fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--We Have A Lot Of New Polls But There’s Little Sign Of The Presidential Race Tightening

After a surprisingly sluggish weekend for polling , the floodgates have opened , with a mix of high-quality polls , low-quality polls and pretty much everything in between .
And although there are some outliers in both directions , they tell a fairly consistent story , overall : A steady race nationally , perhaps with some gains for Joe Biden in the Midwest .
Let ’ s dive right in .
Following our rules from my colleague Geoffrey Skelley ’ s post earlier this week , we ’ re going to look at every poll where at least half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s debate , with a comparison to the most recent pre-debate survey by the same firm .
If the pollster hasn ’ t surveyed a state before , we ’ ll make the comparison based on what the FiveThirtyEight polling average said in that state as of the night of the debate ( Oct. 22 ) instead .
As an aside , I set a cutoff for polls as of 7 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday .
( More will probably have filtered into the averages by the time that you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rotate through the four major regions of the country — the South , the West , the Midwest and the Northeast .
But first , here are the post-debate national polls : On average , Biden leads by 9 percentage points using a simple average of post-debate national polls , which matches his 9 point lead in our fancy-schmancy official FiveThirtyEight national average .
It ’ s a bit of a weird mix of polls , though , with more quantity than quality .
The only two fully live-caller national polls in here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strategies , which show Biden leading by 12 points and 11 points , respectively .
On the one hand , the trendlines aren ’ t so bad for Trump in those live-caller polls .
He trailed by 16 points in CNN ’ s previous national poll , and by 9 points in the past Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies poll ( or by 11 if you prefer to compare it to the prior NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll , which uses the same polling team ) .
On the other hand , the higher-quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump than the lower quality polls , which is rarely a good sign .
More highly-rated online firms , such as YouGov , Morning Consult , and Ipsos , show Trump trailing by margins ranging from 9 to 12 points .
At least some of the fluctuations in our national polling average seem to reflect shifts in the ratio of high-quality and low-quality surveys .
This can go through cycles , and recently the higher-quality firms have mostly been concentrating on state polling .
Most of them will release their final national polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be surprising if , following CNN and CNBC ’ s example , a few more of them show double-digit leads for Biden .
Something else to note : Although there ’ s been a slight decline in Biden ’ s national polls since the debate , a majority of state polls show his position improving .
To be more precise , Biden has gained 0.7 percentage points in the average state poll since the debate , while he ’ s lost 0.5 points in the average national poll .
That brings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alignment after a period where national polls suggested that Biden led by 10 to 11 points but state polls were more consistent with a lead of about 9 points instead .
Let ’ s start our review of the regions with the South , where there ’ s been a lot of polling over the past couple of days : It ’ s hard to tell a coherent story here because every state in the region seems to be marching to its own fight song .
Biden ’ s gotten some great numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s had some terrible ones in Florida .
North Carolina is somewhere in between , with polls variously suggesting that he ’ s gaining or losing ground .
Do I buy that there are these microfluctations between neighboring states ?
I ’ m not sure that I do , particularly since you have a different mix of pollsters from state to state .
Florida and Georgia could use one or two more high-quality polls .
For the time being , though , Biden ’ s small lead in our Georgia polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead in Florida ( also +1.4 ) and North Carolina ( +2.1 ) .
That means Georgia needs to be taken seriously as a plausible — if unlikely — tipping-point state .
It ’ s going to be the focus of a lot of resource expenditures over the final few days of the campaign , especially since it also has two competitive Senate races .
Texas is a step or two away from the rest of the Southern group , meanwhile , as Trump leads in our polling average by 1.8 points there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America … the West : This is a decent set of polls for Biden , including in Arizona , where Biden ’ s lead has oscillated between 3 and 5 points in our polling average for most of the year .
It ’ s in the lower-to-mid part of that range now , at 3.5 points in our official polling average , although the raw average of post-debate Arizona polls is slightly better for him at +4.2 .
I realize this might seem like splitting hairs , but Arizona is an important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s probably his best backup option if he loses Pennsylvania .
( If Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Arizona , Michigan and Wisconsin , he ’ d also need to find one more electoral vote somewhere to break a 269-269 Electoral College tie , but he ’ d probably get that in Nebraska ’ s 2nd Congressional District , where he ’ s favored . )
In a world where Arizona is polling at Biden +5 , it ’ s really almost as though he has a Plan A1 ( Pennsylvania ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
That would make his map more robust .
In a world where Arizona is Biden +2 or Biden +3 , conversely , it doesn ’ t really stand out from his other backup options , such as North Carolina and Florida , so it would be as though Biden has one Plan A ( Pennsylvania ) and a bunch of Plan Cs .
Now to the Midwest : FiveThirtyEight ’ s Nathaniel Rakich covered this region this morning , so I ’ ll be brief here .
This is the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t really say the race is steady ; instead , this has been a strong set of polling for Biden , and he ’ s gained an average of 1.7 points in surveys in this region versus the pre-debate polls .
No , Trump probably doesn ’ t trail in Wisconsin by 17 points , as he does in the ABC News/Washington Post poll .
( Good pollsters publish their outliers instead of sitting on them , and sometimes they turn out not to be outliers at all . )
But average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other post-debate polls of Wisconsin , and Biden is still ahead by 10.5 points there .
Biden ’ s polling gains may reflect that the COVID-19 outbreak in the Upper Midwest is bad right now , especially in Wisconsin .
There is some evidence that the polls tend to shift against Trump following spikes in COVID-19 cases in a state , potentially a foreboding indicator for Trump as COVID-19 cases are also now rising sharply in many other states .
By the Northeast , as you can see from the chart above , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus one stray poll of Maine .
This region has been underpolled .
There haven ’ t been any live caller polls of Pennsylvania since the debate , and the online and IVR polls show highly disparate results there .
New Hampshire has had no post-debate polling at all , meanwhile .
We go back and forth here at FiveThirtyEight about whether Pennsylvania counts as part of the Northeast or the Midwest .
I ’ ve usually been a proponent of the theory that for political purposes , Pennsylvania behaves like a Midwestern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , demographic and cultural differences between Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest , however , and this year , the polling in Pennsylvania hasn ’ t tracked the numbers in Wisconsin and Michigan that well .
Pennsylvania is also not currently experiencing as bad of a COVID-19 outbreak as those other states .
So it may be less correlated with them than usual .
But one way or another , the final round of high-quality , live-caller polls in Pennsylvania are likely to make a big difference to our model .
Pennsylvania is by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Biden gets up to , say , a 6- or 7-point lead there , he ’ ll be in a much safer position overall in the Electoral College than if he gets knocked down to a 4-point lead here instead .
More polling of the Keystone State is surely to come soon .

