defeats in recent primaries .
So the questions around how and when Sanders will end his campaign aren ’ t really about electoral math anymore , but are instead connected to deeper questions about policy , the Democratic electorate and Joe Biden and Sanders ’ s personal goals .
These deeper questions essentially are : Does Sanders have any specific goals that he wants — such as Biden taking up one of his major policy ideas — that he could essentially trade with Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former vice president ?
Does Biden , who is now racking up endorsements and winning primaries by huge margins , really need to negotiate with Sanders at all ?
Does the bloc of around 30 percent of Democratic primary voters that have backed Sanders represent a clear constituency that he actually leads , or will Sanders ’ s supporters be unenthusiastic about Biden even if Sanders embraces him ?
Will most of Sanders ’ s supporters vote for Biden in a general election simply to get President Trump out of office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some way ?
And are Sanders ’ s supporters actually open to any accommodation beyond Sanders being the Democratic nominee ?
I can ’ t really answer any of these questions confidently , and despite what you will read or hear on TV , I ’ m not sure anyone else knows the answers to these questions either .
But one way to think about this is through history .
Every competitive nomination process ends with a winner , at least one person who can claim to be the runner-up and some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So here are some models for how the Biden-Sanders primary could be resolved .
These are ordered from the least to most favorable for Sanders : Sanders and the left get basically nothing Parallel : The 2000 Democratic primary between then-Vice President Al Gore ( winner ) and former Sen. Bill Bradley .
Bradley didn ’ t win a single caucus or primary and earned just 21 percent of the popular vote , so he was obviously in a weaker position than Sanders is now .
That said , many Democrats view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America has a crisis ( the novel coronavirus ) that could last until November or beyond .
With those concerns , Sanders may have less room to get much from Biden because the growing pressure to leave the race and back Biden may at some point become too strong for him to continue .
So Sanders could get nothing , according to Mark Schmitt , who was a top adviser on Bradley ’ s 2000 campaign .
“ Not ‘ Godfather II ’ nothing , but nothing wrapped in a lovely bow of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sam Rosenfeld , an expert on party politics who teaches at Colgate University , said , “ Biden ’ s victory came so quickly and with so little in the way of extended trench warfare that it ’ s true that he likely feels less need to assuage Sanders substantively than HRC [ Hillary Clinton ] did four years ago.
” In this scenario , Biden would pick a running mate , like Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who is similarly resistant to more left-wing ideas .
Biden would basically refuse to adopt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might block their insertion into the Democratic Party ’ s official platform at the party ’ s convention , which is currently scheduled for July 13 to16 in Milwaukee .
Changes to the party platform Parallel : The 2016 Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ( winner ) and Sanders ; the 1976 Republican primary between then-President Gerald Ford ( winner ) and former California Gov .
Ronald Reagan .
In 2016 , Clinton and her allies allowed Sanders-backed provisions , including the abolition of the death penalty and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party platform .
A generation earlier , Ford and his camp used the platform to placate supporters of the more conservative Reagan .
The Democrats put some of Sanders ’ s less controversial ideas into the platform four years ago .
In the 2020 process , he has pushed four far-reaching ideas in particular : a wealth tax , Medicare for All , the mass forgiveness of all student debt and free college for all Americans .
The party platform in theory speaks for all Democratic candidates , even ones in swing districts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more moderate voters and are wary of Republicans linking them with socialism ( and Sanders ) .
So is there a compromise on the wealth tax or the mass forgiveness of college debt that satisfies Sanders ’ s allies and , say , more moderate House Democrats ?
That ’ s not easy to see .
How far will Democrats go , with a GOP eager to cast the entire party as socialists ?
Parallel : The 2016 Republican primary between Trump ( winner ) and Sens .
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In May 2016 , as some establishment Republicans were still thinking of ways to prevent Trump from winning the nomination , Trump released a list of people he would consider for Supreme Court seats .
Neither Neil Gorsuch nor Brett Kavanaugh were on the initial list , but it was full of conservative legal figures .
