fivethirtyeight--2020-01-30--Election Update: A New Batch Of Iowa Polls Still Shows A Tight Race Between Sanders And Biden

The Iowa caucuses are now just five days away , so pollsters are busy trying to give us their final looks at where the candidates are heading into Iowa .
But for those of you hoping for a clearer picture of where things stand , I ’ m afraid there ’ s no such luck .
Three new Iowa polls dropped today pointing to a still very close race between Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden ( though former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren shouldn ’ t be written off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary forecast show that Biden is still in the lead with roughly a 1 in 2 ( 45 percent ) shot at winning a majority of pledged delegates , while Sanders has about a 3 in 10 ( 29 percent ) chance of doing so .
Buttigieg and Warren each have about a 1 in 20 ( 5 percent ) shot .
Compared to yesterday ’ s election update , these figures represent a 4-point improvement for Biden and a 2-point decrease for Sanders .
A fair bit of this has to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s code — the model was giving candidates extra credit for wins in their home states and regions when it was supposed to be deducting credit instead ( editor-in-chief Nate Silver has an explanation here ) .
But it ’ s also because Biden led in two of the three new Iowa surveys whereas Sanders led in both Iowa polls we talked about yesterday .
In our Iowa forecast , Sanders still leads slightly ( 37 percent versus Biden ’ s 35 percent ) .
This is unchanged from yesterday and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Buttigieg and Warren ’ s chances haven ’ t really shifted in the last 24 hours .
Although Sen. Amy Klobuchar did tick up a little today thanks to some double-digit showings in today ’ s batch of polls , though she remains a decided underdog with only a 3 percent shot at winning Iowa .
On balance , though , the newest Iowa surveys held some good news for Biden compared to some other recent surveys where Sanders did better , though the Vermont senator did still manage to make gains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • First , Monmouth University found Biden in the lead with 23 percent , followed by Sanders at 21 percent , Buttigieg at 16 percent , Warren at 15 percent and Klobuchar at 10 percent .
And even though Biden was the poll ’ s leader , he was actually down a point from where he was in Monmouth ’ s last Iowa poll from early January .
Buttigieg also fell a point , while Warren ’ s numbers were unchanged .
Sanders , on the other hand , ticked up three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Klobuchar two points ( though both gains were within the poll ’ s margin of error ) .
• Next , Morningside College made their 2020 debut this week with an Iowa poll that found Biden very slightly ahead of the field with 19 percent .
( Buttigieg came in second at 18 percent . )
Meanwhile , Sanders and Warren were tied with 15 percent support while Klobuchar had 12 percent .
• Finally , contrary to what Monmouth and Morningside found , Iowa State University/Civiqs ’ s new poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percentage points with 24 percent support .
Warren came next at 19 percent , followed by Buttigieg at 17 percent , Biden at 15 percent and Klobuchar at 11 percent .
But keep in mind that Iowa State/Civiqs has found strong numbers for Buttigieg and Warren in the past , so once we account for house effects , the model treats their results as 15 and 14 percent , respectively .
At the same time , this pollster has generally had Biden polling worse than other pollsters , so his number bumps up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less of a known house effect for Sanders , though , so our model keeps his support at 24 percent , up 3 points from the pollster ’ s December survey .
( Buttigieg fell 7 points from December and Klobuchar gained 7 points .
Biden and Warren ’ s numbers were roughly the same . )
Of course , we ’ re not just interested in the topline results in these polls either .
We ’ re also keeping an eye on questions regarding Iowa voters ’ second-choice preferences , as voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus night because voters have to shift support to a new candidate if their initial choice doesn ’ t meet a certain level of support at their caucus site ( usually 15 percent ) .
So if there ’ s one reason not to write Warren off , it ’ s that she was the top second-choice pick in both the Monmouth ( 19 percent ) and Iowa State/Civiqs ( 16 percent ) polls .
In other words , if she can remain viable at most caucus sites , she could still benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the same time , though , Monmouth found that if the field was limited only to the top-four candidates , Biden would lead with 29 percent , followed by Sanders at 25 percent , Buttigieg at 20 percent , Warren at 19 percent , so it ’ s unclear just how much room Warren has to gain as a popular second-choice pick .
One other thing to keep in mind that is going on under the hood with these polls is that pollsters are trying to gauge who is actually going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s much , much more involved than simply casting a ballot like in a primary .
University of Delaware political scientist David Redlawsk recently pointed out that some Iowa polls have small but meaningful differences in the age makeup of their likely caucus-goers , which may play some role in who ’ s doing better in a given poll .
For example , the Iowa State/Civiqs poll found Sanders leading among 18-to-34 year olds with 33 percent while Biden got just 1 percent !
But that survey estimated that 47 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years old , a boon for Sanders ’ s topline number , whereas the 2016 entrance poll found that just 42 percent of caucus-goers were under the age of 50 .
Of course , it ’ s difficult to say who is right when it comes to trying to figure out who is going to show up on Monday — will more young people caucus in 2020 than in 2016 ?
The answer is we won ’ t really know until caucus night , but it ’ s just another thing to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these polls .
And while Wednesday was an Iowa-heavy polling day , there was one new national poll from The Economist/YouGov that found the race between Biden and Sanders tightening .
In their survey , Biden led Sanders by just 2 points , 26 percent to 24 percent , with Warren in third at 20 percent .
This was a strong poll for Sanders , who was at 18 percent in last week ’ s Economist/YouGov national survey and 28 percent for Biden .
There isn ’ t a sizable house effect for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tends to do well in Economist/YouGov surveys .
Bottom line : The clock is ticking for Democrats in Iowa .
Candidates don ’ t have much time left to make last-minute appeals and undecided voters can ’ t vacillate between candidates for much longer either .
As recent polls and our forecast show , it ’ s shaping up to be a very competitive and potentially unpredictable contest — quite possibly the most competitive Iowa caucuses ever .

The Iowa caucuses are now just five days away, so pollsters are busy trying to give us their final looks at where the candidates are heading into Iowa. But for those of you hoping for a clearer picture of where things stand, I’m afraid there’s no such luck.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who will win the Iowa caucuses?]
Three new Iowa polls dropped today pointing to a still very close race between Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden (though former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t be written off). And topline numbers in our primary forecast show that Biden is still in the lead with roughly a 1 in 2 (45 percent) shot at winning a majority of pledged delegates, while Sanders has about a 3 in 10 (29 percent) chance of doing so. Buttigieg and Warren each have about a 1 in 20 (5 percent) shot.
Compared to yesterday’s election update, these figures represent a 4-point improvement for Biden and a 2-point decrease for Sanders. A fair bit of this has to do with fixing a bug in the model’s code — the model was giving candidates extra credit for wins in their home states and regions when it was supposed to be deducting credit instead (editor-in-chief Nate Silver has an explanation here). But it’s also because Biden led in two of the three new Iowa surveys whereas Sanders led in both Iowa polls we talked about yesterday.
In our Iowa forecast, Sanders still leads slightly (37 percent versus Biden’s 35 percent). This is unchanged from yesterday and is probably better thought of as a tie. Buttigieg and Warren’s chances haven’t really shifted in the last 24 hours. Although Sen. Amy Klobuchar did tick up a little today thanks to some double-digit showings in today’s batch of polls, though she remains a decided underdog with only a 3 percent shot at winning Iowa. On balance, though, the newest Iowa surveys held some good news for Biden compared to some other recent surveys where Sanders did better, though the Vermont senator did still manage to make gains in two of today’s polls:
First, Monmouth University found Biden in the lead with 23 percent, followed by Sanders at 21 percent, Buttigieg at 16 percent, Warren at 15 percent and Klobuchar at 10 percent. And even though Biden was the poll’s leader, he was actually down a point from where he was in Monmouth’s last Iowa poll from early January. Buttigieg also fell a point, while Warren’s numbers were unchanged. Sanders, on the other hand, ticked up three points from 18 percent to 21 percent, and Klobuchar two points (though both gains were within the poll’s margin of error).
Next, Morningside College made their 2020 debut this week with an Iowa poll that found Biden very slightly ahead of the field with 19 percent. (Buttigieg came in second at 18 percent.) Meanwhile, Sanders and Warren were tied with 15 percent support while Klobuchar had 12 percent.
Finally, contrary to what Monmouth and Morningside found, Iowa State University/Civiqs’s new poll found Sanders leading the field by 5 percentage points with 24 percent support. Warren came next at 19 percent, followed by Buttigieg at 17 percent, Biden at 15 percent and Klobuchar at 11 percent. But keep in mind that Iowa State/Civiqs has found strong numbers for Buttigieg and Warren in the past, so once we account for house effects, the model treats their results as 15 and 14 percent, respectively. At the same time, this pollster has generally had Biden polling worse than other pollsters, so his number bumps up to 18 percent. There’s less of a known house effect for Sanders, though, so our model keeps his support at 24 percent, up 3 points from the pollster’s December survey. (Buttigieg fell 7 points from December and Klobuchar gained 7 points. Biden and Warren’s numbers were roughly the same.)
Of course, we’re not just interested in the topline results in these polls either. We’re also keeping an eye on questions regarding Iowa voters’ second-choice preferences, as voters No. 2 could be important on caucus night because voters have to shift support to a new candidate if their initial choice doesn’t meet a certain level of support at their caucus site (usually 15 percent).
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
So if there’s one reason not to write Warren off, it’s that she was the top second-choice pick in both the Monmouth (19 percent) and Iowa State/Civiqs (16 percent) polls. In other words, if she can remain viable at most caucus sites, she could still benefit when some voters have to realign. At the same time, though, Monmouth found that if the field was limited only to the top-four candidates, Biden would lead with 29 percent, followed by Sanders at 25 percent, Buttigieg at 20 percent, Warren at 19 percent, so it’s unclear just how much room Warren has to gain as a popular second-choice pick.
One other thing to keep in mind that is going on under the hood with these polls is that pollsters are trying to gauge who is actually going to show up and caucus, a process that’s much, much more involved than simply casting a ballot like in a primary. University of Delaware political scientist David Redlawsk recently pointed out that some Iowa polls have small but meaningful differences in the age makeup of their likely caucus-goers, which may play some role in who’s doing better in a given poll. For example, the Iowa State/Civiqs poll found Sanders leading among 18-to-34 year olds with 33 percent while Biden got just 1 percent! But that survey estimated that 47 percent of likely caucus-goers will be under 50 years old, a boon for Sanders’s topline number, whereas the 2016 entrance poll found that just 42 percent of caucus-goers were under the age of 50. Of course, it’s difficult to say who is right when it comes to trying to figure out who is going to show up on Monday — will more young people caucus in 2020 than in 2016? The answer is we won’t really know until caucus night, but it’s just another thing to consider when looking at the topline numbers in these polls.
And while Wednesday was an Iowa-heavy polling day, there was one new national poll from The Economist/YouGov that found the race between Biden and Sanders tightening. In their survey, Biden led Sanders by just 2 points, 26 percent to 24 percent, with Warren in third at 20 percent. This was a strong poll for Sanders, who was at 18 percent in last week’s Economist/YouGov national survey and 28 percent for Biden. There isn’t a sizable house effect for either Biden or Sanders, though Warren tends to do well in Economist/YouGov surveys.
Bottom line: The clock is ticking for Democrats in Iowa. Candidates don’t have much time left to make last-minute appeals and undecided voters can’t vacillate between candidates for much longer either. As recent polls and our forecast show, it’s shaping up to be a very competitive and potentially unpredictable contest — quite possibly the most competitive Iowa caucuses ever.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-30--We’re Hiring 2020 Summer Interns