We Have A Lot Of New Polls, But There’s Little Sign Of The Presidential Race Tightening Instead, Biden gains in the Midwest.
Tweet us a question or comment
After a surprisingly sluggish weekend for polling, the floodgates have opened , with a mix of high-quality polls, low-quality polls and pretty much everything in between. And although there are some outliers in both directions, they tell a fairly consistent story, overall: A steady race nationally, perhaps with some gains for Joe Biden in the Midwest.
Let’s dive right in. Following our rules from my colleague Geoffrey Skelley’s post earlier this week, we’re going to look at every poll where at least half of the survey took place after last week’s debate, with a comparison to the most recent pre-debate survey by the same firm. If the pollster hasn’t surveyed a state before, we’ll make the comparison based on what the FiveThirtyEight polling average said in that state as of the night of the debate (Oct. 22) instead.
What election stories need to get more coverage | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
As an aside, I set a cutoff for polls as of 7 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. (More will probably have filtered into the averages by the time that you’re reading this.) We’ll rotate through the four major regions of the country — the South, the West, the Midwest and the Northeast. But first, here are the post-debate national polls:
National polls since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change US Change Research +8.0 +10.0 -2.0 US CNN/SSRS +12.0 +16.0 -4.0 US Economist/YouGov +11.0 +9.0 +2.0 US Global Marketing Reserch Services +14.0 +16.0 -2.0 US Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies +11.0 +9.0 +2.0 US IBD/TIPP +5.0 +5.0 +0.0 US J.L. Parnters +14.0 +10.0 +4.0 US Leger +8.0 +9.0 -1.0 US Morning Consult +9.0 +9.0 +0.0 US Qriously +10.0 +12.0 -2.0 US Rasmussen Reports -1.0 +3.0 -4.0 US Redfield & Wilton Strategies +10.0 +11.0 -1.0 US Reuters/Ipsos +10.0 +8.0 +2.0 US RMG Research +7.0 +8.0 -1.0 US SurveyMonkey +4.0 +6.0 -2.0 US Yahoo News/YouGov +12.0 +11.0 +1.0 US Average +9.0 +9.5 -0.5 Source: polls
On average, Biden leads by 9 percentage points using a simple average of post-debate national polls, which matches his 9-point lead in our fancy-schmancy official FiveThirtyEight national average.
It’s a bit of a weird mix of polls, though, with more quantity than quality. The only two fully live-caller national polls in here are from CNN and CNBC/Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies, which show Biden leading by 12 points and 11 points, respectively. On the one hand, the trendlines aren’t so bad for Trump in those live-caller polls. He trailed by 16 points in CNN’s previous national poll and by 9 points in the past Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies poll (or by 11 if you prefer to compare it to the prior NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll, which uses the same polling team).
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
On the other hand, the higher-quality national polls are showing worse results for Trump than the lower-quality polls, which is rarely a good sign. More highly rated online firms — such as YouGov, Morning Consult and Ipsos — show Trump trailing by margins ranging from 9 to 12 points.
At least some of the fluctuations in our national polling average seem to reflect shifts in the ratio of high-quality and low-quality surveys. This can go through cycles, and recently the higher-quality firms have mostly been concentrating on state polling. Most of them will release their final national polls soon, though, and it wouldn’t be surprising if, following CNN and CNBC’s example, a few more of them show double-digit leads for Biden.
Something else to note: Although there’s been a slight decline in Biden’s national polls since the debate, a majority of state polls show his position improving. To be more precise, Biden has gained 0.7 percentage points in the average state poll since the debate, while he’s lost 0.5 points in the average national poll. That brings the national and state polls into better alignment after a period where national polls suggested that Biden led by 10 to 11 points but state polls were more consistent with a lead of about 9 points instead.
Let’s start our review of the regions with the South, where there’s been a lot of polling over the past couple of days:
Polls of Southern states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change FL Florida Atlantic +2.0 +4.0 -2.0 FL Reuters/Ipsos +1.5 +4.5 -3.0 FL Susquehanna Polling & Research -5.0 +4.0 -9.0 GA Civiqs +5.0 +3.0 +2.0 GA Monmouth University +3.0 -3.5 +6.5 MS Civiqs* -14.0 -15.0 +1.0 NC Gravis Marketing +3.0 -3.0 +6.0 NC Harper Polling +1.0 -1.0 +2.0 NC Public Policy Polling +4.0 +4.0 +0.0 NC Reuters/Ipsos +1.0 +2.5 -1.5 NC RMG Research +1.0 +2.0 -1.0 NC SurveyUSA +0.0 +5.0 -5.0 SC East Carolina University -8.0 -12.0 +4.0 SC Starboard Communications* -7.0 -7.0 +0.0 TX Data for Progress +1.0 +1.0 +0.0 TX NYT Upshot/Siena -4.0 -3.0 -1.0 Average -1.0 -0.9 -0.1 * The firm had not previously polled the state and the change is based on the FiveThirtyEight average as of the Oct. 22 debate. Source: polls
It’s hard to tell a coherent story here because every state in the region seems to be marching to its own fight song. Biden’s gotten some great numbers in Georgia since the debate, but he’s had some terrible ones in Florida. North Carolina is somewhere in between, with polls variously suggesting that he’s gaining or losing ground.
Do I buy that there are these microfluctations between neighboring states? I’m not sure that I do, particularly since you have a different mix of pollsters from state to state. Florida and Georgia could use one or two more high-quality polls.
For the time being, though, Biden’s small lead in our Georgia polling average (+1.4) nearly equals his lead in Florida (also +1.4) and North Carolina (+2.1). That means Georgia needs to be taken seriously as a plausible — if unlikely — tipping-point state. It’s going to be the focus of a lot of resource expenditures over the final few days of the campaign, especially since it also has two competitive Senate races. Texas is a step or two away from the rest of the Southern group, meanwhile, as Trump leads in our polling average by 1.8 points there.
Next up on our whirlwind tour of America … the West:
Polls of Western states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change AZ Gravis Marketing +4.0 +2.0 +2.0 AZ Ipsos +1.0 +3.5 -2.5 AZ Justice Collaborative Institute* +6.0 +4.0 +2.0 AZ OH Predictive Insights +3.0 +3.5 -0.5 AZ Patinkin Research Strategies* +7.0 +4.0 +3.0 MT Public Policy Polling -2.0 -6.0 +4.0 NV NYT/Siena College +6.0 +6.0 +0.0 Average +3.6 +2.4 +1.1 * The firm had not previously polled the state and the change is based on the FiveThirtyEight average as of the Oct. 22 debate. Source: Polls
This is a decent set of polls for Biden, including in Arizona, where Biden’s lead has oscillated between 3 and 5 points in our polling average for most of the year. It’s in the lower-to-mid part of that range now, at 3.5 points in our official polling average, although the raw average of post-debate Arizona polls is slightly better for him at +4.2.
I realize this might seem like splitting hairs, but Arizona is an important state for Biden, insofar as it’s probably his best backup option if he loses Pennsylvania. (If Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin, he’d also need to find one more electoral vote somewhere to break a 269-269 Electoral College tie, but he’d probably get that in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, where he’s favored.)
In a world where Arizona is polling at Biden +5, it’s really almost as though he has a Plan A1 (Pennsylvania) and Plan A2 (Arizona plus NE-2). That would make his map more robust. In a world where Arizona is Biden +2 or Biden +3, conversely, it doesn’t really stand out from his other backup options, such as North Carolina and Florida, so it would be as though Biden has one Plan A (Pennsylvania) and a bunch of Plan Cs.
Now to the Midwest:
Polls of Midwestern states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change IA RABA Research +4.0 +2.0 +2.0 MI ABC News/Washington Post* +7.0 +8.0 -1.0 MI Glengariff Group +8.0 +9.0 -1.0 MI Gravis Marketing +13.0 +9.0 +4.0 MI NYT Upshot/Siena +8.0 +8.0 +0.0 MI Reuters/Ipsos +9.5 +8.0 +1.5 MN Gravis Marketing +14.0 +16.0 -2.0 WI ABC News/Washington Post +17.0 +6.0 +11.0 WI Gravis Marketing +11.0 +8.0 +3.0 WI Marquette Law School +5.0 +5.0 +0.0 Average +9.6 +7.9 +1.7 * The firm had not previously polled the state and the change is based on the FiveThirtyEight average as of the Oct. 22 debate. Source: polls
FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich covered this region this morning, so I’ll be brief here. This is the one part of the country where you can’t really say the race is steady; instead, this has been a strong set of polling for Biden, and he’s gained an average of 1.7 points in surveys in this region versus the pre-debate polls.
No, Trump probably doesn’t trail in Wisconsin by 17 points, as he does in the ABC News/Washington Post poll. (Good pollsters publish their outliers instead of sitting on them, and sometimes they turn out not to be outliers at all.) But average the ABC News poll with the three other post-debate polls of Wisconsin, and Biden is still ahead by 10.5 points there.
Biden’s polling gains may reflect that the COVID-19 outbreak in the Upper Midwest is bad right now, especially in Wisconsin. There is some evidence that the polls tend to shift against Trump following spikes in COVID-19 cases in a state, potentially a foreboding indicator for Trump as COVID-19 cases are also now rising sharply in many other states.
Finally, to the Northeast:
Polls of Northeastern states since the final debate Polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change ME Colby College +13.0 +11.0 +2.0 PA Civiqs +7.0 +6.0 +1.0 PA Gravis Marketing +7.0 +3.0 +4.0 PA InsiderAdvantage -3.0 +3.0 -6.0 PA Reuters/Ipsos +5.0 +4.0 +1.0 Average +5.8 +5.4 +0.4 Source: polls
By the Northeast, as you can see from the chart above, I really just mean … Pennsylvania, plus one stray poll of Maine. This region has been underpolled. There haven’t been any live-caller polls of Pennsylvania since the debate, and the online and IVR polls show highly disparate results there. New Hampshire has had no post-debate polling at all, meanwhile.
We go back and forth here at FiveThirtyEight about whether Pennsylvania counts as part of the Northeast or the Midwest. I’ve usually been a proponent of the theory that for political purposes, Pennsylvania behaves like a Midwestern state. There are some important geographic, demographic and cultural differences between Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest, however, and this year, the polling in Pennsylvania hasn’t tracked the numbers in Wisconsin and Michigan that well. Pennsylvania is also not currently experiencing as bad of a COVID-19 outbreak as those other states. So it may be less correlated with them than usual.
But one way or another, the final round of high-quality, live-caller polls in Pennsylvania is likely to make a big difference to our model. Pennsylvania is by far the most likely tipping-point state. If Biden gets up to, say, a 6- or 7-point lead there, he’ll be in a much safer position overall in the Electoral College than if he gets knocked down to a 4-point lead here instead. More polling of the Keystone State is surely to come soon.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--How The Electorate Will Be Different In 2020 Compared With 2016

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew takes a closer look at who is voting and @ @ @ @ @ stayed the same , compared with four years ago .

How The Electorate Will Be Different In 2020 Compared With 2016
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew takes a closer look at who is voting and how preferences have changed or stayed the same, compared with four years ago.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--Politics Podcast: How We Expect The Electorate To Look In 2020

There are six days until Election Day and more than 75 million Americans have already voted .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew takes a closer look at who exactly is voting and how their preferences have changed or stayed the same , compared with four years ago .
After the 2016 election , for example , a major theme was the educational divide , as white voters without a college degree swung towards Trump and those with college degrees moved toward Clinton .
There was also a sizable gender gap , and lower turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with past elections .
The team discusses whether those trends are once again present and what some of the emerging trends of 2020 may be .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

There are six days until Election Day and more than 75 million Americans have already voted. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew takes a closer look at who exactly is voting and how their preferences have changed or stayed the same, compared with four years ago.
After the 2016 election, for example, a major theme was the educational divide, as white voters without a college degree swung towards Trump and those with college degrees moved toward Clinton. There was also a sizable gender gap, and lower turnout among Black Americans and young people compared with past elections. The team discusses whether those trends are once again present and what some of the emerging trends of 2020 may be.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--Is There A Chance The Winner In 2020 Will Be Able To Credibly Claim A Mandate?