That list served as essentially a promise to the party ’ s establishment and conservative wings that Trump would appoint conservative judges to the bench , a key priority of the party .
( He has followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already promised to pick a woman as his running mate and a black woman as a Supreme Court justice — both attempts to placate other important constituencies in the party ( black voters and women ) .
And Biden recently announced that he supported tuition-free public college for Americans in households with incomes of $ 125,000 or less , moving toward Sanders ’ s position .
Will he go further ?
In theory , Biden could promise to appoint some prominent liberals to his administration ( Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Sanders himself or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
He could promise not to appoint people that liberal activists strongly dislike , such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or basically anyone affiliated with Facebook or Wall Street .
In terms of policy , could Biden , in a general election , commit to some kind of tax on the wealthy that is akin to a wealth tax ?
( The wealth tax is fairly popular with Americans overall . )
Daniel Schlozman , a political scientist at John Hopkins University who focuses on political parties , argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government response to the coronavirus pandemic if Biden is elected — so the disputes between the party ’ s left and center-left wings might look much different than they did during the Democratic primary .
“ The big left asks of Biden will be on the scale and permanence of government interventions more than on any of the issues in the primary , ” Schlozman said .
“ Biden is very old and his instincts really do just stem from a different and much more cautious era for [ Democratic ] domestic policymaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to matter .
That said , it ’ s important to note that the establishment has itself moved significantly since 2008 … The center of gravity on policy questions has shifted left.
” Parallel : The 1996 Republican primary between then-Sen. Bob Dole ( winner ) and conservative activist Pat Buchanan and businessman Steve Forbes ; the 2012 Republican primary between former Massachusetts Gov .
Mitt Romney ( winner ) and former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich ; the 2016 Republican primary .
Some in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Dole , Romney and Trump were sufficiently right wing in each of their respective primaries .
So all three chose running mates — former Rep. Jack Kemp for Dole , then-Rep. Paul Ryan for Romney , then-Indiana Gov .
Mike Pence for Trump — deeply trusted by more conservative Republicans .
This route would be complicated for Biden .
In theory , the former vice president could excite the younger and more liberal parts of the Democratic base by picking a running mate who is not Sanders but shares many of Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to , or as liberal as , Sanders are governors , senators or otherwise serve in positions that might make them natural candidates for the vice presidency .
The most obvious figures , Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Warren , would require Democrats to remove a sitting senator and hope that the party can win a special election to keep that seat .
Let ’ s focus on Warren for a moment .
She presents some obvious advantages for Biden in terms of her policy knowledge and high favorability ratings among Democrats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign messaging has been about electability .
Would he choose a left-leaning senator from the Northeast like Warren over a more centrist senator from the Midwest like Klobuchar ?
Also , can a 77-year-old candidate pick a 70-year-old running mate ?
Can a Democratic Party that is nearly 40 percent Asian , black or Hispanic run an all-white ticket ?
Also , it ’ s not even clear that Sanders ’ s supporters would be super excited about Warren as the vice-presidential nominee .
Parallels : The 1960 Democratic primary between then-Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson ; the 1980 Republican primary between Reagan ( winner ) and former CIA Director George H.W .
Bush ; the 2004 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John Kerry ( winner ) and then-Sen. John Edwards .
The history of the second-place candidate becoming the vice-presidential nominee illustrates one of the challenges for Sanders — he ’ s not really viable for arguably the biggest prize a runner-up can reasonably expect .
Being second on the ticket is potentially incredibly valuable — Johnson and Bush not only served as vice president but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously in very unusual circumstances ) .
But it ’ s really hard to imagine Biden choosing Sanders , an even older white man ( Sanders is 78 ) , as his running mate .
I don ’ t think it ’ s worth trying to predict which of these precedents the Biden-Sanders race will follow — I would expect something more than nothing and less than the vice presidency .
But this process is worth watching closely , because it won ’ t happen all at once .
