fivethirtyeight--2020-04-20--Some Americans Are Misinformed About The Coronavirus. How Responsible Is The Media?

Should you wear a mask when you go out in public ?
Yes , according to revised guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
But at one of President Trump ’ s daily press briefings , he said that “ It ’ s only a recommendation , ” adding , “ I don ’ t think I am going to be doing it.
” What about taking hydroxychloroquine , an antimalarial drug , to fight COVID-19 ?
The Food and Drug Administration hasn ’ t approved it , but that hasn ’ t stopped Trump from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding its effectiveness .
When the president contradicts agency officials and medical experts ( oftentimes from behind the very same podium ) , it can be difficult for Americans to keep the facts straight .
That is why the media ’ s role as a watchdog is vital to democracy — its job is to hold government officials accountable and investigate the veracity of the administration ’ s claims , especially when they are in response to rapidly evolving events .
But the media has come up short in previous times of crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dictate the terms and frame the events , at the expense of including critical viewpoints .
And the notion of a watchdog press has taken on a new meaning .
In our fragmented media environment , viewers increasingly choose their news based on their politics and news outlets are incentivized to pick a side — tout the president ’ s message uncritically to cater to a conservative audience , or criticize the administration ’ s every move in order to appeal to a more liberal audience .
This , in turn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this play out with the coronavirus — Republicans and Democrats view the basic facts differently , and that threatens a functioning democracy .
Studies from political communication suggest that the press tends to be more deferential to the administration when the country faces a crisis , a byproduct of the “ rally ’ round the flag ” effect , a phenomenon in which political differences are set aside during times of crisis while the public , politicians and media rally behind the government .
It ’ s also a consequence of a norm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on official governmental sources for interviews and as guests on news programs , because they are viewed as credible and reliable authorities .
But as a crisis unfolds and conflict appears , the press usually broadens its coverage , poking holes in the administration ’ s messaging .
As Daniel Hallin , a communications professor at the University of California , San Diego , documents in his book “ The Uncensored War : The Media and Vietnam , ” the national media initially accepted the administration ’ s view that the conflict in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against communism .
But over time , Hallin writes , that narrative grew difficult for the administration to sustain , due in part to reporters ’ access to soldiers , who had a different story to tell .
Reporters viewed these soldiers as equally authoritative on the war , and thus included more of their perspective in their stories , even as it deviated from the administration ’ s own version of events .
Or take what happened after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks .
The Bush administration falsely claimed that there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group responsible for 9/11 , and Iraq President Saddam Hussein , and that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction ( WMDs ) , which the administration then used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq .
These claims were then repeated by top government officials and amplified by the media to such a degree that , according to a CNN/Time poll conducted a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 , 76 percent of Americans believed that Hussein was working with al-Qaida .
And according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of 10 believed that it was at least somewhat likely that the U.S. would find conclusive evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to develop them .
It would take months of reporting before the media identified cracks in the administration ’ s story , such as disagreements between intelligence agencies and the U.S .
Departments of State and Energy about Iraq ’ s nuclear capacity .
But media coverage of the Iraq War also grew increasingly partisan over time , with outlets like Fox New remaining more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks , and featuring more Bush administration officials as sources .
The consequences of this difference were noteworthy .
One study found that people who named Fox News as their primary news source were actually more likely to hold misinformed views .
In other words , although studies have also found that those who pay less attention to the news are generally more misinformed , in this case more attention to Fox News also meant a higher level of misinformation .
A similar partisan misinformation gap might be developing around Democrats ’ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which may have to do with where they get their news .
The initial differences between Democrats ’ and Republicans ’ attitudes on the coronavirus were quite large , and while there is some evidence these partisan differences are overblown or have shrunk , signs also point to a gap in knowledge of basic facts about the coronavirus .
According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted March 10-16 , there are notable differences in Americans ’ knowledge of the coronavirus among those who identified Fox News , MSNBC or CNN as their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , 78 percent of MSNBC and 57 percent of CNN viewers correctly answered that a vaccine will not be available within a year , compared with only 51 percent of Fox News viewers .
And according to a Data for Progress poll conducted April 11 , Fox News viewers are more likely to believe that hydroxychloroquine is a proven treatment for COVID-19 ( 25 percent ) than CNN viewers ( 6 percent ) and MSNBC ( 4 percent ) viewers .
Data for Progress also found Fox News viewers were more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadly than coronavirus ( 19 percent ) than CNN ( 8 percent ) and MSNBC ( 3 percent ) viewers .
These different views of the facts could spell trouble .
While there isn ’ t yet evidence of a partisan gap when it comes to support for social distancing measures ( just 8 percent of Republican voters and 4 percent of Democratic voters said such measures were not effective ) , there are signs that Republicans are more eager for these measures to end and to get back to work .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end social distancing measures before or by May 1 , 30 percent of Republicans said yes , compared to just 4 percent of Democrats , according to a poll from The Economist/YouGov conducted April 12-14 .
The partisan split doesn ’ t appear to extend to public opinion on medical institutions .
A March 24-29 Pew poll found large majorities of Democrats and Republicans have a favorable opinion of the CDC , and a Quinnipiac poll conducted in the first week of April found 77 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , has handled the response .