There ’ s already widespread concern about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election .
Mail-in ballots and ballot counting have become the subject of partisan disagreement .
And when asked whether he would accept the results of the election and commit to a peaceful transfer of power , President Trump has replied , “ We ’ ll see what happens.
” It looks as if we might be in for a bumpy election night – or election month .
But , hopefully , at the end of it all , the legitimate winner will become president on Jan. 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election shape his ability to govern ?
Put another way : How will either Trump or Joe Biden emerge from 2020 with a mandate to enact his policies and agenda ?
Political scientists have been pretty adamant that mandates — i.e .
claims along the lines of “ the people elected me to do x , y and z ” — aren ’ t real .
It ’ s impossible to know exactly why people voted the way they did , and inevitably millions of people will have different reasons for casting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine a clear reason why the winner won , how should the views of voters who cast ballots for the losing side be factored in ?
Still , the idea of an electoral mandate remains powerful .
So what does the research tell us about how presidents claim mandates , and how those claims are received ?
First , presidents tend to claim mandates when they need to bolster their legitimacy – when they ’ re facing political pushback , trying to expand presidential power into new areas , or public trust in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I write in my book , “ Delivering the People ’ s Message.
” Furthermore , I find that partisan polarization makes it more likely that presidents will have to defend themselves from political attacks and makes it easier for them to claim the election was fought between two distinct sets of policy or ideological alternatives .
With that in mind , it seems likely that we can expect a lot of mandate claims from either a newly elected Biden administration or a second-term Trump administration .
Either would likely need to strengthen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American public — and to do so at a time when trust in most institutions is at a nadir and partisan polarization is high .
But that is a look at mandates from the president ’ s point of view , in which incentives to claim one are obvious .
There ’ s also the question of whether anyone will buy it .
A few things make the public more receptive to mandate claims , according to research .
As an example , the unexpected victories of President Reagan in 1980 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media narratives about the election mandates signaling voter support for serious policy change .
In turn , members of Congress responded and voted differently on proposed legislation than they might have normally , authors Lawrence Grossback , David Peterson and James Stimson argue in the book , “ Mandate Politics.
” It ’ s hard to say how 2020 scores in this area .
If this had been a normal year and Trump a more “ normal ” president , we ’ d likely be expecting a close election .
The important features @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to be partisanship and stability in polling .
Trump ’ s job approval ratings haven ’ t moved very much over the course of his presidency , even during an eventful year that included an impeachment , a pandemic , social unrest and an economic collapse .
Even when the economy was strong , Trump was unpopular .
As for Biden , he ’ s not as unpopular as Hillary Clinton was during her 2016 presidential campaign .
But as recently as August , a quarter of the American public thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a figure that ’ s higher than recent years .
This signals either candidate could likely face legitimacy questions and partisan pushback .
So , based on the research , we might expect lots of mandate-claiming met with lots of skepticism in that scenario .
Of course , the circumstances are anything but normal right now — in such a way that the election result could be perceived as surprising .
The pandemic and economic crisis seem to have affected the dynamics of the presidential race , even as disapproval of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead in most polls and by a lot nationally .
Trump still has a meaningful chance at winning , mostly if there ’ s a large polling error in his favor .
But a Trump win would certainly count as an upset based on the polling , and would be surprising in that sense .
Even a Biden win might have some surprising aspects .
As of today , our election forecast shows Biden has a 28 in 100 chance of winning in a landslide .
And the last time an incumbent president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the specter of 2016 , when many people incorrectly interpreted Clinton ’ s small lead in polls as impregnable , and you can imagine that the media might treat a Biden win — particularly a big one — as a surprise .
With these factors in mind , each candidate might find it easier to convince the media and public he has a mandate .
Because the election is taking place amid multiple crises , Biden in particular could make a credible case in claiming a mandate — the script for when a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of national crisis or economic downturn is a well-worn one .
That dynamic played out in Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s defeat of Herbert Hoover in 1932 and Ronald Reagan ’ s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980 .
The winners had opportunities to claim a mandate for change and both were successful in persuading people the country was ready for a new approach .
At the same time , the perception that an election was largely a negative referendum on the incumbent — rather than an affirmative vote of confidence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sell the public on a mandate for a specific agenda .
In his first year in office , Barack Obama fell a bit into this trap , often talking about the 2008 election as a rejection of Republican economic policies .
This was a reasonable response to near-universal resistance from congressional Republicans , but it also neglected to say much about what kind of economic agenda the voters might want instead .
In other words , elections that are widely understood to be a rejection of the incumbent are often good for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote totals , but more challenging to reframe as a public endorsement of new ideas or policies .
But , of course , it ’ s 2020 and the deadly pandemic and economic collapse aren ’ t our only crises .
We ’ re also looking at a potentially contested election in which the president has falsely suggested mail-in ballots are not secure , undermining faith in the integrity of the election at best , setting us up for — in a worse-case scenario — a constitutional crisis .
And , as mentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would respect the election results and ensure a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the election .
These words from a sitting president are unprecedented , but we ’ ve had contested elections before .
Several of these have been deep in the country ’ s history .
The election of 1824 was decided by the House of Representatives , who chose second-place finisher John Quincy Adams after a possibly “ corrupt bargain ” between the candidate and House Speaker Henry Clay .
In 1876 , a bipartisan commission was formed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four contested states .
That commission ultimately decided to let the Republican candidate , Rutherford B. Hayes , win the presidency despite receiving fewer popular votes , in return for the end of Reconstruction in the South .
The 2000 election , which you ’ ve probably heard a lot about lately , ended up being effectively decided by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore .
It ’ s notable that no disputed election since 1824 has been decided in the House of Representatives as the Constitution says it should be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close or complicated result was decided according to the rules .
Did these contested results matter for claiming a mandate to govern ?
Lack of legitimacy certainly loomed over the presidencies of Adams and Hayes .
Both achieved some of their goals in the White House — building up national infrastructure for Adams , changes in federal policy toward Native Americans and progress toward civil service reform for Hayes .
The story for George W. Bush was more complicated , partly because of the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks during his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my research that Bush sometimes claimed a partisan mandate for policies like tax cuts in 2001 — a stark contrast with other close election winners did , including John F. Kennedy in 1960 .
Changes to the party system were probably part of the reason that Bush ’ s fate looked different from that of Hayes , whose factional rivals in his own party ensured he kept his one-term promise in 1880 .
Bush faced no such challenge in 2004 , though it ’ s impossible to know whether that would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in what was then a fairly new war .
Elections matter and if you want to establish a mandate to govern , it ’ s better to have electoral legitimacy .
But the interpretation of election results is also a matter of rhetoric , media narratives and political context .
Whoever is in office on Jan. 20 will have some opportunities to shape what people think the election meant , and what it means for governing .
If Trump is reelected under dubious circumstances , we should expect a steady stream of mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimacy will be an urgent , if fruitless , task .
Biden and the Democrats have tried to frame the election as a referendum on democracy itself , and if they win , they will have to figure out what comes next .
There will also undoubtedly be others pushing their own version of events .
That ’ s standard .
What ’ s less common is for there to be disagreement about which candidate really won .
If that ’ s still the case after Inauguration Day , we may have bigger @ @ @ @