Sanders ’ s exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the time between Biden ’ s election ( if he wins ) and the start of his presidency are all potentially points of negotiation between Biden and Sanders , and the center-left and left wings of the Democratic Party .
It will take some time to assess what concessions Sanders and the people who support him come away with .

Perry Bacon Jr. (perry.bacon@fivethirtyeight.com)

Sen. Bernie Sanders almost certainly won’t win the Democratic nomination after his string of defeats in recent primaries. So the questions around how and when Sanders will end his campaign aren’t really about electoral math anymore, but are instead connected to deeper questions about policy, the Democratic electorate and Joe Biden and Sanders’s personal goals.
These deeper questions essentially are: Does Sanders have any specific goals that he wants — such as Biden taking up one of his major policy ideas — that he could essentially trade with Biden in exchange for dropping out and endorsing the former vice president? Does Biden, who is now racking up endorsements and winning primaries by huge margins, really need to negotiate with Sanders at all? Does the bloc of around 30 percent of Democratic primary voters that have backed Sanders represent a clear constituency that he actually leads, or will Sanders’s supporters be unenthusiastic about Biden even if Sanders embraces him? Will most of Sanders’s supporters vote for Biden in a general election simply to get President Trump out of office, or does Biden need to accommodate them in some way? And are Sanders’s supporters actually open to any accommodation beyond Sanders being the Democratic nominee?
I can’t really answer any of these questions confidently, and despite what you will read or hear on TV, I’m not sure anyone else knows the answers to these questions either. But one way to think about this is through history. Every competitive nomination process ends with a winner, at least one person who can claim to be the runner-up and some bloc of the party that has lost. So here are some models for how the Biden-Sanders primary could be resolved. These are ordered from the least to most favorable for Sanders:
Sanders and the left get basically nothing
Parallel: The 2000 Democratic primary between then-Vice President Al Gore (winner) and former Sen. Bill Bradley.
Bradley didn’t win a single caucus or primary and earned just 21 percent of the popular vote, so he was obviously in a weaker position than Sanders is now. That said, many Democrats view Trump as an existential crisis and now America has a crisis (the novel coronavirus) that could last until November or beyond. With those concerns, Sanders may have less room to get much from Biden because the growing pressure to leave the race and back Biden may at some point become too strong for him to continue.
So Sanders could get nothing, according to Mark Schmitt, who was a top adviser on Bradley’s 2000 campaign. “Not ‘Godfather II’ nothing, but nothing wrapped in a lovely bow of recognition and respect,” Schmitt said.
Sam Rosenfeld, an expert on party politics who teaches at Colgate University, said, “Biden’s victory came so quickly and with so little in the way of extended trench warfare that it’s true that he likely feels less need to assuage Sanders substantively than HRC [Hillary Clinton] did four years ago.”
In this scenario, Biden would pick a running mate, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is similarly resistant to more left-wing ideas. Biden would basically refuse to adopt any of Sanders’s policies and might block their insertion into the Democratic Party’s official platform at the party’s convention, which is currently scheduled for July 13 to16 in Milwaukee.
Changes to the party platform
Parallel: The 2016 Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (winner) and Sanders; the 1976 Republican primary between then-President Gerald Ford (winner) and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.
In 2016, Clinton and her allies allowed Sanders-backed provisions, including the abolition of the death penalty and a $15 minimum wage, into the party platform. A generation earlier, Ford and his camp used the platform to placate supporters of the more conservative Reagan.
The Democrats put some of Sanders’s less controversial ideas into the platform four years ago. In the 2020 process, he has pushed four far-reaching ideas in particular: a wealth tax, Medicare for All, the mass forgiveness of all student debt and free college for all Americans. The party platform in theory speaks for all Democratic candidates, even ones in swing districts. Those Democrats want to appeal to more moderate voters and are wary of Republicans linking them with socialism (and Sanders). So is there a compromise on the wealth tax or the mass forgiveness of college debt that satisfies Sanders’s allies and, say, more moderate House Democrats? That’s not easy to see. How far will Democrats go, with a GOP eager to cast the entire party as socialists?