We’re Hiring 2020 Summer Interns

Exciting news !
FiveThirtyEight is hiring college students or recent graduates to work as paid interns this summer in the following positions : • Video/motion graphics intern .
This person will work on videos in politics , sports and more .
The intern will help conceive of and research topics for FiveThirtyEight ’ s YouTube channel and the ABC video player ; animate , edit and produce ; and help package the videos for online and social media distribution • Designer .
This intern will work with the art director and editors to decide how to make our stories visual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ captioning , and making your own illustrations for daily and feature stories .
• Podcast producer .
This person will help produce our award-winning podcasts , including doing topic research , setting up the recording studio and editing .
Candidates should have basic audio-editing skills and an interest in data journalism .
• Politics data reporter .
This intern will help our politics team as it covers the 2020 election .
The internship will be a mix of data-mining and analysis , writing , research , reporting and fact-checking .
• Sports data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct research and contribute to longer features .
Basic knowledge of the major sports is essential , and expertise in topics outside the traditional areas of coverage is a plus .
• Copy editor .
This intern will assist our copy desk in editing stories for accuracy , numeracy , grammar and style , with a particular focus on fact-checking and research .
• Data visualization intern .
This intern will design , edit and produce static graphics to accompany articles .
The ideal candidate will have experience making data graphics using design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as JavaScript , Python and R. General comfort with numbers is essential , as is experience with spreadsheet software such as Excel .
For more information and to apply , please use the following links :

Exciting news! FiveThirtyEight is hiring college students or recent graduates to work as paid interns this summer in the following positions:
Video/motion graphics intern. This person will work on videos in politics, sports and more. The intern will help conceive of and research topics for FiveThirtyEight’s YouTube channel and the ABC video player; animate, edit and produce; and help package the videos for online and social media distribution Designer. This intern will work with the art director and editors to decide how to make our stories visual, including photo research, cropping and captioning, and making your own illustrations for daily and feature stories. Podcast producer. This person will help produce our award-winning podcasts, including doing topic research, setting up the recording studio and editing. Candidates should have basic audio-editing skills and an interest in data journalism. Politics data reporter. This intern will help our politics team as it covers the 2020 election. The internship will be a mix of data-mining and analysis, writing, research, reporting and fact-checking. Sports data reporter. This intern will write, conduct research and contribute to longer features. Basic knowledge of the major sports is essential, and expertise in topics outside the traditional areas of coverage is a plus. Copy editor. This intern will assist our copy desk in editing stories for accuracy, numeracy, grammar and style, with a particular focus on fact-checking and research. Data visualization intern. This intern will design, edit and produce static graphics to accompany articles. The ideal candidate will have experience making data graphics using design tools such as Illustrator or programming languages such as JavaScript, Python and R. General comfort with numbers is essential, as is experience with spreadsheet software such as Excel.
For more information and to apply, please use the following links:


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-30--Bloomberg’s Super Tuesday Strategy Might Be Working

One candidate you likely won ’ t be hearing about next week , but who still has a chance to pick up some delegates in later contests ?
Michael Bloomberg .
The former New York City mayor entered the race late in November and has a bit of an unorthodox strategy : He is skipping the early-voting states ( he won ’ t even be on the ballot for the New Hampshire primary ) and is instead focusing on Super Tuesday and beyond .
It ’ s unclear just how far his strategy will take him , but on Jan. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fourth place in our national polling average .
Bloomberg now sits at 8 percent , putting him one point above former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , who is now in fifth with 7 percent support .
So where exactly has Bloomberg been gaining momentum ?
Not surprisingly , in Super Tuesday states and beyond ( meaning those states where the primary is later ) .
According to a recent Monmouth University national poll , Bloomberg polls at 12 percent among Democratic voters whose state primary is after March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 percent among respondents whose state primary is earlier .
And in many Super Tuesday states , or states with even later primaries , Bloomberg is now polling in the top four .
Many of these states don ’ t have enough polls for us to calculate a reliable polling average , but in those that do , Bloomberg has shown signs of improvement in recent weeks .
In Texas and North Carolina , for instance , Bloomberg has overtaken Buttigieg and sits in fourth with between 8 and 9 percent support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida ( ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren ) and fourth-highest in Michigan , Ohio , Georgia , Pennsylvania and New Jersey , whose primaries all fall after Super Tuesday .
In California , however , he remains in fifth place with 6 percent .
And in states where we don ’ t have polling averages yet , recent polls suggest that Bloomberg could finish in the top tier .
In the past week , individual polls have Bloomberg tied for second in New York and trailing only former Vice President Joe Biden in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Suffolk University poll of Utah , at 13 percent .
So what explains Bloomberg ’ s polling bump so far ?
And what do we know about Bloomberg ’ s base of support ?
Well , the first question can probably be summed up pretty neatly .
Bloomberg has spent a lot of money on TV ads .
In fact , he ’ s spent more than any other candidate running for president , including billionaire Tom Steyer , who ’ s also dropped a significant amount of money in some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group , Bloomberg has spent an estimated $ 224 million on TV ad spots since entering the race , much of it concentrated in Super Tuesday states .
In Texas , for instance , he has spent an estimated $ 24 million .
And in all the Super Tuesday states combined , Bloomberg has spent about $ 91 million , which is four times more than what Steyer has spent ( about $ 23 million ) and more than 13 times what the rest of the Democratic candidates have spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money seems to be paying off in both the polls and the endorsement primary .
Bloomberg is hardly the most popular candidate among party elites , but he has picked up some key endorsements in recent weeks : He now has the same number of endorsement points as Buttigieg .
On Monday , Rep. Scott Peters from California voiced his support for Bloomberg , making that his fifth congressional endorsement .
His endorsers are geographically diverse , too , which potentially indicates his strategy is successful in building a broad base of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg ’ s burgeoning base , it is mostly older , wealthier and more moderate Democratic voters .
This is perhaps not that surprising , considering Bloomberg has consistently branded himself as an alternative moderate candidate .
For instance , per a recent national Echelon Insights poll , Bloomberg was the second-most popular candidate for moderate or conservative likely Democratic primary voters , picking up 20 percent support .
Only Biden , at 23 percent , picked up more support among these voters .
But there are also signs that Bloomberg might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color ( who make up almost half of Democratic primary voters ) and those without a college degree ( about 38 percent of primary voters ) .
In December , a national Monmouth University poll found that 3 percent of nonwhite Democratic voters said they supported Bloomberg .
But that figure had grown to 8 percent in its January poll .
The pollster also found Bloomberg ’ s support among voters without a college degree grew from 4 percent in December to 10 percent in January .
Fox News and SurveyUSA polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base : Fox News ’ s latest poll shows a 5-point uptick in support among nonwhite Democratic primary voters ( 5 percent to 10 percent ) and a 4-point bump ( 2 percent to 6 percent ) among non-college educated white voters since December .
SurveyUSA , meanwhile , found a 5-point gain among black voters ( 2 percent to 7 percent ) and a 6-point gain among voters with just a high school diploma since late November .
Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Super Tuesday states and beyond has put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still unanswered question is whether he can maintain his front-runner status while skipping the first four contests .
If he can , some of the later states are very delegate rich , so skipping the first four could pay off for Bloomberg .
But it would also be unprecedented for someone to enter the presidential race this late and win the nomination .
Then again , Bloomberg ’ s whole strategy is kind of unprecedented , so maybe being out of sight and out of mind in the first four states won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can instead focus on his advantage in the states that come next .
Either way , we ’ ll be keeping track of state and national polls to see if Bloomberg continues to gain momentum or if he hits a ceiling .