There’s already widespread concern about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election. Mail-in ballots and ballot counting have become the subject of partisan disagreement. And when asked whether he would accept the results of the election and commit to a peaceful transfer of power, President Trump has replied, “We’ll see what happens.” It looks as if we might be in for a bumpy election night – or election month. But, hopefully, at the end of it all, the legitimate winner will become president on Jan. 20, 2021. How might the unusual 2020 election shape his ability to govern?
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Put another way: How will either Trump or Joe Biden emerge from 2020 with a mandate to enact his policies and agenda?
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
Political scientists have been pretty adamant that mandates — i.e. claims along the lines of “the people elected me to do x, y and z” — aren’t real. It’s impossible to know exactly why people voted the way they did, and inevitably millions of people will have different reasons for casting a ballot. Even if we could determine a clear reason why the winner won, how should the views of voters who cast ballots for the losing side be factored in?
Still, the idea of an electoral mandate remains powerful. So what does the research tell us about how presidents claim mandates, and how those claims are received? First, presidents tend to claim mandates when they need to bolster their legitimacy – when they’re facing political pushback, trying to expand presidential power into new areas, or public trust in institutions is flagging in general, as I write in my book, “Delivering the People’s Message.” Furthermore, I find that partisan polarization makes it more likely that presidents will have to defend themselves from political attacks and makes it easier for them to claim the election was fought between two distinct sets of policy or ideological alternatives.
With that in mind, it seems likely that we can expect a lot of mandate claims from either a newly elected Biden administration or a second-term Trump administration. Either would likely need to strengthen his legitimacy with a large segment of the American public — and to do so at a time when trust in most institutions is at a nadir and partisan polarization is high.
But that is a look at mandates from the president’s point of view, in which incentives to claim one are obvious. There’s also the question of whether anyone will buy it.
A few things make the public more receptive to mandate claims, according to research. As an example, the unexpected victories of President Reagan in 1980 and GOP congressional majorities in 1994 contributed to media narratives about the election mandates signaling voter support for serious policy change. In turn, members of Congress responded and voted differently on proposed legislation than they might have normally, authors Lawrence Grossback, David Peterson and James Stimson argue in the book, “Mandate Politics.”
It’s hard to say how 2020 scores in this area. If this had been a normal year and Trump a more “normal” president, we’d likely be expecting a close election. The important features of public opinion in the Trump era seem to be partisanship and stability in polling. Trump’s job approval ratings haven’t moved very much over the course of his presidency, even during an eventful year that included an impeachment, a pandemic, social unrest and an economic collapse. Even when the economy was strong, Trump was unpopular. As for Biden, he’s not as unpopular as Hillary Clinton was during her 2016 presidential campaign. But as recently as August, a quarter of the American public thought that neither candidate would make a good president, a figure that’s higher than recent years.
This signals either candidate could likely face legitimacy questions and partisan pushback. So, based on the research, we might expect lots of mandate-claiming met with lots of skepticism in that scenario.
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
Of course, the circumstances are anything but normal right now — in such a way that the election result could be perceived as surprising. The pandemic and economic crisis seem to have affected the dynamics of the presidential race, even as disapproval of Trump has remained relatively steady. Biden is ahead in most polls and by a lot nationally. Trump still has a meaningful chance at winning, mostly if there’s a large polling error in his favor. But a Trump win would certainly count as an upset based on the polling, and would be surprising in that sense.
Even a Biden win might have some surprising aspects. As of today, our election forecast shows Biden has a 28 in 100 chance of winning in a landslide. And the last time an incumbent president lost reelection was 1992. Add in the specter of 2016, when many people incorrectly interpreted Clinton’s small lead in polls as impregnable, and you can imagine that the media might treat a Biden win — particularly a big one — as a surprise.
With these factors in mind, each candidate might find it easier to convince the media and public he has a mandate.
Because the election is taking place amid multiple crises, Biden in particular could make a credible case in claiming a mandate — the script for when a challenger wins in the midst of a period of national crisis or economic downturn is a well-worn one. That dynamic played out in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s defeat of Herbert Hoover in 1932 and Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980. The winners had opportunities to claim a mandate for change and both were successful in persuading people the country was ready for a new approach.
At the same time, the perception that an election was largely a negative referendum on the incumbent — rather than an affirmative vote of confidence in the challenger — can limit the possibilities to sell the public on a mandate for a specific agenda. In his first year in office, Barack Obama fell a bit into this trap, often talking about the 2008 election as a rejection of Republican economic policies. This was a reasonable response to near-universal resistance from congressional Republicans, but it also neglected to say much about what kind of economic agenda the voters might want instead. In other words, elections that are widely understood to be a rejection of the incumbent are often good for the challenger when it comes to the vote totals, but more challenging to reframe as a public endorsement of new ideas or policies.
But, of course, it’s 2020 and the deadly pandemic and economic collapse aren’t our only crises. We’re also looking at a potentially contested election in which the president has falsely suggested mail-in ballots are not secure, undermining faith in the integrity of the election at best, setting us up for — in a worse-case scenario — a constitutional crisis. And, as mentioned, Trump has refused to agree that he would respect the election results and ensure a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the election.
These words from a sitting president are unprecedented, but we’ve had contested elections before. Several of these have been deep in the country’s history. The election of 1824 was decided by the House of Representatives, who chose second-place finisher John Quincy Adams after a possibly “corrupt bargain” between the candidate and House Speaker Henry Clay. In 1876, a bipartisan commission was formed to determine the Electoral College votes of four contested states. That commission ultimately decided to let the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, win the presidency despite receiving fewer popular votes, in return for the end of Reconstruction in the South. The 2000 election, which you’ve probably heard a lot about lately, ended up being effectively decided by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. It’s notable that no disputed election since 1824 has been decided in the House of Representatives as the Constitution says it should be, further diminishing the sense that even a close or complicated result was decided according to the rules.
Did these contested results matter for claiming a mandate to govern? Lack of legitimacy certainly loomed over the presidencies of Adams and Hayes. Both achieved some of their goals in the White House — building up national infrastructure for Adams, changes in federal policy toward Native Americans and progress toward civil service reform for Hayes. The story for George W. Bush was more complicated, partly because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during his first year in office. I note in my research that Bush sometimes claimed a partisan mandate for policies like tax cuts in 2001 — a stark contrast with other close election winners did, including John F. Kennedy in 1960. Changes to the party system were probably part of the reason that Bush’s fate looked different from that of Hayes, whose factional rivals in his own party ensured he kept his one-term promise in 1880. Bush faced no such challenge in 2004, though it’s impossible to know whether that would have been different had the nation not been in what was then a fairly new war.
Elections matter and if you want to establish a mandate to govern, it’s better to have electoral legitimacy. But the interpretation of election results is also a matter of rhetoric, media narratives and political context. Whoever is in office on Jan. 20 will have some opportunities to shape what people think the election meant, and what it means for governing. If Trump is reelected under dubious circumstances, we should expect a steady stream of mandate rhetoric, because trying to establish electoral legitimacy will be an urgent, if fruitless, task. Biden and the Democrats have tried to frame the election as a referendum on democracy itself, and if they win, they will have to figure out what comes next. There will also undoubtedly be others pushing their own version of events. That’s standard. What’s less common is for there to be disagreement about which candidate really won. If that’s still the case after Inauguration Day, we may have bigger problems than mandates.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--Inside The Political Donation History Of Wealthy Sports Owners

Editor ’ s note : This is the first in a series of six pieces that show how professional sports owners in America contribute to political campaigns , why they spend millions in the space and what that financial power means as athletes across sports continue to embrace activism of their own .
American professional sports owners have contributed nearly $ 47 million in federal elections since 2015 , according to research by ESPN in partnership with FiveThirtyEight , including $ 10 million to Republican causes and $ 1.9 million to Democratic causes so far in the 2020 election cycle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with owners ’ spending in the 2018 and 2016 federal elections as well .
A deep search in the Federal Election Commission database of campaign finances for principal owners , controlling owners , co-owners and commissioners from the NBA , NFL , NHL , WNBA , MLB and NASCAR reveals that this deep-pocketed group has sent $ 34.2 million ( 72.9 percent ) to Republican campaigns or super PACs purely supporting Republican causes , compared to $ 10.1 million ( 21.5 percent ) to Democrats over the past three elections .
Less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or unaffiliated recipients .
The research includes more than 160 owners and commissioners spanning 125 teams , though no list of this kind can be completely comprehensive .
Only current owners in each league and only their contributions while they have been involved with their franchises were included .
Spouses and relatives were not considered unless they also play a controlling role in the ownership group .
If a contribution appeared to be from an owner but could not be confirmed , it was not included .
And , as is the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a number of ways to hide their political spending .
Some of the biggest takeaways from the data are below .
And in the coming days , the series will delve into : • The three different reasons owners donate to politicians • Dark money and why owners hide their political spending • Why the NFL has its own super PAC • How political perception differs from reality in each league • How athletes are working to create their own political change Contemporary sports ownership has become an exclusive club with entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territory .
The rarefied Americans who can afford those fees tend to skew older , whiter and more male .
As political donors , these owners skew toward the GOP .
Of the 160 owners and commissioners in ESPN ’ s database , 74 contributed a majority of their publicly searchable funds to Republican campaigns , with 48 donating a majority to Democrats and the rest sending most of their money to causes that aren ’ t fully aligned with either party .
But while that overall summary is interesting , a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look more closely at this group ’ s larger political donations .
There are 40 owners who have donated at least $ 100,000 to Republican causes over the six-year period , compared to 23 owners topping $ 100,000 to Democrats , helping lead to these splits : In total , here is the election-cycle contribution breakdown for owners and commissioners for these leagues : It ’ s important to note that not all data for the 2020 election cycle is publicly available at our time of publishing .
Some of the big super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the FEC as of June 30 , meaning their most recent contributions aren ’ t included in our totals .
Drilling down deeper into the data , we can see that federal contributions in each league lean red , except for in the WNBA : Overall , 51.7 percent of all contributions by WNBA owners went to Democrats , with 42.3 percent going to Republicans .
And of the $ 1.3 million contributed by WNBA owners to Republicans , 65.5 percent comes from Kelly Loeffler , the Republican from Georgia who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all the leagues in our research , here are their totals to each party over the six-year period : Owners ’ conservative lean extends into the current presidential cycle as well .
Americans have donated similar amounts to both President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden , but owners are giving more to Trump , according to the database .
Thirteen owners have contributed directly to Trump ’ s campaign or Trump super PACs in the 2020 election cycle , with contributions adding up to $ 1,746,423 .
That list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vegas Golden Knights ) , Bill Hornbuckle ( Las Vegas Aces ) , Charles Johnson ( San Francisco Giants ) , Dan Devos ( Orlando Magic ) , Jack Roush ( NASCAR ) , James Dolan ( New York Knicks and Rangers ) , Kelly Loeffler ( Atlanta Dream ) , Mike Brown ( Cincinnati Bengals ) , Peter Karmanos ( Carolina Hurricanes ) , Robert Plummer ( Los Angeles Dodgers ) , Roger Penske ( Team Penske ) Tilman Fertitta ( Houston Rockets ) and Todd Ricketts ( Chicago Cubs ) By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden or Biden ’ s super PACs , though at smaller totals , with overall contributions equaling $ 405,745 .
The Biden contributors include : • Arthur Blank ( Atlanta Falcons ) , Arthur J. Rooney II ( Pittsburgh Steelers ) , Billie Jean King ( Dodgers ) , David Blitzer ( Philadelphia 76ers and New Jersey Devils ) , David Bonderman ( Seattle Kraken ) , Herbert Fritch ( Nashville Predators ) , Herbert Simon ( Indiana Pacers and Fever ) , Ilana Kloss ( Dodgers ) , James Dinan ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spire Motorsports ) , Jim Pohlad ( Minnesota Twins ) , John Rogers ( Chicago Sky ) , Laura Ricketts ( Cubs ) , Marc Lasry ( Bucks ) , Mary Kelly ( Denver Broncos ) , Michael Alter ( Sky ) , Peter Guber ( Golden State Warriors and Dodgers ) , Tom Werner ( Boston Red Sox ) , Zygi Wilf ( Minnesota Vikings ) and Hornbuckle A relatively small group of donors makes up a huge chunk of the overall donation data .
Forty owners account for more than $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all contributions .
And looking specifically at these big spenders , it ’ s clear where their allegiances lie : 77.7 percent of that $ 40 million went to Republican causes or candidates , with 18.8 percent going to Democrats .
This is where the political spending power among American professional sports ownership is concentrated .
Here ’ s that full list : • Bill Foley ( Knights ) , Charles Johnson ( Giants ) , Dan DeVos ( Magic ) , Dan Gilbert ( Cavaliers ) , Dan Snyder ( Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , David Bonderman ( Kraken ) , E. Stanley and Ann Kroenke ( Nuggets/Rams/Avalanche ) , Edward Glazer ( Buccaneers ) , Fred Wilpon ( Mets ) , Herbert Simon ( Pacers/Fever ) , James Dinan ( Bucks ) , James Dolan ( Knicks/Rangers ) , Janice McNair ( Texans ) , Jeremy and Jerry Jacobs ( Bruins ) , Jerry Jones ( Cowboys ) , Jerry Reinsdorf ( Bulls/White Sox ) , Jim Pohlad ( Twins ) , Jimmy and Susan Haslam ( Browns ) , Jody and Paul Allen ( Blazers/Seahawks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kelly Loeffler ( Dream ) , Ken Kendrick ( Diamondbacks ) , Laura Ricketts ( Cubs ) , Magic Johnson ( Dodgers/Sparks ) , Micky Arison ( Heat ) , Peter Angelos ( Orioles ) , Peter Karmanos ( Hurricanes ) , Philip Anschutz ( Kings ) , Ray Davis ( Rangers ) , Robert Castellini ( Reds ) , Roger Penske ( Team Penske ) , Ron Burkle ( Penguins ) , Stephen Ross ( Dolphins ) , Steve Tisch ( Giants ) , Ted Leonsis ( Wizards ) and Tilman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isolate just the big-ticket donations topping $ 100,000 from this group , a familiar picture emerges .
More than 63 percent of the $ 47 million in the database of nearly 3,000 contributions comes from just 108 donations split among these 40 owners — and 79 percent of that money went to Republican causes .
No matter how you slice it , the big takeaway is clear : The biggest political spenders in pro sports prefer red to blue .
This table reflects the total contributions for each owner and commissioner in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , grouped by political party .
Note that some family members appear together and that only contributions while owners have been involved with the team are included .