Formal policy and/or appointment promises
Parallel: The 2016 Republican primary between Trump (winner) and Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
In May 2016, as some establishment Republicans were still thinking of ways to prevent Trump from winning the nomination, Trump released a list of people he would consider for Supreme Court seats. Neither Neil Gorsuch nor Brett Kavanaugh were on the initial list, but it was full of conservative legal figures. That list served as essentially a promise to the party’s establishment and conservative wings that Trump would appoint conservative judges to the bench, a key priority of the party. (He has followed through in spades.)
Biden has already promised to pick a woman as his running mate and a black woman as a Supreme Court justice — both attempts to placate other important constituencies in the party (black voters and women). And Biden recently announced that he supported tuition-free public college for Americans in households with incomes of $125,000 or less, moving toward Sanders’s position.
Will he go further? In theory, Biden could promise to appoint some prominent liberals to his administration (Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sanders himself or some of their allies, for example). He could promise not to appoint people that liberal activists strongly dislike, such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or basically anyone affiliated with Facebook or Wall Street.
In terms of policy, could Biden, in a general election, commit to some kind of tax on the wealthy that is akin to a wealth tax? (The wealth tax is fairly popular with Americans overall.)
Daniel Schlozman, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University who focuses on political parties, argued that the left will demand a major federal government response to the coronavirus pandemic if Biden is elected — so the disputes between the party’s left and center-left wings might look much different than they did during the Democratic primary.
“The big left asks of Biden will be on the scale and permanence of government interventions more than on any of the issues in the primary,” Schlozman said.
“Biden is very old and his instincts really do just stem from a different and much more cautious era for [Democratic] domestic policymaking,” Rosenfeld said. “That’s going to matter. That said, it’s important to note that the establishment has itself moved significantly since 2008 … The center of gravity on policy questions has shifted left.”
A leftist vice-presidential nominee
Parallel: The 1996 Republican primary between then-Sen. Bob Dole (winner) and conservative activist Pat Buchanan and businessman Steve Forbes; the 2012 Republican primary between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (winner) and former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; the 2016 Republican primary.
Some in the GOP’s more conservative wing doubted that Dole, Romney and Trump were sufficiently right wing in each of their respective primaries. So all three chose running mates — former Rep. Jack Kemp for Dole, then-Rep. Paul Ryan for Romney, then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence for Trump — deeply trusted by more conservative Republicans.
This route would be complicated for Biden. In theory, the former vice president could excite the younger and more liberal parts of the Democratic base by picking a running mate who is not Sanders but shares many of Sanders’s positions. But few people close to, or as liberal as, Sanders are governors, senators or otherwise serve in positions that might make them natural candidates for the vice presidency. The most obvious figures, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Warren, would require Democrats to remove a sitting senator and hope that the party can win a special election to keep that seat.
Let’s focus on Warren for a moment. She presents some obvious advantages for Biden in terms of her policy knowledge and high favorability ratings among Democrats. At the same time, Biden’s campaign messaging has been about electability. Would he choose a left-leaning senator from the Northeast like Warren over a more centrist senator from the Midwest like Klobuchar? Also, can a 77-year-old candidate pick a 70-year-old running mate? Can a Democratic Party that is nearly 40 percent Asian, black or Hispanic run an all-white ticket? Also, it’s not even clear that Sanders’s supporters would be super excited about Warren as the vice-presidential nominee.
Sanders is the vice-president nominee
Parallels: The 1960 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John F. Kennedy (winner) and then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson; the 1980 Republican primary between Reagan (winner) and former CIA Director George H.W. Bush; the 2004 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John Kerry (winner) and then-Sen. John Edwards.