One candidate you likely won’t be hearing about next week, but who still has a chance to pick up some delegates in later contests? Michael Bloomberg.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
The former New York City mayor entered the race late in November and has a bit of an unorthodox strategy: He is skipping the early-voting states (he won’t even be on the ballot for the New Hampshire primary) and is instead focusing on Super Tuesday and beyond. It’s unclear just how far his strategy will take him, but on Jan. 23, the billionaire jumped from fifth to fourth place in our national polling average. Bloomberg now sits at 8 percent, putting him one point above former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who is now in fifth with 7 percent support.
So where exactly has Bloomberg been gaining momentum? Not surprisingly, in Super Tuesday states and beyond (meaning those states where the primary is later). According to a recent Monmouth University national poll, Bloomberg polls at 12 percent among Democratic voters whose state primary is after March 3 — Super Tuesday — but just 5 percent among respondents whose state primary is earlier.
And in many Super Tuesday states, or states with even later primaries, Bloomberg is now polling in the top four. Many of these states don’t have enough polls for us to calculate a reliable polling average, but in those that do, Bloomberg has shown signs of improvement in recent weeks. In Texas and North Carolina, for instance, Bloomberg has overtaken Buttigieg and sits in fourth with between 8 and 9 percent support. He has the third-highest polling average in Florida (ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren) and fourth-highest in Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, whose primaries all fall after Super Tuesday. In California, however, he remains in fifth place with 6 percent. And in states where we don’t have polling averages yet, recent polls suggest that Bloomberg could finish in the top tier. In the past week, individual polls have Bloomberg tied for second in New York and trailing only former Vice President Joe Biden in Missouri. He was also fourth in a Suffolk University poll of Utah, at 13 percent.
So what explains Bloomberg’s polling bump so far? And what do we know about Bloomberg’s base of support?
Well, the first question can probably be summed up pretty neatly.
Bloomberg has spent a lot of money on TV ads. In fact, he’s spent more than any other candidate running for president, including billionaire Tom Steyer, who’s also dropped a significant amount of money in some of these states. According to data from Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group, Bloomberg has spent an estimated $224 million on TV ad spots since entering the race, much of it concentrated in Super Tuesday states. In Texas, for instance, he has spent an estimated $24 million. And in all the Super Tuesday states combined, Bloomberg has spent about $91 million, which is four times more than what Steyer has spent (about $23 million) and more than 13 times what the rest of the Democratic candidates have spent — about $7 million.
Bloomberg is all in on Super Tuesday states Estimated TV ad spending by Bloomberg, Steyer and the remainder of Democratic president candidates in early and Super Tuesday states Early states Bloomberg Steyer Field Iowa $406,320 $11,472,110 $27,335,610 New Hampshire 115,510 2,867,390 3,522,280 Nevada 1,650 9,725,830 218,710 South Carolina 1,218,310 10,610,040 866,690 Super Tuesday Bloomberg Steyer Field California $29,830,340 $9,748,850 $0 Texas 24,090,200 168,970 0 North Carolina 6,244,540 44,160 0 Viriginia 2,682,220 50,730 0 Massachusetts 4,165,310 12,131,210 3,753,590 Minnesota 5,770,930 102,390 1,399,400 Colorado 4,092,850 20,250 1,640 Tennessee 3,411,500 63,030 0 Alabama 3,174,910 94,140 0 Oklahoma 1,988,050 28,530 0 Arkansas 1,527,530 39,700 0 Utah 1,846,650 16,520 0 Maine 1,424,920 22,770 788,330 Vermont 348,650 8,060 691,870 Data includes ads aired through Jan. 29. Candidates who dropped out are not included in the field. Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group groups ad airings by state, but because media markets do not follow state boundaries, ads listed as airing in one state may have also aired in adjoining states. The data includes ads that have aired on local network television, national network television and national cable television. Source: Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group
That money seems to be paying off in both the polls and the endorsement primary. Bloomberg is hardly the most popular candidate among party elites, but he has picked up some key endorsements in recent weeks: He now has the same number of endorsement points as Buttigieg. On Monday, Rep. Scott Peters from California voiced his support for Bloomberg, making that his fifth congressional endorsement. His endorsers are geographically diverse, too, which potentially indicates his strategy is successful in building a broad base of support.
As for who exactly makes up Bloomberg’s burgeoning base, it is mostly older, wealthier and more moderate Democratic voters. This is perhaps not that surprising, considering Bloomberg has consistently branded himself as an alternative moderate candidate. For instance, per a recent national Echelon Insights poll, Bloomberg was the second-most popular candidate for moderate or conservative likely Democratic primary voters, picking up 20 percent support. Only Biden, at 23 percent, picked up more support among these voters.
But there are also signs that Bloomberg might be able to attract more support among voters of color (who make up almost half of Democratic primary voters) and those without a college degree (about 38 percent of primary voters). In December, a national Monmouth University poll found that 3 percent of nonwhite Democratic voters said they supported Bloomberg. But that figure had grown to 8 percent in its January poll. The pollster also found Bloomberg’s support among voters without a college degree grew from 4 percent in December to 10 percent in January. Fox News and SurveyUSA polls also found signs of Bloomberg diversifying his base: Fox News’s latest poll shows a 5-point uptick in support among nonwhite Democratic primary voters (5 percent to 10 percent) and a 4-point bump (2 percent to 6 percent) among non-college educated white voters since December. SurveyUSA, meanwhile, found a 5-point gain among black voters (2 percent to 7 percent) and a 6-point gain among voters with just a high school diploma since late November.
Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Super Tuesday states and beyond has put Bloomberg on the map, but the still unanswered question is whether he can maintain his front-runner status while skipping the first four contests. If he can, some of the later states are very delegate rich, so skipping the first four could pay off for Bloomberg. But it would also be unprecedented for someone to enter the presidential race this late and win the nomination. Then again, Bloomberg’s whole strategy is kind of unprecedented, so maybe being out of sight and out of mind in the first four states won’t sink his campaign, and he can instead focus on his advantage in the states that come next. Either way, we’ll be keeping track of state and national polls to see if Bloomberg continues to gain momentum or if he hits a ceiling.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-30--The Senate Seems Headed Towards A Quick Trump Acquittal

It ’ s looking increasingly likely that President Trump and Senate Republican leaders will get what they wanted from the start of this impeachment trial : a two-week trial that ends with every Republican — and a few Democrats — voting for the president ’ s acquittal .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Trump administration seem to have successfully navigated what appeared earlier this week to be a big threat to their plans for a quick acquittal : the news that former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly wrote in his upcoming book that Trump told him that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held up unless they investigated the Bidens .
The White House has signaled they will fight hard to prevent Bolton from testifying in the impeachment trial , arguing that his conversations with the president are covered by executive privilege and that his book manuscript contains classified information .
These claims are highly contested .
But Republican senators who probably didn ’ t want to hear from witnesses in the first place can argue that Bolton would never end up testifying anyway , because the dispute would be tied up in court .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as of Thursday morning , that four Republican senators are willing to join the 47 Democrats to call for witnesses in the Senate trial .
And Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer did not sound optimistic about winning a witness vote when asked about it by reporters on Wednesday .
So what happens now ?
If Republicans are successful in defeating Democratic motions for additional witnesses and documents , the GOP will likely push for a final vote on Trump ’ s removal as soon as Friday .
And it seems likely that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who are open to witnesses , will vote for Trump ’ s acquittal , resulting in a unanimous vote for acquittal from the GOP .
Up to three Democrats might join them .
In public comments this week , Sens .
Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin of West Virginia like they are not fully on board with their party ’ s impeachment case .
And a third Democratic senator , centrist Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona , is also considered a possible vote for Trump ’ s acquittal .
In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next several days .
On Friday , a unified GOP could vote against his impeachment .
Three days later , Bernie Sanders has a decent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses .
So Trump , in his State of the Union address — which is scheduled for Tuesday night — could cast himself as both exonerated of the charges against him and prepared to defend America from socialism .
But let ’ s not get too far ahead of ourselves .
On Thursday , senators will continue to ask questions of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic impeachment managers .
Little emerged that was particularly noteworthy or surprising from Wednesday ’ s round of questions .
At the moment , it really seems like the only unresolved issue is how much Bolton wants to force a confrontation with Trump .
In 2017 , James Comey , fired by Trump as FBI director , engaged in a public battle with the president .
If Bolton wants to push this impeachment away from where it ’ s headed ( a fairly-undramatic acquittal of Trump ) , Thursday is probably his last @ @ @ @ @ @

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

It’s looking increasingly likely that President Trump and Senate Republican leaders will get what they wanted from the start of this impeachment trial: a two-week trial that ends with every Republican — and a few Democrats — voting for the president’s acquittal.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Trump administration seem to have successfully navigated what appeared earlier this week to be a big threat to their plans for a quick acquittal: the news that former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly wrote in his upcoming book that Trump told him that military aid to the Ukrainians would be held up unless they investigated the Bidens. The White House has signaled they will fight hard to prevent Bolton from testifying in the impeachment trial, arguing that his conversations with the president are covered by executive privilege and that his book manuscript contains classified information. These claims are highly contested. But Republican senators who probably didn’t want to hear from witnesses in the first place can argue that Bolton would never end up testifying anyway, because the dispute would be tied up in court.
In all, there is little indication, as of Thursday morning, that four Republican senators are willing to join the 47 Democrats to call for witnesses in the Senate trial. And Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer did not sound optimistic about winning a witness vote when asked about it by reporters on Wednesday.
So what happens now?
If Republicans are successful in defeating Democratic motions for additional witnesses and documents, the GOP will likely push for a final vote on Trump’s removal as soon as Friday. And it seems likely that even Republicans such as Mitt Romney of Utah, who are open to witnesses, will vote for Trump’s acquittal, resulting in a unanimous vote for acquittal from the GOP.
Up to three Democrats might join them. In public comments this week, Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin of West Virginia like they are not fully on board with their party’s impeachment case. And a third Democratic senator, centrist Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, is also considered a possible vote for Trump’s acquittal.
In fact, Trump might end up really loving the next several days. On Friday, a unified GOP could vote against his impeachment. Three days later, Bernie Sanders has a decent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses. So Trump, in his State of the Union address — which is scheduled for Tuesday night — could cast himself as both exonerated of the charges against him and prepared to defend America from socialism.
But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. On Thursday, senators will continue to ask questions of Trump’s legal team and the House Democratic impeachment managers. Little emerged that was particularly noteworthy or surprising from Wednesday’s round of questions.
At the moment, it really seems like the only unresolved issue is how much Bolton wants to force a confrontation with Trump. In 2017, James Comey, fired by Trump as FBI director, engaged in a public battle with the president. If Bolton wants to push this impeachment away from where it’s headed (a fairly-undramatic acquittal of Trump), Thursday is probably his last real chance to do so.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-05--Buttigieg And/Or Sanders Are Going To Win Iowa. What Happens Next?

Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders each led at least one of the three metrics that Iowa Democrats finally released on Tuesday , reflecting the various ways that Iowa counts its caucus votes .
State delegate equivalents , the measure that has gotten by far the most attention from the media because it ’ s traditionally the way that Iowa has counted its vote , showed Buttigieg ahead 27 to 25 percent , with 62 percent of precincts reporting .
But Sanders narrowly led in two measures of the popular vote , taken before and after voters were given the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their original choice was deemed not viable .
If the split verdict holds , it will be an appropriately weird outcome for a weird-as-hell Iowa caucus .
But it also comes at a rather awkward time for our forecast model , which tries to anticipate how polls could change after Iowa .
The weirdness makes it harder to guess in which direction polls will change and by how much .
( For the time being , the model is still frozen until we get more complete Iowa results . )
The basic way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting is this : It makes educated guesses about how each candidate ’ s standing in national polls and in subsequent states will improve or decline based on how well they did , accounting for both their share of the vote and whether or not they won the state .
This performance is then measured relative to “ expectations , ” which the model defines as national polls , adjusted by regional factors .
The fact that Buttigieg did much better in Iowa ( 27 percent of state delegate equivalents so far ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s at only 7 percent nationally ) would suggest the possibility for a fairly large bounce , for instance — although the model slightly discounts Buttigieg ’ s performance since Iowa is a Midwestern state and Buttigieg is from the Midwest .
Our research also finds that much ( though not all ) of the bounce after major states vote is binary , meaning that who wins the state matters a lot .
It isn ’ t necessarily a continuum .
So when there are multiple potential definitions of the winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I discuss this further , some good news : None of this is going to matter in a few days .
That ’ s because , once we get a few post-Iowa polls , the model will just use those to measure the bounce and discard whatever assumptions we made initially .
In the interim , however our assumptions matter quite a bit .
In part , that ’ s because Buttigieg needs all the bounce that he can get to have a shot at winning the most pledged delegates .
Based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trailed Sanders 25 to12 there ( and was in fourth place , also behind Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren ) .
While 13 points isn ’ t a crazy amount to overcome , especially in a state where polls can be as volatile as they are in New Hampshire , it isn ’ t easy either — especially when Sanders also performed well in Iowa and could also gain more in New Hampshire polls .
And Buttigieg probably needs to win New Hampshire — or come very close to doing so — because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for him .
He ’ s polling at just 6 percent in Nevada and only 4 percent in South Carolina .
In other words , it ’ s highly unlikely , even if Buttigieg does get a big Iowa bounce , that he can win those states ( especially South Carolina , given his poor standing with black voters ) .
So he needs to build up enough momentum that he can afford to take losses there — and still remain in a reasonably good position for Super Tuesday .
To get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ran through 2,500 simulations of each of the following three scenarios on Tuesday night : • Scenario 1 : Iowa results remain exactly as they were initially reported on Tuesday afternoon .
In this scenario , we split the winner bonus 50/50 between Sanders and Buttigieg to reflect the competing claims to victory there .
• Scenario 2 : Sanders slightly improves his position after the rest of the vote is counted , enough that he wins all three measures and gets 100 percent of the winner bonus .
• Scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the rest of the vote is counted , winning all three measures and getting 100 percent of the winner bonus .
Here are the chances of each candidate winning New Hampshire under each scenario : As you can see , Sanders is a favorite to win New Hampshire no matter what .
It ’ s really convenient for Sanders that one of his best states in the primary is coming up next .
If he ’ s the unambiguous winner of Iowa he ’ d be an 89 percent favorite in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ d be a 57 percent favorite .
Meanwhile , Buttigieg ’ s chances of winning New Hampshire would be just 4 percent if Sanders is declared the winner in Iowa but would shoot up to 30 percent if he wins Iowa unambiguously .
To be honest , that ’ s probably too wide a spread .
Given how long it ’ s taken to count Iowa ’ s vote , many media narratives about the race have already set in .
Heck , there might not even be much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus results get drowned out of the news cycle .
Voters may instead simply have a vague sense that both Buttigieg and Sanders did well , and that sense might not change very much depending on who eventually winds up winning each vote count .
This is a pretty annoying edge case .
That said , here ’ s how each of those three scenarios in Iowa outcome could affect the overall chances a candidate has of winning the majority of pledged delegates : Sanders chances would be 64 percent if he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but only 36 percent if Buttigieg is instead .
Buttigieg ’ s majority chances on the other hand would be 10 percent if he wins Iowa — again , keep in mind how much ground he has to make up in more diverse states — but just 1 percent if Sanders wins outright .
Again , that ’ s probably too wide a gap , given the realities of the situation in Iowa and the lack of clear headlines there .
And keep in mind that we ’ re talking about the chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and there ’ s an increasing chance that nobody wins one .
If Buttigieg wins Iowa , the chances of no candidate winning a majority of pledged delegates shoots up to 26 percent ( they were 17 percent before Iowa ) .
They ’ d also be at 21 percent with a split verdict .
To recap , our process for updating the model will be as follows : • Once we feel we can characterize Iowa with a high degree of confidence , we ’ ll plug the results into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If there are still split winners , then both Sanders and Buttigieg will each get at least some credit for winning the state , although we ’ re still debating internally exactly what that split should look like .
• At that point , you ’ ll see the model swing in one of the directions you see above , depending on which scenario we wind up with .
It will also react to all the other new data — new endorsements , polls , and so forth — that have been bottlenecked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday afternoon .
Note that no matter what , Biden is going to have a big downward swing in his chances .
• Finally , once we get post-Iowa polls , the model may react quite strongly to them .
We ’ re expecting Biden to decline in national polls , for instance — if that doesn ’ t happen , he ’ ll bounce back to somewhere around where he was before in the forecast ( he had a 43 percent chance of a delegate majority before Iowa voted ) .
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model is expecting in Nevada and South Carolina polls .
Maybe Sanders , whom the model is expecting to see improve his standing , will decline instead .
Any of this is possible — the range of possibilities is always fairly wide after Iowa , and it ’ s considerably wider than normal because of all the ambiguities there .
So you should expect a lot of turbulence in the forecast over the next few days .

Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders each led at least one of the three metrics that Iowa Democrats finally released on Tuesday, reflecting the various ways that Iowa counts its caucus votes. State delegate equivalents, the measure that has gotten by far the most attention from the media because it’s traditionally the way that Iowa has counted its vote, showed Buttigieg ahead 27 to 25 percent, with 62 percent of precincts reporting. But Sanders narrowly led in two measures of the popular vote, taken before and after voters were given the opportunity to realign to a new candidate if their original choice was deemed not viable.
If the split verdict holds, it will be an appropriately weird outcome for a weird-as-hell Iowa caucus. But it also comes at a rather awkward time for our forecast model, which tries to anticipate how polls could change after Iowa. The weirdness makes it harder to guess which direction polls will change in and by how much. (For the time being, the model is still frozen until we get more complete Iowa results.)
The basic way the model works once a state finishes voting is this: It makes educated guesses about how each candidate’s standing in national polls and in subsequent states will improve or decline based on how well they did, accounting for both their share of the vote and whether or not they won the state. This performance is then measured relative to “expectations,” which the model defines as national polls, adjusted by regional factors. The fact that Buttigieg did much better in Iowa (27 percent of state delegate equivalents so far) than his national polls might imply (he’s at only 7 percent nationally) would suggest the possibility of a fairly large bounce, for instance — although the model slightly discounts Buttigieg’s performance since Iowa is a Midwestern state and Buttigieg is from the Midwest.
Our research also finds that much (though not all) of the bounce after major states vote is binary, meaning that who wins the state matters a lot. It isn’t necessarily a continuum. So when there are multiple potential definitions of the winner, that creates a problem.
Before I discuss this further, some good news: None of this is going to matter in a few days. That’s because, once we get a few post-Iowa polls, the model will just use those to measure the bounce and discard whatever assumptions we made initially.
In the interim, however, our assumptions matter quite a bit. In part, that’s because Buttigieg needs all the bounce that he can get to have a shot at winning the most pledged delegates. Based on pre-Iowa polls of New Hampshire, he trailed Sanders 24 to 13 there (and was in fourth place, also behind Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren). While 11 points isn’t a crazy amount to overcome, especially in a state where polls can be as volatile as they are in New Hampshire, it isn’t easy either — especially when Sanders also performed well in Iowa and could gain more in New Hampshire polls.
And Buttigieg probably needs to win New Hampshire — or come very close to doing so — because the states that follow aren’t good for him. He’s polling at just 6 percent in Nevada and only 4 percent in South Carolina. In other words, it’s highly unlikely, even if Buttigieg does get a big Iowa bounce, that he can win those states (especially South Carolina, given his poor standing with black voters). So he needs to build up enough momentum that he can afford to take losses there and still remain in a reasonably good position for Super Tuesday.
To get an early read on all of this, we ran through 2,500 simulations of each of the following three scenarios on Tuesday night:
Scenario 1: Iowa results remain exactly as they were initially reported on Tuesday afternoon. In this scenario, we split the winner bonus 50/50 between Sanders and Buttigieg to reflect the competing claims to victory there.
Iowa results remain exactly as they were initially reported on Tuesday afternoon. In this scenario, we split the winner bonus 50/50 between Sanders and Buttigieg to reflect the competing claims to victory there. Scenario 2: Sanders slightly improves his position after the rest of the vote is counted, enough that he wins all three measures and gets 100 percent of the winner bonus.
Sanders slightly improves his position after the rest of the vote is counted, enough that he wins all three measures and gets 100 percent of the winner bonus. Scenario 3: Buttigieg slightly improves his position after the rest of the vote is counted, winning all three measures and getting 100 percent of the winner bonus.
Here are the chances of each candidate winning New Hampshire under each scenario:
How will Iowa’s final results affect New Hampshire? Chances of winning the majority of votes in the New Hampshire primary based on three possible scenarios in Iowa, according to 2,500 simulations in the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast Candidate Scenario 1: Split Verdict in Iowa Scenario 2: Sanders wins Iowa Scenario 3: Buttigieg Wins Iowa Sanders 74% 89% 57% Buttigieg 14 4 30 Warren 7 4 7 Biden 5 3 6 Other <1 <1 <1
As you can see, Sanders is a favorite to win New Hampshire no matter what. It’s really convenient for Sanders that one of his best states in the primary is coming up next. If he’s the unambiguous winner of Iowa, he’d be an 89 percent favorite in the model, whereas if Buttigieg wins Iowa, Sanders would be a 57 percent favorite. Meanwhile, Buttigieg’s chances of winning New Hampshire would be just 4 percent if Sanders is declared the winner in Iowa but would shoot up to 30 percent if Buttigieg wins Iowa unambiguously.
To be honest, that’s probably too wide a spread. Given how long it’s taken to count Iowa’s vote, many media narratives about the race have already set in. Heck, there might not even be much of an Iowa bounce at all if the caucus results get drowned out of the news cycle. Voters may instead simply have a vague sense that both Buttigieg and Sanders did well, and that sense might not change very much depending on who eventually winds up winning each vote count. This is a pretty annoying edge case.
That said, here’s how each of those three scenarios in Iowa outcome could affect the overall chances a candidate has of winning the majority of pledged delegates nationally:
How will Iowa’s final results affect the overall race? Chances of winning the majority of pledged delegates based on three possible scenarios in Iowa, according to 2,500 simulations in the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast Candidate Scenario 1: Split Verdict in Iowa Scenario 2: Sanders wins Iowa Scenario 3: Buttigieg Wins Iowa Sanders 48% 64% 36% No Majority 23 16 26 Biden 17 14 21 Buttigieg 5 1 10 Warren 7 6 7 Other <1 <1 <1
Sanders’s chances would be 64 percent if he’s deemed the winner of Iowa, but only 36 percent if Buttigieg is instead. Buttigieg’s majority chances, on the other hand, would be 10 percent if he wins Iowa — again, keep in mind how much ground he has to make up in more diverse states — but just 1 percent if Sanders wins outright. Again, that’s probably too wide a gap, given the realities of the situation in Iowa and the lack of clear headlines there. And keep in mind that we’re talking about the chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates — and there’s an increasing chance that nobody wins one. If Buttigieg wins Iowa, the chances of no candidate winning a majority of pledged delegates shoots up to 26 percent (they were 17 percent before Iowa). They’d also be at 23 percent with a split verdict.
To recap, our process for updating the model will be as follows:
Once we feel we can characterize Iowa with a high degree of confidence, we’ll plug the results into the model and turn it back on. If there are still split winners, then both Sanders and Buttigieg will each get at least some credit for winning the state, although we’re still debating internally exactly what that split should look like.
credit for winning the state, although we’re still debating internally exactly what that split should look like. At that point, you’ll see the model swing in one of the directions you see above, depending on which scenario we wind up with. It will also react to all the other new data — new endorsements, polls and so forth — that have not been fed into the model since we turned it off on Monday afternoon. Note that no matter what, Biden is going to have a big downward swing in his chances.
Finally, once we get post-Iowa polls, the model may react quite strongly to them. We’re expecting Biden to decline in national polls, for instance — if that doesn’t happen, he’ll bounce back to somewhere around where he was before in the forecast (he had a 43 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates before Iowa voted). Maybe Buttigieg shows much more improvement than the model is expecting in Nevada and South Carolina polls. Maybe Sanders, whom the model is expecting to improve his standing, will decline instead.
Any of this is possible — the range of possibilities is always fairly wide after Iowa, and it’s considerably wider than normal because of all the ambiguities there. So you should expect a lot of turbulence in the forecast over the next few days.
Which candidate is spinning Iowa caucuses insanity best? + 538 Has Internships!


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-05--Our Post-Iowa Primary Forecast Is Up, And Biden’s Chances Are Down

Now that we finally have some clarity on Iowa ’ s results — with 86 percent of precincts reporting — we ’ ve turned our primary model back on , including its estimates of the potential fallout from Iowa .
The model shows former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates being halved — from 43 percent before Iowa to 21 percent now .
Who gains from Biden ’ s decline ?
Well , a little bit of everyone .
The model thinks Iowa was more good news than bad news for Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat close call .
His chances have advanced to 37 percent , from 31 percent before Iowa , making him the most likely person to achieve that majority .
Pete Buttigieg ’ s chances are also up , to 6 percent from 4 percent before , but even after getting most of the credit for winning Iowa in the model ( more about that in a moment ) , they haven ’ t improved by as much as you think .
That ’ s because , as I explained in Wednesday night ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work cut out for him in building a broader coalition ; it ’ s going to require a big bounce in states and among demographic groups where the former mayor is not currently strong .
With that said , Buttigieg is potentially quite competitive in New Hampshire , where our model gives him a 20 percent chance of winning , and that could give him a further boost .
Buttigieg has a 9 percent chance of winning the plurality of pledged delegates .
The gap between his plurality and the majority odds reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the field remaining divided between several candidates .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s majority chances are also slightly up , according to our model , having improved to 10 percent from 5 percent before .
That ’ s because in a more chaotic field , with at least one of the front-runners ( Biden ) potentially falling back into the pack , her roughly 15 percent of the vote in national polls could eventually give her some opportunities , even though none of the next three states look especially promising for her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nobody .
The chance of there being no delegate majority has increased substantially , to 27 percent from 17 percent before Iowa .
For reasons we ’ ve explained previously , the no-majority scenario isn ’ t quite the same thing as a contested convention , but the two concepts are closely related .
In running the model , we ’ re relying on Iowa results as currently reported ( as of 5:15 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday afternoon ) plus estimates from our friends at The Upshot on the probability that each candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa tracks .
The Upshot now gives Buttigieg about a 98 percent chance of winning the most state delegate equivalents ( SDEs ) — the measure that the media has traditionally used to declare Iowa winners ( and the only measure that Iowa has reported before this year ) , although it creates a bias toward candidates who perform well in rural areas .
Meanwhile , The Upshot gives Sanders a greater than 99 percent chance to win the first alignment vote — the candidate that voters initially lined up with when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final alignment popular vote — the candidate that voters wound up with after supporters of nonviable candidates were allowed to realign — as a tossup between Buttigieg and Sanders .
As I explained on Wednesday , we hadn ’ t totally thought through how to handle the case where different candidates won by different metrics in Iowa .
We were slightly surprised , however , at how much emphasis the media put on SDEs as opposed to the popular vote metrics .
Since post-primary bounces are largely the result of media coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicting bounces should reflect that .
So we looked at how media outlets that are designated as Democratic National Committee debate poll sponsors — a list that includes most of the biggest newspapers , wire services and TV networks — were covering the Iowa results and whether they were emphasizing SDEs , the popular vote measures , or some mix of both .
More specifically , we looked at the first few paragraphs of the most prominently featured article about the Iowa results on each outlet ’ s website as of 1 p.m. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that seven news organizations ( The Washington Post , Associated Press , CNN , ABC News , the Des Moines Register , Reuters and USA Today ) gave very high or almost exclusive billing to state delegate equivalents .
• Four news outlets ( The New York Times , CBS News , NBC News and The Wall Street Journal ) gave roughly coequal billing to SDEs and the popular vote measures .
• Two outlets ( Fox News and NPR ) were roughly halfway in between , treating SDEs as the main measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alternative .
• No outlets gave more billing to the popular vote • And we ignored one outlet , the Las Vegas Review-Journal , because its most prominent story about Iowa results was an AP story , and the AP was already covered elsewhere .
If you do the math , this works out to roughly 80 percent of the media emphasis being on SDEs and 20 percent on the popular vote .
Thus , in calculating the bonus for who won Iowa , we ’ ll give 80 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent to the winner of each of the popular vote metrics .
Overall , given the Upshot ’ s current probabilities in Iowa , this works out to Buttigieg getting about 85 percent of the credit for winning Iowa , and Sanders getting about 15 percent .
Keep in mind , though , that all of the wackiness around Iowa makes forecasting post-Iowa bounces much harder than usual .
So our model might be wrong — and as new polling comes in , it well replace those assumptions , potentially creating big swings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also update our model as results from the state are finalized .