Inside The Political Donation History Of Wealthy Sports Owners American professional sports owners have contributed nearly $47 million in federal elections since 2015.
Editor’s note: This is the first in a series of six pieces that show how professional sports owners in America contribute to political campaigns, why they spend millions in the space and what that financial power means as athletes across sports continue to embrace activism of their own.
American professional sports owners have contributed nearly $47 million in federal elections since 2015, according to research by ESPN in partnership with FiveThirtyEight, including $10 million to Republican causes and $1.9 million to Democratic causes so far in the 2020 election cycle.
That strong Republican lean is consistent with owners’ spending in the 2018 and 2016 federal elections as well. A deep search in the Federal Election Commission database of campaign finances for principal owners, controlling owners, co-owners and commissioners from the NBA, NFL, NHL, WNBA, MLB and NASCAR reveals that this deep-pocketed group has sent $34.2 million (72.9 percent) to Republican campaigns or super PACs purely supporting Republican causes, compared to $10.1 million (21.5 percent) to Democrats over the past three elections. Less than 6 percent of contributions went to bipartisan or unaffiliated recipients.
Will millions of dollars on TV ads make a difference in the race for the presidency?
The research includes more than 160 owners and commissioners spanning 125 teams, though no list of this kind can be completely comprehensive. Only current owners in each league and only their contributions while they have been involved with their franchises were included. Spouses and relatives were not considered unless they also play a controlling role in the ownership group. If a contribution appeared to be from an owner but could not be confirmed, it was not included. And, as is the case with many millionaires and billionaires, owners have a number of ways to hide their political spending.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Some of the biggest takeaways from the data are below. And in the coming days, the series will delve into:
Overall contributions
Contemporary sports ownership has become an exclusive club with entry fees that reach into eight- and nine-figure territory. The rarefied Americans who can afford those fees tend to skew older, whiter and more male. As political donors, these owners skew toward the GOP.
Of the 160 owners and commissioners in ESPN’s database, 74 contributed a majority of their publicly searchable funds to Republican campaigns, with 48 donating a majority to Democrats and the rest sending most of their money to causes that aren’t fully aligned with either party.
But while that overall summary is interesting, a more pronounced signal begins to emerge when we look more closely at this group’s larger political donations. There are 40 owners who have donated at least $100,000 to Republican causes over the six-year period, compared to 23 owners topping $100,000 to Democrats, helping lead to these splits:
In total, here is the election-cycle contribution breakdown for owners and commissioners for these leagues:
Significantly more money goes to Republicans Specifically partisan contributions from owners and commissioners in the NFL, NBA, WNBA, NHL, MLB and NASCAR, per election cycle Election year To Republicans To Democrats Total 2020 $10,022,931 $1,874,333 $11,897,264 2018 11,282,570 4,174,212 15,456,782 2016 12,940,514 4,065,093 17,005,607 Sources: Federal Election Commission, OpenSecrets
It’s important to note that not all data for the 2020 election cycle is publicly available at our time of publishing. Some of the big super PACs had filed only individual contributor data to the FEC as of June 30, meaning their most recent contributions aren’t included in our totals.
Drilling down deeper into the data, we can see that federal contributions in each league lean red, except for in the WNBA:
Overall, 51.7 percent of all contributions by WNBA owners went to Democrats, with 42.3 percent going to Republicans. And of the $1.3 million contributed by WNBA owners to Republicans, 65.5 percent comes from Kelly Loeffler, the Republican from Georgia who is co-owner of the Atlanta Dream.
Expanding to all the leagues in our research, here are their totals to each party over the six-year period:
MLB owners have donated the most Specifically partisan contributions from owners and commissioners in the NFL, NBA, WNBA, NHL, MLB and NASCAR, by party, 2016-20 League To Republicans To Democrats Total MLB $15,181,761 $5,184,604 $20,366,365 NBA 8,372,300 2,641,487 11,013,787 NHL 7,087,116 1,726,733 8,813,849 NFL 5,032,470 873,500 5,905,970 WNBA 1,338,459 1,634,153 2,972,612 NASCAR 576,110 93,983 670,093 Source: Federal Election Commission, OpenSecrets
Owners’ conservative lean extends into the current presidential cycle as well. Americans have donated similar amounts to both President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, but owners are giving more to Trump, according to the database.
Thirteen owners have contributed directly to Trump’s campaign or Trump super PACs in the 2020 election cycle, with contributions adding up to $1,746,423. That list of owners includes:
Bill Foley (Vegas Golden Knights), Bill Hornbuckle (Las Vegas Aces), Charles Johnson (San Francisco Giants), Dan Devos (Orlando Magic), Jack Roush (NASCAR), James Dolan (New York Knicks and Rangers), Kelly Loeffler (Atlanta Dream), Mike Brown (Cincinnati Bengals), Peter Karmanos (Carolina Hurricanes), Robert Plummer (Los Angeles Dodgers), Roger Penske (Team Penske) Tilman Fertitta (Houston Rockets) and Todd Ricketts (Chicago Cubs)
By contrast, 20 owners have contributed directly to Biden or Biden’s super PACs, though at smaller totals, with overall contributions equaling $405,745. The Biden contributors include:
Arthur Blank (Atlanta Falcons), Arthur J. Rooney II (Pittsburgh Steelers), Billie Jean King (Dodgers), David Blitzer (Philadelphia 76ers and New Jersey Devils), David Bonderman (Seattle Kraken), Herbert Fritch (Nashville Predators), Herbert Simon (Indiana Pacers and Fever), Ilana Kloss (Dodgers), James Dinan (Milwaukee Bucks), Jeff Dickerson (Spire Motorsports), Jim Pohlad (Minnesota Twins), John Rogers (Chicago Sky), Laura Ricketts (Cubs), Marc Lasry (Bucks), Mary Kelly (Denver Broncos), Michael Alter (Sky), Peter Guber (Golden State Warriors and Dodgers), Tom Werner (Boston Red Sox), Zygi Wilf (Minnesota Vikings) and Hornbuckle
The big-money donors
A relatively small group of donors makes up a huge chunk of the overall donation data. Forty owners account for more than $40 million — more than 85 percent of all contributions. And looking specifically at these big spenders, it’s clear where their allegiances lie: 77.7 percent of that $40 million went to Republican causes or candidates, with 18.8 percent going to Democrats.
This is where the political spending power among American professional sports ownership is concentrated. Here’s that full list:
Bill Foley (Knights), Charles Johnson (Giants), Dan DeVos (Magic), Dan Gilbert (Cavaliers), Dan Snyder (Washington), David Tepper (Panthers), David Bonderman (Kraken), E. Stanley and Ann Kroenke (Nuggets/Rams/Avalanche), Edward Glazer (Buccaneers), Fred Wilpon (Mets), Herbert Simon (Pacers/Fever), James Dinan (Bucks), James Dolan (Knicks/Rangers), Janice McNair (Texans), Jeremy and Jerry Jacobs (Bruins), Jerry Jones (Cowboys), Jerry Reinsdorf (Bulls/White Sox), Jim Pohlad (Twins), Jimmy and Susan Haslam (Browns), Jody and Paul Allen (Blazers/Seahawks), Josh Harris (76ers/Devils), Kelly Loeffler (Dream), Ken Kendrick (Diamondbacks), Laura Ricketts (Cubs), Magic Johnson (Dodgers/Sparks), Micky Arison (Heat), Peter Angelos (Orioles), Peter Karmanos (Hurricanes), Philip Anschutz (Kings), Ray Davis (Rangers), Robert Castellini (Reds), Roger Penske (Team Penske), Ron Burkle (Penguins), Stephen Ross (Dolphins), Steve Tisch (Giants), Ted Leonsis (Wizards) and Tilman Fertitta (Rockets)
And when we isolate just the big-ticket donations topping $100,000 from this group, a familiar picture emerges. More than 63 percent of the $47 million in the database of nearly 3,000 contributions comes from just 108 donations split among these 40 owners — and 79 percent of that money went to Republican causes.
No matter how you slice it, the big takeaway is clear: The biggest political spenders in pro sports prefer red to blue.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
Owner-level data
This table reflects the total contributions for each owner and commissioner in our database over the past three election cycles, grouped by political party. Note that some family members appear together and that only contributions while owners have been involved with the team are included.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--What To Make Of That New Wisconsin Poll That Has Biden Way Ahead