The history of the second-place candidate becoming the vice-presidential nominee illustrates one of the challenges for Sanders — he’s not really viable for arguably the biggest prize a runner-up can reasonably expect. Being second on the ticket is potentially incredibly valuable — Johnson and Bush not only served as vice president but ultimately won the presidency themselves (Johnson obviously in very unusual circumstances). But it’s really hard to imagine Biden choosing Sanders, an even older white man (Sanders is 78), as his running mate.
I don’t think it’s worth trying to predict which of these precedents the Biden-Sanders race will follow — I would expect something more than nothing and less than the vice presidency. But this process is worth watching closely, because it won’t happen all at once. Sanders’s exit from the race, the Democratic convention and the time between Biden’s election (if he wins) and the start of his presidency are all potentially points of negotiation between Biden and Sanders, and the center-left and left wings of the Democratic Party. It will take some time to assess what concessions Sanders and the people who support him come away with.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-23--Could Biden’s Weakness With Young Voters Hurt Him In The General Election?

One of the defining features of the Democratic primary has been the age divide among voters — those 45 and over have overwhelmingly backed former Vice President Joe Biden , while those under 45 have generally supported Sen. Bernie Sanders .
Now that Biden is the likely Democratic nominee , many political observers have started to wonder whether his lack of support among younger voters will be a problem for him against President Trump in the general election .
According to exit polls from recent elections and polling data from this year , the answer is , not necessarily .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters under 45 by double digits against Trump .
The former vice president would have two big advantages : He ’ s a Democrat , and he ’ s running against Trump .
Democrats have won the under-45 vote in every recent election — even in cycles that were terrible to mediocre for the party overall , such as in 2010 , 2014 and 2016 .
Compared with other age groups , younger voters overall tend to hold more liberal views on social issues and the role of government .
Furthermore , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Asian , black and Latino people than the cohort over 40 — all Democratic-leaning groups .
But even younger white people tend to vote for Democrats at higher rates than their older counterparts .
Hillary Clinton won the under-45 vote by 14 percentage points in the 2016 general election , according to exit polls , a margin similar to that won by then-President Barack Obama four years earlier .
But in the 2018 midterms — essentially a referendum on Trump ’ s performance even though he wasn ’ t on the ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 points .
These results in part were likely due to a backlash against Trump among younger voters , who disapprove of the president ’ s job performance much more so than do older voters .
This isn ’ t likely to change in 2020 .
Polls already show Biden with massive leads against Trump among younger age groups .
And I would expect that margin to grow if the Democratic Party , including Sanders and his supporters , consolidates around the former vice president .
All that said , a potential problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top of the ticket is not that younger voters will back Trump but that they might either stay home or vote third-party .
Maybe Biden would win a high share of younger voters , but they would make up a significantly smaller part of the electorate than if Sanders were the Democratic nominee .
After all , the number of 2012 Obama voters who either sat out or voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 rivaled the number of people who went from Obama to Trump , and the Obama voters who turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were disproportionately under 45 .
Also , some election analysts have argued that Clinton would likely have won the 2016 election if black voters had supported Clinton at the levels they did Obama , and young black voters in particular voted at lower levels in 2016 than in 2012 .
Biden ’ s running into a similar problem is more plausible given that he is similar to Clinton in a lot of ways .
Both are fairly old , white , center-left establishment figures who were dominant among older voters and black Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiasm among younger voters .
Indeed , it ’ s not unreasonable to think that Biden might face the same turnout problems with younger voters that Clinton did , but it ’ s important to remember that younger people typically vote at much lower rates than older people .
In the U.S. there are approximately 74 million baby boomers ( those who have turned or will turn 56 to 74 years old in 2020 ) and around 71 million millennials ( age 24 to 39 as of the end of 2020 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in the 2018 midterms , about 44 million boomers voted compared with about 26 million millennials .
Even in 2008 , when Obama ’ s strong support among younger voters was a huge factor in his winning the Democratic primary , Americans under 45 voted at significantly lower rates than those 45 and over in the general election , according to U.S. Census Bureau data .