Now that we finally have some clarity on Iowa’s results — with 86 percent of precincts reporting — we’ve turned our primary model back on, including its estimates of the potential fallout from Iowa.
The model shows former Vice President Joe Biden’s chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates being halved — from 43 percent before Iowa to 21 percent now.
Who gains from Biden’s decline? Well, a little bit of everyone. The model thinks Iowa was more good news than bad news for Sen. Bernie Sanders, although it was a somewhat close call. His chances have advanced to 37 percent, from 31 percent before Iowa, making him the most likely person to achieve that majority.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: The results in Iowa.
Pete Buttigieg’s chances are also up, to 6 percent from 4 percent before, but even after getting most of the credit for winning Iowa in the model (more about that in a moment), they haven’t improved by as much as you think. That’s because, as I explained in Wednesday night’s post, Buttigieg still has his work cut out for him in building a broader coalition; it’s going to require a big bounce in states and among demographic groups where the former mayor is not currently strong. With that said, Buttigieg is potentially quite competitive in New Hampshire, where our model gives him a 20 percent chance of winning, and that could give him a further boost.
Buttigieg has a 9 percent chance of winning the plurality of pledged delegates. The gap between his plurality and the majority odds reflects how he might be poised to benefit from the field remaining divided between several candidates.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s majority chances are also slightly up, according to our model, having improved to 10 percent from 5 percent before. That’s because in a more chaotic field, with at least one of the front-runners (Biden) potentially falling back into the pack, her roughly 15 percent of the vote in national polls could eventually give her some opportunities, even though none of the next three states look especially promising for her.
But the big winner is … nobody. The chance of there being no delegate majority has increased substantially, to 27 percent from 17 percent before Iowa. For reasons we’ve explained previously, the no-majority scenario isn’t quite the same thing as a contested convention, but the two concepts are closely related.
In running the model, we’re relying on Iowa results as currently reported (as of 5:15 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday afternoon) plus estimates from our friends at The Upshot on the probability that each candidate eventually wins the various vote measures that Iowa tracks. The Upshot now gives Buttigieg about a 98 percent chance of winning the most state delegate equivalents (SDEs) — the measure that the media has traditionally used to declare Iowa winners (and the only measure that Iowa has reported before this year), although it creates a bias toward candidates who perform well in rural areas.
Meanwhile, The Upshot gives Sanders a greater than 99 percent chance to win the first alignment vote — the candidate that voters initially lined up with when they entered their caucus sites. They regard the final alignment popular vote — the candidate that voters wound up with after supporters of nonviable candidates were allowed to realign — as a tossup between Buttigieg and Sanders.
As I explained on Wednesday, we hadn’t totally thought through how to handle the case where different candidates won by different metrics in Iowa. We were slightly surprised, however, at how much emphasis the media put on SDEs as opposed to the popular vote metrics. Since post-primary bounces are largely the result of media coverage, we decided that our formula for predicting bounces should reflect that.
So we looked at how media outlets that are designated as Democratic National Committee debate poll sponsors — a list that includes most of the biggest newspapers, wire services and TV networks — were covering the Iowa results and whether they were emphasizing SDEs, the popular vote measures, or some mix of both. More specifically, we looked at the first few paragraphs of the most prominently featured article about the Iowa results on each outlet’s website as of 1 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon.
We found that seven news organizations (The Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, ABC News, the Des Moines Register, Reuters and USA Today) gave very high or almost exclusive billing to state delegate equivalents.
Four news outlets (The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal) gave roughly coequal billing to SDEs and the popular vote measures.
Two outlets (Fox News and NPR) were roughly halfway in between, treating SDEs as the main measure but prominently mentioning the popular vote as an alternative.
No outlets gave more billing to the popular vote
And we ignored one outlet, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, because its most prominent story about Iowa results was an AP story, and the AP was already covered elsewhere.
If you do the math, this works out to roughly 80 percent of the media emphasis being on SDEs and 20 percent on the popular vote. Thus, in calculating the bonus for who won Iowa, we’ll give 80 percent of the bonus to the SDE winner and 10 percent to the winner of each of the popular vote metrics. Overall, given the Upshot’s current probabilities in Iowa, this works out to Buttigieg getting about 85 percent of the credit for winning Iowa, and Sanders getting about 15 percent.
Keep in mind, though, that all of the wackiness around Iowa makes forecasting post-Iowa bounces much harder than usual. So our model might be wrong — and as new polling comes in, it well replace those assumptions, potentially creating big swings in our numbers. We’ll also update our model as results from the state are finalized.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-05--Latest From Iowa: Buttigieg Still Leads On Delegates, Sanders On Votes, But It’s Close

The results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses continue to trickle in oh so slowly .
On Wednesday afternoon , another batch of results was released , bringing the number of precincts reporting results to 86 percent .
Here are the results : In the initial voter preference tallies , Sen. Bernie Sanders now leads former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg 24 percent to 22 percent , little changed from this morning .
Going by final voter preference , Sanders currently leads Buttigieg by only 0.6 percentage points , 26.1 percent to 25.5 percent .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning .
Finally , by state delegate equivalents , Buttigieg still leads Sanders 27 percent to 25 percent , the same as this morning .
Most media outlets are using that last measure as the ultimate judge of who “ won ” Iowa , since those numbers are how national convention delegates are decided .
Given that 14 percent of precincts have yet to report , no outlet has yet “ called ” the race for either Buttigieg or Sanders .
But it is increasingly likely that Buttigieg will win the most state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times ’ s model of the outstanding vote now says that there is a greater than 95 percent chance that Buttigieg will hold onto his delegate lead .
The Times also thinks it is virtually certain that Sanders will win the initial vote , but there ’ s still suspense over who will win the final alignment vote — Buttigieg and Sanders are currently equally likely to .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren remains in third place in Iowa — a handful of points behind the front-runners by all three measures — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further back in fourth place .
On Wednesday , Biden finally seemed to acknowledge his disappointing performance , saying , “ I ’ m not going to sugarcoat it — we took a gut punch in Iowa.
” Further down the ballot , Sen. Amy Klobuchar trailed Biden by a small margin in all three measures , while Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer did significantly worse .
Because of the realignment process and the fact that they were viable in so few precincts , their shares of the final vote and of state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
Here are the results so far in each of Iowa ’ s 99 counties , as well as how many precincts in them are reporting .
Buttigieg is winning the most counties by virtue of his support among rural Democrats ; however , Sanders has the lead in some of the most populous counties in the state , most significantly Polk ( where Des Moines is located ) .
Sanders also is winning ( going by the post-realignment vote share measure ) in three of Iowa ’ s four congressional districts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the district as well as at the state level .
The only exception is the 3rd District , where Buttigieg is 4 points ahead — likely as a result of his strength in upper-middle-class Des Moines suburbs such as those in Dallas County .
Unfortunately , we still have no clear picture of when we ’ ll know the results in 100 percent of Iowa precincts .
At the current rate , however , it may only take a couple more updates , so perhaps we will have the complete picture by this @ @ @