Once in a blue moon , you see a poll that makes you blink twice to make sure you ’ re not seeing things .
This morning ’ s ABC News/The Washington Post survey of Wisconsin was just such a poll .
It showed Joe Biden 17 points ( not a typo ) ahead of President Trump , 57 percent to 40 percent , among likely voters .
To put it mildly , this is a stunning margin in what is supposed to be one of the most competitive swing states in the country — a place that Trump carried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
And this is not an easy poll to disregard .
ABC News/Washington Post adheres to what we consider the gold-standard methodology ( meaning they use live phone interviewers , call cell phones as well as landlines and participate in the American Association for Public Opinion Research ’ s Transparency Initiative or the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research archive ) and earns an A+ grade in FiveThirtyEight ’ s pollster ratings database .
The poll single-handedly increased Biden ’ s lead in our polling average of Wisconsin from 7.1 points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most influential poll in our forecast of Wisconsin , where Biden ’ s chances of winning the state have reached a new high as a result — 93 in 100 .
That said , ABC News/Washington Post is definitely an outlier ; no other poll has shown Biden with that large a lead in Wisconsin since June .
( Then , it was a Hodas & Associates poll sponsored by the conservative Restoration PAC that put Biden 17 points ahead . )
On the other hand , this poll doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has recently gotten a lot of very strong polls from some of the states that border Wisconsin .
To wit : • RABA Research was out with a poll yesterday showing Biden at 50 percent and Trump at 46 percent in Iowa .
Last week , the A+ pollsters Monmouth University and Siena College/The New York Times Upshot found similar margins .
Iowa , remember , is a fairly red state that Trump carried by 9 points in 2016 .
And for the first time , our forecast now gives Biden a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although it ’ s still basically a coin flip ( Biden ’ s odds are 51 in 100 ) .
• Yesterday , Gravis Marketing released a survey of Minnesota in which Biden led Trump by 14 points .
Biden ’ s chances of winning Minnesota have now reached an all-time high of 94 in 100 .
• On Sunday , we also got a Gravis poll of Michigan that gave Biden a 13-point lead .
That ’ s on top of last week ’ s Fox News poll of Michigan showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning , ABC News/Washington Post also released a Michigan poll giving Biden a smaller 7-point lead .
Overall , our forecast gives Biden a 94 in 100 chance of winning the Wolverine State .
What might be going on here ?
Well , Biden has led in some of these states for a while , but it ’ s also possible that Trump could be losing support in the Midwest due to the recent spike in COVID-19 cases there .
Much of Wisconsin is currently a hot spot ; on Tuesday , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and deaths ( 64 ) than any other day of the pandemic .
The same day , Iowa and Minnesota announced a record number of hospitalizations , and cases are on the rise in Michigan as well .
Nationally , the coronavirus is a losing issue for Trump — 58 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the pandemic , on average , compared with just 40 percent who approve — and Wisconsin is no different .
According to ABC News/Washington Post , Trump ’ s net disapproval rating on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ -20 percentage points — double what it was in mid-September .
And 63 percent of registered voters there say they are worried about catching COVID-19 .
What ’ s more , Biden leads by a whopping 75 percent to 22 percent among members of this bloc who say they are likely to vote .
As recently as Saturday , Trump said at a rally in the Milwaukee suburbs that the pandemic was winding down .
But that ’ s clearly not the case in Wisconsin , or in these other Midwestern states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reelection .
( There ’ s almost a 20 percent chance that one of Wisconsin , Michigan or Minnesota will provide the decisive electoral vote , and Trump has a less than 1 in 100 chance of winning if he fails to carry Iowa . )
The surge of illness in the region is obviously bad news , first and foremost , for the impact it has on people ’ s lives .
But for an incumbent president widely seen as having failed on the issue of the pandemic and facing reelection in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also terrible timing politically .

Once in a blue moon, you see a poll that makes you blink twice to make sure you’re not seeing things. This morning’s ABC News/The Washington Post survey of Wisconsin was just such a poll. It showed Joe Biden 17 points (not a typo) ahead of President Trump, 57 percent to 40 percent, among likely voters. To put it mildly, this is a stunning margin in what is supposed to be one of the most competitive swing states in the country — a place that Trump carried by less than 1 percentage point in 2016.
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
And this is not an easy poll to disregard. ABC News/Washington Post adheres to what we consider the gold-standard methodology (meaning they use live phone interviewers, call cell phones as well as landlines and participate in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative or the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research archive) and earns an A+ grade in FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings database. The poll single-handedly increased Biden’s lead in our polling average of Wisconsin from 7.1 points to 9.0 points, and it is currently the most influential poll in our forecast of Wisconsin, where Biden’s chances of winning the state have reached a new high as a result — 93 in 100.
That said, ABC News/Washington Post is definitely an outlier; no other poll has shown Biden with that large a lead in Wisconsin since June. (Then, it was a Hodas & Associates poll sponsored by the conservative Restoration PAC that put Biden 17 points ahead.)
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
On the other hand, this poll doesn’t exactly exist in a vacuum. Biden has recently gotten a lot of very strong polls from some of the states that border Wisconsin. To wit:
What might be going on here? Well, Biden has led in some of these states for a while, but it’s also possible that Trump could be losing support in the Midwest due to the recent spike in COVID-19 cases there. Much of Wisconsin is currently a hot spot; on Tuesday, the state reported more new cases (5,262) and deaths (64) than any other day of the pandemic. The same day, Iowa and Minnesota announced a record number of hospitalizations, and cases are on the rise in Michigan as well.
Nationally, the coronavirus is a losing issue for Trump — 58 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the pandemic, on average, compared with just 40 percent who approve — and Wisconsin is no different. According to ABC News/Washington Post, Trump’s net disapproval rating on his handling of the coronavirus in Wisconsin is -20 percentage points — double what it was in mid-September. And 63 percent of registered voters there say they are worried about catching COVID-19. What’s more, Biden leads by a whopping 75 percent to 22 percent among members of this bloc who say they are likely to vote.
As recently as Saturday, Trump said at a rally in the Milwaukee suburbs that the pandemic was winding down. But that’s clearly not the case in Wisconsin, or in these other Midwestern states that Trump probably needs in order to win reelection. (There’s almost a 20 percent chance that one of Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota will provide the decisive electoral vote, and Trump has a less than 1 in 100 chance of winning if he fails to carry Iowa.) The surge of illness in the region is obviously bad news, first and foremost, for the impact it has on people’s lives. But for an incumbent president widely seen as having failed on the issue of the pandemic and facing reelection in less than one week, it’s also terrible timing politically.
Could any surprises still affect the race for president?