Indeed , youth turnout was down a bit in 2016 relative to 2012 and 2008 , but to say that shift swung the election is misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any number of factors could have swung the election .
Clinton also underperformed Obama with 45- to 64-year-old voters .
And the older vote remains more important electorally simply by virtue of its size — it makes up about 60-65 percent of the electorate .
All that said , boosting young enthusiasm and turnout should be a major goal of the Biden campaign .
There ’ s a lot of talk in Democratic circles about increasing the number of black and Latino voters in the general election .
But black people 45 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — significantly higher than voters under age 45 , even white ones .
The younger the electorate , the better for Biden because , as mentioned previously , younger people are more likely to be non-white , and younger white people tend to be more liberal than their older counterparts .
That last detail really gets at the bottom line : The Democratic primary electorate is so different from the general election electorate that we should assume little carries over .
In the primary , a younger electorate helped Sanders ; in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the primaries , Biden has won white voters without college degrees in states like Michigan and Missouri — a group Democrats haven ’ t carried nationally in a presidential election in more than two decades .
And that ’ s the point .
In a general election , Biden ’ s set of concerns will be very different from what it has been in the primaries .
He should worry a lot more about maintaining support among white voters without degrees in Michigan than among young voters in California .
Biden needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he ’ ll be trying to persuade them to vote , not necessarily to back him .
In short , his problems with younger voters in the Democratic primary aren ’ t likely to be repeated in the general election .
He ’ ll have a whole new set of issues to worry about .

One of the defining features of the Democratic primary has been the age divide among voters — those 45 and over have overwhelmingly backed former Vice President Joe Biden, while those under 45 have generally supported Sen. Bernie Sanders. Now that Biden is the likely Democratic nominee, many political observers have started to wonder whether his lack of support among younger voters will be a problem for him against President Trump in the general election.
According to exit polls from recent elections and polling data from this year, the answer is, not necessarily.
First, Biden is likely to win voters under 45 by double digits against Trump. The former vice president would have two big advantages: He’s a Democrat, and he’s running against Trump. Democrats have won the under-45 vote in every recent election — even in cycles that were terrible to mediocre for the party overall, such as in 2010, 2014 and 2016.
Democrats always do better with young voters Democratic margins by age group according to exit polls in recent presidential and midterm elections Age 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 18-29 +34 +16 +23 +11 +19 +35 30-44 +6 -4 +7 +2 +10 +19 45-64 +1 -8 -4 -8 -8 -1 65+ -8 -16 -12 -16 -7 -2 Source: Edison Research Group
Compared with other age groups, younger voters overall tend to hold more liberal views on social issues and the role of government. Furthermore, the cohort of Americans under 40 includes significantly more Asian, black and Latino people than the cohort over 40 — all Democratic-leaning groups. But even younger white people tend to vote for Democrats at higher rates than their older counterparts.
Hillary Clinton won the under-45 vote by 14 percentage points in the 2016 general election, according to exit polls, a margin similar to that won by then-President Barack Obama four years earlier. But in the 2018 midterms — essentially a referendum on Trump’s performance even though he wasn’t on the ballot — Democrats won voters under 45 by 25 points. These results in part were likely due to a backlash against Trump among younger voters, who disapprove of the president’s job performance much more so than do older voters.
This isn’t likely to change in 2020. Polls already show Biden with massive leads against Trump among younger age groups. And I would expect that margin to grow if the Democratic Party, including Sanders and his supporters, consolidates around the former vice president.
All that said, a potential problem for the Democrats with Biden at the top of the ticket is not that younger voters will back Trump but that they might either stay home or vote third-party. Maybe Biden would win a high share of younger voters, but they would make up a significantly smaller part of the electorate than if Sanders were the Democratic nominee. After all, the number of 2012 Obama voters who either sat out or voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 rivaled the number of people who went from Obama to Trump, and the Obama voters who turned into non-voters or backed a third-party candidate were disproportionately under 45. Also, some election analysts have argued that Clinton would likely have won the 2016 election if black voters had supported Clinton at the levels they did Obama, and young black voters in particular voted at lower levels in 2016 than in 2012.