The results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses continue to trickle in oh so slowly. On Wednesday afternoon, another batch of results was released, bringing the number of precincts reporting results to 86 percent. Here are the results:
Preliminary results from the Iowa caucuses First alignment, final alignment and state delegate equivalents (SDEs) in the Iowa Democratic caucuses with about 86 percent of precincts reporting FIRST ALIGNMENT FINAL ALIGNMENT SDE Buttigieg 22% 26% 27% Sanders 24 26 25 Warren 19 20 18 Biden 15 14 16 Klobuchar 13 12 12 Yang 5 1 1 Steyer 2 0 0 Uncommitted 1 1 0 Patrick 0 0 0 Gabbard 0 0 0 Bennet 0 0 0 Bloomberg 0 0 0 Source: Iowa Democratic Party
In the initial voter preference tallies, Sen. Bernie Sanders now leads former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg 24 percent to 22 percent, little changed from this morning. Going by final voter preference, Sanders currently leads Buttigieg by only 0.6 percentage points, 26.1 percent to 25.5 percent. That’s a tighter race than it was this morning. Finally, by state delegate equivalents, Buttigieg still leads Sanders 27 percent to 25 percent, the same as this morning. Most media outlets are using that last measure as the ultimate judge of who “won” Iowa, since those numbers are how national convention delegates are decided.
Given that 14 percent of precincts have yet to report, no outlet has yet “called” the race for either Buttigieg or Sanders. But it is increasingly likely that Buttigieg will win the most state delegate equivalents. For instance, The New York Times’s model of the outstanding vote now says that there is a greater than 95 percent chance that Buttigieg will hold onto his delegate lead. The Times also thinks it is virtually certain that Sanders will win the initial vote, but there’s still suspense over who will win the final alignment vote — Buttigieg and Sanders are currently equally likely to.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren remains in third place in Iowa — a handful of points behind the front-runners by all three measures — and former Vice President Joe Biden is even further back in fourth place. On Wednesday, Biden finally seemed to acknowledge his disappointing performance, saying, “I’m not going to sugarcoat it — we took a gut punch in Iowa.” Further down the ballot, Sen. Amy Klobuchar trailed Biden by a small margin in all three measures, while Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer did significantly worse. Because of the realignment process and the fact that they were viable in so few precincts, their shares of the final vote and of state delegate equivalents were at or below 1 percent.
Here are the results so far in each of Iowa’s 99 counties, as well as how many precincts in them are reporting. Buttigieg is winning the most counties by virtue of his support among rural Democrats; however, Sanders has the lead in some of the most populous counties in the state, most significantly Polk (where Des Moines is located).
The county-level results in Iowa (so far) Final alignment vote shares, with 86 percent of precincts reporting County Precincts reporting Sanders Biden Buttigieg Warren Adair 80% 24% 7% 21% 9% Adams 100 18 29 17 14 Allamakee 73 16 10 36 7 Appanoose 100 16 28 40 2 Audubon 100 17 30 15 10 Benton 100 22 31 28 8 Black Hawk 95 31 14 23 18 Boone 100 25 8 32 19 Bremer 100 13 15 32 22 Buchanan 93 11 30 25 7 Buena Vista 80 25 21 18 17 Butler 100 25 20 19 16 Calhoun 100 15 20 40 13 Carroll 100 14 25 32 8 Cass 100 17 22 27 20 Cedar 92 25 11 25 20 Cerro Gordo 88 21 18 30 6 Cherokee 57 28 30 19 5 Chickasaw 100 6 23 33 17 Clarke 100 23 12 25 6 Clay 92 21 26 24 10 Clayton 79 19 16 37 3 Clinton 100 25 24 28 10 Crawford 88 26 36 15 6 Dallas 100 15 19 34 20 Davis 100 11 29 30 15 Decatur 100 24 5 25 24 Delaware 100 4 21 26 21 Des Moines 94 22 20 36 15 Dickinson 100 18 24 30 9 Dubuque 74 23 22 28 18 Emmet 91 23 13 27 11 Fayette 100 14 21 36 13 Floyd 88 15 20 24 16 Franklin 92 30 18 27 8 Fremont 100 24 24 28 2 Greene 100 26 15 31 4 Grundy 100 25 20 27 6 Guthrie 88 9 11 24 21 Hamilton 100 18 20 30 19 Hancock 90 17 16 33 8 Hardin 88 15 21 28 18 Harrison 85 25 19 27 12 Henry 100 22 18 26 13 Howard 100 19 14 33 8 Humboldt 78 11 30 26 10 Ida 100 8 33 40 1 Iowa 100 25 19 25 25 Jackson 94 11 26 33 14 Jasper 85 21 19 33 14 Jefferson 75 51 4 10 29 Johnson 95 33 3 19 33 Jones 93 22 21 28 11 Keokuk 100 20 12 33 14 Kossuth 95 8 28 35 6 Lee 95 21 23 34 11 Linn 97 27 15 24 21 Louisa 100 23 20 16 19 Lucas 86 23 29 13 10 Lyon 75 16 12 14 23 Madison 100 14 19 32 19 Mahaska 100 27 12 25 16 Marion 94 19 13 38 11 Marshall 100 34 19 29 10 Mills 91 26 18 34 12 Mitchell 92 8 19 20 13 Monona 100 15 19 25 22 Monroe 86 20 20 29 12 Montgomery 100 20 18 36 11 Muscatine 91 33 16 27 16 O’Brien 100 16 21 20 13 Osceola 100 11 16 33 20 Page 100 27 14 30 8 Palo Alto 83 20 30 26 11 Plymouth 85 23 25 29 7 Pocahontas 100 13 21 31 8 Polk 89 27 13 27 22 Pottawattamie 88 26 13 25 17 Poweshiek 100 39 2 8 34 Ringgold 43 0 31 35 15 Sac 78 21 16 31 10 Scott 79 25 16 27 17 Shelby 100 16 15 32 15 Sioux 81 9 8 13 28 Story 77 36 3 14 25 Tama 80 30 22 27 12 Taylor 100 15 23 31 11 Union 88 30 13 28 15 Van Buren 75 32 32 31 5 Wapello 86 29 23 31 15 Warren 84 16 12 37 20 Washington 80 27 12 20 22 Wayne 100 19 12 19 19 Webster 93 20 23 40 9 Winnebago 80 10 7 32 21 Winneshiek 91 23 2 29 18 Woodbury 75 31 24 22 15 Worth 86 16 14 20 14 Wright 90 22 16 35 4 Show more rows Source: Iowa Democratic Party
Sanders also is winning (going by the post-realignment vote share measure) in three of Iowa’s four congressional districts — important because delegates are awarded at the district as well as at the state level. The only exception is the 3rd District, where Buttigieg is 4 points ahead — likely as a result of his strength in upper-middle-class Des Moines suburbs such as those in Dallas County.
The latest district-level results in Iowa Final alignment vote shares, with 86 percent of precincts reporting Congressional district Precincts reporting Sanders Biden Buttigieg Warren 1st 90% 26% 16% 25% 19% 2nd 87 29 11 24 24 3rd 86 24 14 28 21 4th 87 25 15 24 16 Source: Iowa Democratic Party
Unfortunately, we still have no clear picture of when we’ll know the results in 100 percent of Iowa precincts. At the current rate, however, it may only take a couple more updates, so perhaps we will have the complete picture by this time tomorrow.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-05--For The First Time, An Impeached President Is Running For Reelection. What Happens Now?

The U.S. Senate acquitted President Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on Wednesday — the end of a trial that lasted about three weeks .
The chamber ’ s Republicans blocked Democratic motions to call witnesses during the trial and then voted to acquit Trump .
The votes were almost entirely along party lines .
All 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents voted for both articles of impeachment .
Mitt Romney of Utah was the only senator from either party to break party ranks , voting in favor of the abuse of power article and against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were 48-52 against the abuse of power charge , and 47-53 against the obstruction charge .
Trump is only the third president to be impeached in U.S. history .
He is also the third president to be acquitted in the Senate .
( Richard Nixon is not one of the three , as he resigned before a full House vote or Senate trial . )
Trump is the first president , however , who will stand for reelection after an impeachment and acquittal — Andrew Johnson did not run after his impeachment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not run after his impeachment and acquittal because of term limits .
In other words , the circumstances of Trump ’ s impeachment are unique .
Viewed narrowly , nothing has really changed — Trump remains in office , and is likely to continue to disregard traditional norms and , at times , core democratic values .
His approval rating isn ’ t great , but it hasn ’ t meaningfully gone up or down during the impeachment process .
But in part because Trump will now run for reelection , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implications .
1 .
Acquittal could result in Trump feeling that he has the license to do whatever he wants until November — and potentially beyond .
There is clear evidence that Trump , using both his official government aides and his private lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , postponed both a White House visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine as he pushed for the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of the Bidens .
So the Republicans in the House and the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to force Trump from office , have effectively exonerated the president for actions that are arguably both illegal ( according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office ) and authoritarian ( according to experts on authoritarianism ) .
By leaving Trump in office , Republicans have to some extent also validated the very expansive views of the president ’ s authority and power that Trump ’ s lawyers invoked in defending him against impeachment .
Republicans in Congress also essentially consented to the president circumventing the legislative branch .
Congress authorized military aid to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it unless Ukraine complied with a condition ( investigate the Bidens ) that Congress likely never would have sanctioned .
Giuliani essentially was directing U.S. foreign policy on Ukraine , even though he was not confirmed by Congress , and Congress did not know the extent of his involvement until it was discovered by the press .
So post-acquittal , what will Trump do next ?
Does he withhold foreign aid from other nations if they refuse to investigate the eventual Democratic nominee ?
Does Trump ’ s administration , which refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House ’ s impeachment investigation , basically disregard any future attempts at congressional oversight ?
Have Republicans in Congress left the country and the world with an American president who believes he is essentially above the law ?
The stakes here are enormous .
The answer to those questions , in my view , is maybe , as opposed to a clear yes .
Remember , one of the defenses of Trump by congressional Republicans throughout this process has been that Ukraine eventually did get the military aid .
The White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two days after the House announced it was opening an inquiry into the president ’ s actions regarding Ukraine .
So it ’ s not clear that Republicans in Congress have actually condoned the idea that aid to other countries from the U.S. can or should be conditioned on those nations agreeing to investigate Trump ’ s political rivals .
And perhaps Trump won ’ t actually push another foreign government to investigate a rival because he wants to avoid criticism , minimize the potential for a second impeachment or , yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improper .
So Trump may not have a full green light to do whatever he wants .
But it ’ s closer to green than it is to red .
No Republicans in the House and only one in the Senate ( Romney ) voted for Trump ’ s impeachment or removal .
Influential voices in the party , such as GOP governors and Fox News anchors , stood by him throughout the process .
Fewer than 10 percent of Republican voters support the president ’ s removal .
Other than Sens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were few prominent GOP voices who stated unequivocally that it was inappropriate for the president and his team to give any suggestion to Ukraine that U.S. aid would be tied to an investigation of the Bidens .
For some Republicans , this loyalty to Trump contradicts one of the core goals of most politicians : winning reelection .
Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado , for example , is up for reelection in November in a Democratic-leaning state where Trump is not particularly popular .
He not only voted against Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public stance against having witnesses in the trial .
But Gardner and other senators seeking to retain seats Democrats are targeting this November , such as Susan Collins of Maine and Martha McSally of Arizona , may have played the politics of impeachment smartly .
In a party where loyalty to Trump is highly valued , creating any real distance between you and the president may cost you Republican votes that you absolutely must have to win .
And there ’ s no real guarantee that you ’ d pick up independent or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , given current levels of negative partisanship — where supporters of one party hate the other party more than they like their own — picking up support from anti-Trump voters seems highly unlikely .
3 .
Democrats don ’ t seem to have suffered any kind of impeachment backlash .
Democrats were leery of pushing for impeachment for much of 2019 , amid the investigation of Trump by Special Counsel Robert Mueller .
In Democrats ’ view , a partisan impeachment backfired on congressional Republicans in the last few years of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid a similar backlash .
I think that interpretation of the Clinton impeachment is a bit off .
Republicans won control of the House , Senate and presidency in the 2000 elections , with Al Gore distancing himself from Clinton , who Gore viewed as a controversial figure in part because of the impeachment process .
Democrats felt forced to push for impeachment after Trump ’ s actions towards Ukraine became public .
The impeachment process ended up with party-line votes , a result House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to avoid .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned on Democrats .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s trackers , Democrats lead on the congressional generic ballot , about half of Americans support removing Trump from office and Trump remains fairly unpopular .
4 .
The 2020 election will be an all-out partisan war .
OK , you might say that we knew this already , and maybe we did .
But congressional Democrats have , in their actions and words , suggested that Trump is unfit to be president and should be removed .
Trump , through his actions and words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically anything to keep power .
Already , America can at times feel like it ’ s in a non-military civil war , with two competing coalitions that question not just the other coalition ’ s policy views , but its values and its Americanness .
A Democratic nominee , particularly Biden , is likely to campaign on the idea that he or she is the last defense against Trump turning America into a less democratic and tolerant nation .
Trump rose to power as the champion of people who felt aggrieved and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
Post-impeachment , Trump is likely to make aggrievement even more a core part of his message–with the president likely to cite his own impeachment as example of how and his supporters must defend themselves against an out-of-control American left .
5 .
The impeachment process put on full display deeper problems with America ’ s democracy .
There ’ s an active debate among scholars and journalists about whether to describe American politics by focusing on polarization ( the two sides are really divided ) or by focusing on the radicalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side is really causing the division ) .
Another disagreement is whether American voters are really divided or if the division exists mainly among political elites .
The impeachment process shows how these ideas are all interconnected — and how it ’ s hard to tell a simple story about what ’ s wrong with America ’ s democracy and who is to blame .
Trump ’ s actions toward Ukraine were radical — Barack Obama did not try to have a foreign government investigate Romney in 2012 .
Republican elites generally defended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican voters .
But polls showed some wariness about Trump ’ s actions toward Ukraine among a sizable bloc of GOP voters ( about a fourth in some polls ) .
That Trump skeptic , however , wasn ’ t really represented on Fox News or Capitol Hill .
So Republican politicians and Trump are probably driving polarization but also responding to GOP voters , who choose Trump over more than a dozen more traditional candidates in 2016 and still strongly approve of him now .
Post-impeachment , we are left with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago .
Will the American president allow a truly free and fair election ?
Has he created a precedent where future presidents will use government power to investigate their political rivals ?
If he wins a second term , what other democratic norms and values will he flout ?