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-29--Why Pennsylvania’s Vote Count Could Change After Election Night

We know a majority of Americans plan to vote by mail or in person before Election Day , and at least 75 million have already cast ballots .
This is an enormous uptick in votes cast early from 2016 , and as a result , there ’ s a real possibility that we won ’ t know who won the presidency on election night .
Take Pennsylvania , arguably the most important swing state this election as it ’ s currently the likeliest “ tipping-point state ” in our forecast , or the state that could determine the winner of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in ballots have already been returned so far , almost one-third of the total number of votes cast in the state four years ago .
But because the state can ’ t begin processing mail ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day , it could be awhile before we get full results in Pennsylvania .
State officials have said that it could take until Friday to finish counting most ballots .
And between Tuesday and Friday , there could be a pretty big shift in terms of which party is favored in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are far more likely to vote early or absentee than Trump supporters , who are far more likely to vote on Election Day .
In other words , we need to brace ourselves for a “ blue shift ” in states like Pennsylvania .
That is , states that primarily report Election Day results first could show Republicans with an initial lead on election night only to then shift toward Democrats as more mail ballots are counted .
To be clear , this won ’ t be true everywhere .
Some states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes and will likely report a lot of its early in-person and mail votes ahead of many Election Day votes .
But it ’ s important to stress that this pattern — where the votes counted last shift the result in a Democratic direction — has existed in previous elections .
Historically , this is in part because some Democratic-leaning voting blocs , such as young voters , are more likely to cast last-minute absentee votes as well as provisional ballots , which are counted later .
But with the massive uptick in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lean of mail votes — polls suggest Biden might win around three-fourths of Pennsylvania mail-in ballots — the blue shift could be far larger this year than in past years .
Suffice it to say , we should be ready for a sizable swing in the vote , and Pennsylvania is probably not the only battleground state where we will see such a shift .
However , we ’ re not driving entirely blind : The results from Pennsylvania ’ s June 2 presidential primary give us some clues for how a blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what it might look like .
In that election , the more rural and Republican-leaning parts of the state reported a sizable majority of their results on election night , as their votes were disproportionately cast on Election Day .
In the state ’ s more populous and Democratic-leaning areas , it took roughly two and a half weeks to report most of the vote , due to the huge influx of mail-in ballots .
As a result , on election night , 3 a.m. Eastern , only 46 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported , compared to 71 percent of the GOP total , based on data from ABC News .
So what would this mean if something similar happened on election night in Pennsylvania ?
Well , if we use what our presidential forecast currently says about the race in Pennsylvania , we can game this out a little to understand what the vote count might look like on Nov. 3 .
We should be clear , though , that this analysis has its limits .
We can ’ t know for sure how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pace and trend of the count .
Not to mention , counting the votes in two separate primaries is different from counting the votes in one presidential contest .
Right now , our forecast estimates that about 6.8 million votes will be cast in Pennsylvania , on average , and the average popular vote result gives Biden about a 5-point edge over Trump , 52 percent to 47 percent .
If that panned out , that means Biden would win about 3.6 million votes to Trump ’ s 3.2 million ( with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
And if the vote count followed what we saw in the primary , less than half of Biden ’ s votes would be in by 3 a.m. on election night , whereas around 70 percent of Trump ’ s would be reported .
That means we could be looking at a situation where Trump has about a 16-point lead , 58 percent to 42 percent , based on approximately 60 percent of the total expected vote .
But over the course of the next few days — again , assuming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Biden would win two-thirds of the remaining votes , which would precipitate a 21-point shift in the overall margin from 3 a.m. on election night to the final result , as the chart below shows .
Now , it ’ s entirely possible the actual shift isn ’ t as large as the one outlined above .
After the primary , local election officials in Pennsylvania now have some experience in handling a huge number of mail ballots .
The state has also made investments to expedite the vote count .
Plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have already been turned in by Election Day , so administrators could have the majority of all mail votes when they begin processing them on Election Day morning .
Pennsylvania officials also want to make sure that voters aren ’ t surprised by a sizable vote shift so plan to be as transparent as possible .
Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar has said she will call on county election officials to regularly report the progress in counting mail ballots , instead of reporting them all at once , to avoid a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confusion .
And she ’ d also like the state to share how many ballots are left to count , where they are in the counting process and the party affiliation of the voters who cast those remaining votes .
Still , we ’ re talking about a lot of votes that have to be processed .
Just 2.7 million people cast ballots in Pennsylvania ’ s presidential primary , about 40 percent of the total turnout we ’ re expecting in the general election .
In fact , more people have requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s presidential primary , period .
That means even if officials are better prepared , they will still have far more mail ballots to process than in June .
And while they can begin processing at 7 a.m. on Nov. 3 , that still means verifying and processing each ballot , and only then counting each vote .
This could take days , which could affect how quickly we know who won the election .
And this brings us to one potential worry about a big blue shift , especially if the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare victory based on initial returns , as he ’ s claimed the result should be known on election night .
Now , declaring victory doesn ’ t really amount to much , as it has no legal bearing .
But doing so could help cast doubt on the results , especially if there is a subsequent shift toward Biden that ’ s accompanied by false claims of voting fraud , such as the ones the president has made numerous times already .
Experts from organizations such as the Transition Integrity Project have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scenario , Trump could try to figure out ways to interfere with post-Election Day counting to stop a potential blue shift .
Even if Trump doesn ’ t question the result , Pennsylvania ’ s blue shift could be affected by post-election court rulings in the state .
Take the fight over whether to count ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received by Nov. 6 .
The U.S. Supreme Court has twice now upheld the state ’ s Supreme Court ruling that extended the deadline , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled out revisiting the issue .
Justice Samuel Alito , joined by two of the court ’ s other conservative justices , wrote that while there was a “ strong likelihood ” that the state ’ s Supreme Court decision violated the U.S. Constitution , there simply wasn ’ t time to decide before the election .
However , ballots arriving after 8 p.m. Eastern on Election Day will be separated out , so the issue can be revisited if necessary after the election .
And if the Supreme Court does take up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deciding to not count these ballots could reduce the size of the vote shift in Biden ’ s favor because more Democratic votes would likely be affected , given the partisan split in mail voting .
For his part , Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped the courts would stop states from counting ballots beyond Election Day .
It ’ s impossible to say just how much the vote may shift after election night in Pennsylvania , but the primary results in the Keystone State suggest that we should be ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s probably not the only battleground state that will see a blue shift of some note .
For instance , Wisconsin can ’ t begin processing mail ballots until Election Day , and Michigan ’ s count is expected to stretch on for a few days , too .
The better prepared Americans are for lengthy counts and major vote shifts because of the increase in mail-in ballots , the less likely they are to believe misinformation about what those swings mean .

We know a majority of Americans plan to vote by mail or in person before Election Day, and at least 75 million have already cast ballots. This is an enormous uptick in votes cast early from 2016, and as a result, there’s a real possibility that we won’t know who won the presidency on election night.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Take Pennsylvania, arguably the most important swing state this election as it’s currently the likeliest “tipping-point state” in our forecast, or the state that could determine the winner of the Electoral College. About 2 million mail-in ballots have already been returned so far, almost one-third of the total number of votes cast in the state four years ago. But because the state can’t begin processing mail ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day, it could be awhile before we get full results in Pennsylvania. State officials have said that it could take until Friday to finish counting most ballots. And between Tuesday and Friday, there could be a pretty big shift in terms of which party is favored in the vote tally, given that Biden supporters are far more likely to vote early or absentee than Trump supporters, who are far more likely to vote on Election Day.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
In other words, we need to brace ourselves for a “blue shift” in states like Pennsylvania. That is, states that primarily report Election Day results first could show Republicans with an initial lead on election night only to then shift toward Democrats as more mail ballots are counted. To be clear, this won’t be true everywhere. Some states, like Florida, are already counting early votes and will likely report a lot of its early in-person and mail votes ahead of many Election Day votes.
But it’s important to stress that this pattern — where the votes counted last shift the result in a Democratic direction — has existed in previous elections. Historically, this is in part because some Democratic-leaning voting blocs, such as young voters, are more likely to cast last-minute absentee votes as well as provisional ballots, which are counted later. But with the massive uptick in voting by mail and the strongly Democratic lean of mail votes — polls suggest Biden might win around three-fourths of Pennsylvania mail-in ballots — the blue shift could be far larger this year than in past years.
Suffice it to say, we should be ready for a sizable swing in the vote, and Pennsylvania is probably not the only battleground state where we will see such a shift. However, we’re not driving entirely blind: The results from Pennsylvania’s June 2 presidential primary give us some clues for how a blue shift might happen, and more importantly, what it might look like.
In that election, the more rural and Republican-leaning parts of the state reported a sizable majority of their results on election night, as their votes were disproportionately cast on Election Day. In the state’s more populous and Democratic-leaning areas, it took roughly two and a half weeks to report most of the vote, due to the huge influx of mail-in ballots. As a result, on election night, 3 a.m. Eastern, only 46 percent of the final Democratic presidential primary vote had been reported, compared to 71 percent of the GOP total, based on data from ABC News.
So what would this mean if something similar happened on election night in Pennsylvania? Well, if we use what our presidential forecast currently says about the race in Pennsylvania, we can game this out a little to understand what the vote count might look like on Nov. 3. We should be clear, though, that this analysis has its limits. We can’t know for sure how many Pennsylvanians will actually vote in November or the pace and trend of the count. Not to mention, counting the votes in two separate primaries is different from counting the votes in one presidential contest.
Right now, our forecast estimates that about 6.8 million votes will be cast in Pennsylvania, on average, and the average popular vote result gives Biden about a 5-point edge over Trump, 52 percent to 47 percent. If that panned out, that means Biden would win about 3.6 million votes to Trump’s 3.2 million (with a few additional votes for other candidates). And if the vote count followed what we saw in the primary, less than half of Biden’s votes would be in by 3 a.m. on election night, whereas around 70 percent of Trump’s would be reported.
That means we could be looking at a situation where Trump has about a 16-point lead, 58 percent to 42 percent, based on approximately 60 percent of the total expected vote. But over the course of the next few days — again, assuming the same pattern we observed in the primary — Biden would win two-thirds of the remaining votes, which would precipitate a 21-point shift in the overall margin from 3 a.m. on election night to the final result, as the chart below shows.
Now, it’s entirely possible the actual shift isn’t as large as the one outlined above. After the primary, local election officials in Pennsylvania now have some experience in handling a huge number of mail ballots. The state has also made investments to expedite the vote count. Plus, a sizable share of mail ballots will have already been turned in by Election Day, so administrators could have the majority of all mail votes when they begin processing them on Election Day morning. Pennsylvania officials also want to make sure that voters aren’t surprised by a sizable vote shift so plan to be as transparent as possible. Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar has said she will call on county election officials to regularly report the progress in counting mail ballots, instead of reporting them all at once, to avoid a huge swing in the vote that might cause confusion. And she’d also like the state to share how many ballots are left to count, where they are in the counting process and the party affiliation of the voters who cast those remaining votes.
Still, we’re talking about a lot of votes that have to be processed. Just 2.7 million people cast ballots in Pennsylvania’s presidential primary, about 40 percent of the total turnout we’re expecting in the general election. In fact, more people have requested mail ballots than voted in Pennsylvania’s presidential primary, period. That means even if officials are better prepared, they will still have far more mail ballots to process than in June. And while they can begin processing at 7 a.m. on Nov. 3, that still means verifying and processing each ballot, and only then counting each vote. This could take days, which could affect how quickly we know who won the election.
Will millions of dollars on TV ads make a difference in the race for the presidency?
And this brings us to one potential worry about a big blue shift, especially if the election is close: Trump could try to declare victory based on initial returns, as he’s claimed the result should be known on election night. Now, declaring victory doesn’t really amount to much, as it has no legal bearing. But doing so could help cast doubt on the results, especially if there is a subsequent shift toward Biden that’s accompanied by false claims of voting fraud, such as the ones the president has made numerous times already. Experts from organizations such as the Transition Integrity Project have even expressed concern that, in such a scenario, Trump could try to figure out ways to interfere with post-Election Day counting to stop a potential blue shift.
Even if Trump doesn’t question the result, Pennsylvania’s blue shift could be affected by post-election court rulings in the state. Take the fight over whether to count ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received by Nov. 6. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice now upheld the state’s Supreme Court ruling that extended the deadline, but it’s not clear whether the court has entirely ruled out revisiting the issue. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by two of the court’s other conservative justices, wrote that while there was a “strong likelihood” that the state’s Supreme Court decision violated the U.S. Constitution, there simply wasn’t time to decide before the election. However, ballots arriving after 8 p.m. Eastern on Election Day will be separated out, so the issue can be revisited if necessary after the election. And if the Supreme Court does take up the case again after the election, deciding to not count these ballots could reduce the size of the vote shift in Biden’s favor because more Democratic votes would likely be affected, given the partisan split in mail voting. For his part, Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped the courts would stop states from counting ballots beyond Election Day.
It’s impossible to say just how much the vote may shift after election night in Pennsylvania, but the primary results in the Keystone State suggest that we should be ready for a sizable swing in the vote. And it’s probably not the only battleground state that will see a blue shift of some note. For instance, Wisconsin can’t begin processing mail ballots until Election Day, and Michigan’s count is expected to stretch on for a few days, too.
The better prepared Americans are for lengthy counts and major vote shifts because of the increase in mail-in ballots, the less likely they are to believe misinformation about what those swings mean.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--We Have A Lot Of New Polls, But There’s Little Sign Of The Presidential Race Tightening