Biden’s running into a similar problem is more plausible given that he is similar to Clinton in a lot of ways. Both are fairly old, white, center-left establishment figures who were dominant among older voters and black Democrats in the primaries but not generating much enthusiasm among younger voters.
Indeed, it’s not unreasonable to think that Biden might face the same turnout problems with younger voters that Clinton did, but it’s important to remember that younger people typically vote at much lower rates than older people. In the U.S. there are approximately 74 million baby boomers (those who have turned or will turn 56 to 74 years old in 2020) and around 71 million millennials (age 24 to 39 as of the end of 2020), according to the Pew Research Center. But in the 2018 midterms, about 44 million boomers voted compared with about 26 million millennials.
Young people are less likely to vote, regardless of race Share of respondents who reported voting in each presidential election by race and age Black 2008 2012 2016 Age 18-24 55% 49% 42% Age 25-44 64 65 57 Age 45-64 69 72 66 Age 65+ 68 75 69 White Age 18-24 49% 42% 47% Age 25-44 62 59 60 Age 45-64 71 70 70 Age 65+ 73 73 73 Hispanic Age 18-24 39% 34% 34% Age 25-44 48 47 46 Age 45-64 58 56 55 Age 65+ 56 60 57 Total Age 18-24 49% 41% 43% Age 25-44 60 57 57 Age 45-64 69 68 67 Age 65+ 70 72 71 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Even in 2008, when Obama’s strong support among younger voters was a huge factor in his winning the Democratic primary, Americans under 45 voted at significantly lower rates than those 45 and over in the general election, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Indeed, youth turnout was down a bit in 2016 relative to 2012 and 2008, but to say that shift swung the election is misleading — the race was so close that any number of factors could have swung the election. Clinton also underperformed Obama with 45- to 64-year-old voters. And the older vote remains more important electorally simply by virtue of its size — it makes up about 60-65 percent of the electorate.
All that said, boosting young enthusiasm and turnout should be a major goal of the Biden campaign. There’s a lot of talk in Democratic circles about increasing the number of black and Latino voters in the general election. But black people 45 and over already vote at fairly high rates — significantly higher than voters under age 45, even white ones. The younger the electorate, the better for Biden because, as mentioned previously, younger people are more likely to be non-white, and younger white people tend to be more liberal than their older counterparts.
That last detail really gets at the bottom line: The Democratic primary electorate is so different from the general election electorate that we should assume little carries over. In the primary, a younger electorate helped Sanders; in the general, it will help Biden. In the primaries, Biden has won white voters without college degrees in states like Michigan and Missouri — a group Democrats haven’t carried nationally in a presidential election in more than two decades.
And that’s the point. In a general election, Biden’s set of concerns will be very different from what it has been in the primaries. He should worry a lot more about maintaining support among white voters without degrees in Michigan than among young voters in California. Biden needs to do well with younger voters — but he’ll be trying to persuade them to vote, not necessarily to back him. In short, his problems with younger voters in the Democratic primary aren’t likely to be repeated in the general election. He’ll have a whole new set of issues to worry about.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-23--Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 Is — And Isn’t — Changing Politics

According to the latest polling , the spread of COVID-19 has disrupted the daily lives of the vast majority of @ @ @ @ @ of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses how that broad effect has — @ @ @ @ @ partisan politics .
They also ask how the pandemic has shaken up the 2020 general @ @ @ @ @ to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above @ @ @ @ @ iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new @ @ @ @ @ to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners @ @ @ @ @ us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion @ @ @ @ @ bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the @ @

According to the latest polling, the spread of COVID-19 has disrupted the daily lives of the vast majority of Americans. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses how that broad effect has — and has not — changed partisan politics. They also ask how the pandemic has shaken up the 2020 general election.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.