The U.S. Senate acquitted President Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on Wednesday — the end of a trial that lasted about three weeks. The chamber’s Republicans blocked Democratic motions to call witnesses during the trial and then voted to acquit Trump. The votes were almost entirely along party lines. All 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents voted for both articles of impeachment. Mitt Romney of Utah was the only senator from either party to break party ranks, voting in favor of the abuse of power article and against the obstruction charge.
The final votes were 48-52 against the abuse of power charge, and 47-53 against the obstruction charge.
Watch Mitt Romneyâs speech prior to Trumpâs acquittal
Trump is only the third president to be impeached in U.S. history. He is also the third president to be acquitted in the Senate. (Richard Nixon is not one of the three, as he resigned before a full House vote or Senate trial.)
Trump is the first president, however, who will run in a general election after an impeachment and acquittal — Andrew Johnson ran for the Democratic nomination after his impeachment and acquittal in 1868, but didn’t win, and Bill Clinton could not run after his impeachment and acquittal because of term limits.
In other words, the circumstances of Trump’s impeachment are unique. Viewed narrowly, nothing has really changed — Trump remains in office, and is likely to continue to disregard traditional norms and, at times, core democratic values. His approval rating isn’t great, but it hasn’t meaningfully gone up or down during the impeachment process. But in part because Trump will now run for reelection, the impeachment process has a number of important implications.
1. Trump could feel he has license to do whatever he wants till November — and beyond
There is clear evidence that Trump, using both his official government aides and his private lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, postponed both a White House visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine as he pushed for the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of the Bidens. So the Republicans in the House and the Senate, by refusing to join with Democrats to force Trump from office, have effectively exonerated the president for actions that are arguably both illegal (according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office) and authoritarian (according to experts on authoritarianism). By leaving Trump in office, Republicans have to some extent also validated the very expansive views of the president’s authority and power that Trump’s lawyers invoked in defending him against impeachment.
Republicans in Congress also essentially consented to the president circumventing the legislative branch. Congress authorized military aid to Ukraine, but Trump refused to release it unless Ukraine complied with a condition (investigate the Bidens) that Congress likely never would have sanctioned. Giuliani essentially was directing U.S. foreign policy on Ukraine, even though he was not confirmed by Congress, and Congress did not know the extent of his involvement until it was discovered by the press.
So post-acquittal, what will Trump do next? Does he withhold foreign aid from other nations if they refuse to investigate the eventual Democratic nominee? Does Trump’s administration, which refused to comply with subpoenas and document requests during the House’s impeachment investigation, basically disregard any future attempts at congressional oversight? Have Republicans in Congress left the country and the world with an American president who believes he is essentially above the law? The stakes here are enormous.
The answer to those questions, in my view, is maybe, as opposed to a clear yes. Remember, one of the defenses of Trump by congressional Republicans throughout this process has been that Ukraine eventually did get the military aid. The White House released the aid on Sept. 11, two days after the House announced it was opening an inquiry into the president’s actions regarding Ukraine. So it’s not clear that Republicans in Congress have actually condoned the idea that aid to other countries from the U.S. can or should be conditioned on those nations agreeing to investigate Trump’s political rivals. And perhaps Trump won’t actually push another foreign government to investigate a rival because he wants to avoid criticism, minimize the potential for a second impeachment or, yes, because he now understands it’s improper.
So Trump may not have a full green light to do whatever he wants. But it’s closer to green than it is to red.
2. The GOP is fully, totally aligned with Trump
No Republicans in the House and only one in the Senate (Romney) voted for Trump’s impeachment or removal. Influential voices in the party, such as GOP governors and Fox News anchors, stood by him throughout the process. Fewer than 10 percent of Republican voters support the president’s removal. Other than Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Romney, there were few prominent GOP voices who stated unequivocally that it was inappropriate for the president and his team to give any suggestion to Ukraine that U.S. aid would be tied to an investigation of the Bidens.
For some Republicans, this loyalty to Trump contradicts one of the core goals of most politicians: winning reelection. Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, for example, is up for reelection in November in a Democratic-leaning state where Trump is not particularly popular.
He not only voted against Trump’s removal, but took a strong, public stance against having witnesses in the trial.
But Gardner and other senators seeking to retain seats Democrats are targeting this November, such as Susan Collins of Maine and Martha McSally of Arizona, may have played the politics of impeachment smartly. In a party where loyalty to Trump is highly valued, creating any real distance between you and the president may cost you Republican votes that you absolutely must have to win. And there’s no real guarantee that you’d pick up independent or Democratic votes in the bargain. In fact, given current levels of negative partisanship — where supporters of one party hate the other party more than they like their own — picking up support from anti-Trump voters seems highly unlikely.
3. Impeachment backlash hasn’t materialized
Democrats were leery of pushing for impeachment for much of 2019, amid the investigation of Trump by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In Democrats’ view, a partisan impeachment backfired on congressional Republicans in the last few years of the Clinton presidency, and they wanted to avoid a similar backlash. I think that interpretation of the Clinton impeachment is a bit off. Republicans won control of the House, Senate and presidency in the 2000 elections, with Al Gore distancing himself from Clinton, who Gore viewed as a controversial figure in part because of the impeachment process.
Democrats felt forced to push for impeachment after Trump’s actions towards Ukraine became public. The impeachment process ended up with party-line votes, a result House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to avoid. But there is little sign that voters have turned on Democrats. According to FiveThirtyEight’s trackers, Democrats lead on the congressional generic ballot, about half of Americans support removing Trump from office and Trump remains fairly unpopular.
4. The 2020 election will be all-out partisan war
OK, you might say that we knew this already, and maybe we did. But congressional Democrats have, in their actions and words, suggested that Trump is unfit to be president and should be removed. Trump, through his actions and words, has shown that he will do basically anything to keep power. Already, America can at times feel like it’s in a non-military civil war, with two competing coalitions that question not just the other coalition’s policy views, but its values and its Americanness.
A Democratic nominee, particularly Biden, is likely to campaign on the idea that he or she is the last defense against Trump turning America into a less democratic and tolerant nation. Trump rose to power as the champion of people who felt aggrieved and ignored by an increasingly liberal, multicultural America. Post-impeachment, Trump is likely to make acting aggrieved even more a core part of his message — with the president likely to cite his own impeachment as example of how and his supporters must defend themselves against an out-of-control American left.
5. The problems with America’s democracy have been on full display
There’s an active debate among scholars and journalists about whether to describe American politics by focusing on polarization (the two sides are really divided) or by focusing on the radicalization of the Republican Party (so one side is really causing the division). Another disagreement is whether American voters are really divided or if the division exists mainly among political elites.
The impeachment process shows how these ideas are all interconnected — and how it’s hard to tell a simple story about what’s wrong with America’s democracy and who is to blame. Trump’s actions toward Ukraine were radical — Barack Obama did not try to have a foreign government investigate Romney in 2012. Republican elites generally defended Trump’s conduct. So did Republican voters. But polls showed some wariness about Trump’s actions toward Ukraine among a sizable bloc of GOP voters (about a fourth in some polls). That Trump skeptic, however, wasn’t really represented on Fox News or Capitol Hill. So Republican politicians and Trump are probably driving polarization but also responding to GOP voters, who choose Trump over more than a dozen more traditional candidates in 2016 and still strongly approve of him now.
Post-impeachment, we are left with a lot of unknowns that were unimaginable five years ago. Will the American president allow a truly free and fair election? Has he created a precedent where future presidents will use government power to investigate their political rivals? If he wins a second term, what other democratic norms and values will he flout?
CORRECTION (Feb. 6, 2020, 10:16 a.m.): An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Andrew Johnson did not run for president after his impeachment in 1868. In fact, after serving out the remainder of Abraham Lincoln’s term, Johnson briefly sought the Democratic nomination in 1868 but was not a general election candidate.