Let ’ s dive right in .
Following our rules from my colleague Geoffrey Skelley ’ s post earlier this week , we ’ re going to look at every poll where at least half of the survey took place after last week ’ s debate , with a comparison to the most recent pre-debate survey by the same firm .
If the pollster hasn ’ t surveyed a state before , we ’ ll make the comparison based on what the FiveThirtyEight polling average said in that state as of the night of the debate ( Oct. 22 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set a cutoff for polls as of 7 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday .
( More will probably have filtered into the averages by the time that you ’ re reading this . )
We ’ ll rotate through the four major regions of the country — the South , the West , the Midwest and the Northeast .
But first , here are the post-debate national polls : On average , Biden leads by 9 percentage points using a simple average of post-debate national polls , which matches his 9-point lead in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a bit of a weird mix of polls , though , with more quantity than quality .
The only two fully live-caller national polls in here are from CNN and CNBC/Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies , which show Biden leading by 12 points and 11 points , respectively .
On the one hand , the trendlines aren ’ t so bad for Trump in those live-caller polls .
He trailed by 16 points in CNN ’ s previous national poll and by 9 points in the past Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to compare it to the prior NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll , which uses the same polling team ) .
On the other hand , the higher-quality national polls are showing worse results for Trump than the lower-quality polls , which is rarely a good sign .
More highly rated online firms — such as YouGov , Morning Consult and Ipsos — show Trump trailing by margins ranging from 9 to 12 points .
At least some of the fluctuations in our national polling average seem to reflect shifts in the ratio of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through cycles , and recently the higher-quality firms have mostly been concentrating on state polling .
Most of them will release their final national polls soon , though , and it wouldn ’ t be surprising if , following CNN and CNBC ’ s example , a few more of them show double-digit leads for Biden .
Something else to note : Although there ’ s been a slight decline in Biden ’ s national polls since the debate , a majority of state polls show his position improving .
To be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage points in the average state poll since the debate , while he ’ s lost 0.5 points in the average national poll .
That brings the national and state polls into better alignment after a period where national polls suggested that Biden led by 10 to 11 points but state polls were more consistent with a lead of about 9 points instead .
Let ’ s start our review of the regions with the South , where there ’ s been a lot of polling over the past couple of days : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coherent story here because every state in the region seems to be marching to its own fight song .
Biden ’ s gotten some great numbers in Georgia since the debate , but he ’ s had some terrible ones in Florida .
North Carolina is somewhere in between , with polls variously suggesting that he ’ s gaining or losing ground .
Do I buy that there are these microfluctations between neighboring states ?
I ’ m not sure that I do , particularly since you have a different mix of pollsters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia could use one or two more high-quality polls .
For the time being , though , Biden ’ s small lead in our Georgia polling average ( +1.4 ) nearly equals his lead in Florida ( also +1.4 ) and North Carolina ( +2.1 ) .
That means Georgia needs to be taken seriously as a plausible — if unlikely — tipping-point state .
It ’ s going to be the focus of a lot of resource expenditures over the final few days of the campaign , especially since it also has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a step or two away from the rest of the Southern group , meanwhile , as Trump leads in our polling average by 1.8 points there .
Next up on our whirlwind tour of America … the West : This is a decent set of polls for Biden , including in Arizona , where Biden ’ s lead has oscillated between 3 and 5 points in our polling average for most of the year .
It ’ s in the lower-to-mid part of that range now , at 3.5 points in our official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of post-debate Arizona polls is slightly better for him at +4.2 .
I realize this might seem like splitting hairs , but Arizona is an important state for Biden , insofar as it ’ s probably his best backup option if he loses Pennsylvania .
( If Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Arizona , Michigan and Wisconsin , he ’ d also need to find one more electoral vote somewhere to break a 269-269 Electoral College tie , but he ’ d probably get that in Nebraska ’ s 2nd Congressional District , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a world where Arizona is polling at Biden +5 , it ’ s really almost as though he has a Plan A1 ( Pennsylvania ) and Plan A2 ( Arizona plus NE-2 ) .
That would make his map more robust .
In a world where Arizona is Biden +2 or Biden +3 , conversely , it doesn ’ t really stand out from his other backup options , such as North Carolina and Florida , so it would be as though Biden has one Plan A ( Pennsylvania ) and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Midwest : FiveThirtyEight ’ s Nathaniel Rakich covered this region this morning , so I ’ ll be brief here .
This is the one part of the country where you can ’ t really say the race is steady ; instead , this has been a strong set of polling for Biden , and he ’ s gained an average of 1.7 points in surveys in this region versus the pre-debate polls .
No , Trump probably doesn ’ t trail in Wisconsin by 17 points , as he does in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good pollsters publish their outliers instead of sitting on them , and sometimes they turn out not to be outliers at all . )
But average the ABC News poll with the three other post-debate polls of Wisconsin , and Biden is still ahead by 10.5 points there .
Biden ’ s polling gains may reflect that the COVID-19 outbreak in the Upper Midwest is bad right now , especially in Wisconsin .
There is some evidence that the polls tend to shift against Trump following spikes in COVID-19 cases in a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as COVID-19 cases are also now rising sharply in many other states .
By the Northeast , as you can see from the chart above , I really just mean … Pennsylvania , plus one stray poll of Maine .
This region has been underpolled .
There haven ’ t been any live-caller polls of Pennsylvania since the debate , and the online and IVR polls show highly disparate results there .
New Hampshire has had no post-debate polling at all , meanwhile .
We go back and forth here at FiveThirtyEight about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northeast or the Midwest .
I ’ ve usually been a proponent of the theory that for political purposes , Pennsylvania behaves like a Midwestern state .
There are some important geographic , demographic and cultural differences between Pennsylvania and the Upper Midwest , however , and this year , the polling in Pennsylvania hasn ’ t tracked the numbers in Wisconsin and Michigan that well .
Pennsylvania is also not currently experiencing as bad of a COVID-19 outbreak as those other states .
So it may be less correlated with them than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the final round of high-quality , live-caller polls in Pennsylvania is likely to make a big difference to our model .
Pennsylvania is by far the most likely tipping-point state .
If Biden gets up to , say , a 6- or 7-point lead there , he ’ ll be in a much safer position overall in the Electoral College than if he gets knocked down to a 4-point lead here instead .
More polling of the Keystone State is surely to come soon .


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-29--The Stories That Haven’t Gotten Enough Coverage In 2020

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses the state of the race and which important @ @ @ @ @ t covered as much during the 2020 campaign .

The Stories That Haven’t Gotten Enough Coverage In 2020
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the state of the race and which important stories the press hasn’t covered as much during the 2020 campaign.