However , public opinion could change if the timeline to “ reopen ” the economy becomes a big political fight in the coming weeks , especially if Trump renews calls to fire Fauci or questions his medical expertise .
These signals from the president are crucial , too , because studies have found that conservatives have become increasingly distrustful of science , and that distrust is greatest amongst consumers of conservative media .
The consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the immediate , such as a shift in adherence to preventive behaviors like avoiding large gatherings , to the long term — such as a difference in who is believed to be responsible for the economic and public health fallout .
And all this might hinge on editorial decisions by media outlets in how they choose to cover this ongoing crisis .

Should you wear a mask when you go out in public? Yes, according to revised guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But at one of President Trump’s daily press briefings, he said that “It’s only a recommendation,” adding, “I don’t think I am going to be doing it.” What about taking hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug, to fight COVID-19? The Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved it, but that hasn’t stopped Trump from encouraging its use despite inconclusive scientific evidence regarding its effectiveness.
When the president contradicts agency officials and medical experts (oftentimes from behind the very same podium), it can be difficult for Americans to keep the facts straight. That is why the media’s role as a watchdog is vital to democracy — its job is to hold government officials accountable and investigate the veracity of the administration’s claims, especially when they are in response to rapidly evolving events.
How close are we to a COVID-19 vaccine? l FiveThirtyEight
But the media has come up short in previous times of crisis, deferring too much to the administration to dictate the terms and frame the events, at the expense of including critical viewpoints. And the notion of a watchdog press has taken on a new meaning. In our fragmented media environment, viewers increasingly choose their news based on their politics and news outlets are incentivized to pick a side — tout the president’s message uncritically to cater to a conservative audience, or criticize the administration’s every move in order to appeal to a more liberal audience. This, in turn, creates a misinformed public. We see this play out with the coronavirus — Republicans and Democrats view the basic facts differently, and that threatens a functioning democracy.
Studies from political communication suggest that the press tends to be more deferential to the administration when the country faces a crisis, a byproduct of the “rally ’round the flag” effect, a phenomenon in which political differences are set aside during times of crisis while the public, politicians and media rally behind the government. It’s also a consequence of a norm of reporting, which is to rely on official governmental sources for interviews and as guests on news programs, because they are viewed as credible and reliable authorities.
But as a crisis unfolds and conflict appears, the press usually broadens its coverage, poking holes in the administration’s messaging. As Daniel Hallin, a communications professor at the University of California, San Diego, documents in his book “The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam,” the national media initially accepted the administration’s view that the conflict in Vietnam was part of a broader struggle against communism. But over time, Hallin writes, that narrative grew difficult for the administration to sustain, due in part to reporters’ access to soldiers, who had a different story to tell. Reporters viewed these soldiers as equally authoritative on the war, and thus included more of their perspective in their stories, even as it deviated from the administration’s own version of events.
Or take what happened after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration falsely claimed that there was a link between al-Qaida, the terrorist group responsible for 9/11, and Iraq President Saddam Hussein, and that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which the administration then used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq. These claims were then repeated by top government officials and amplified by the media to such a degree that, according to a CNN/Time poll conducted a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, 76 percent of Americans believed that Hussein was working with al-Qaida. And according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted the month of the invasion, almost 9 out of 10 believed that it was at least somewhat likely that the U.S. would find conclusive evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or the facilities to develop them.
It would take months of reporting before the media identified cracks in the administration’s story, such as disagreements between intelligence agencies and the U.S. Departments of State and Energy about Iraq’s nuclear capacity. But media coverage of the Iraq War also grew increasingly partisan over time, with outlets like Fox New remaining more sympathetic to the war effort than other networks, and featuring more Bush administration officials as sources.
The consequences of this difference were noteworthy. One study found that people who named Fox News as their primary news source were actually more likely to hold misinformed views. In other words, although studies have also found that those who pay less attention to the news are generally more misinformed, in this case more attention to Fox News also meant a higher level of misinformation.
A similar partisan misinformation gap might be developing around Democrats’ and Republicans’ understanding of the coronavirus, which may have to do with where they get their news. The initial differences between Democrats’ and Republicans’ attitudes on the coronavirus were quite large, and while there is some evidence these partisan differences are overblown or have shrunk, signs also point to a gap in knowledge of basic facts about the coronavirus. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted March 10-16, there are notable differences in Americans’ knowledge of the coronavirus among those who identified Fox News, MSNBC or CNN as their main source of political news. For instance, 78 percent of MSNBC and 57 percent of CNN viewers correctly answered that a vaccine will not be available within a year, compared with only 51 percent of Fox News viewers. And according to a Data for Progress poll conducted April 11, Fox News viewers are more likely to believe that hydroxychloroquine is a proven treatment for COVID-19 (25 percent) than CNN viewers (6 percent) and MSNBC (4 percent) viewers. Data for Progress also found Fox News viewers were more likely to say that the flu is more deadly than coronavirus (19 percent) than CNN (8 percent) and MSNBC (3 percent) viewers. These different views of the facts could spell trouble.
While there isn’t yet evidence of a partisan gap when it comes to support for social distancing measures (just 8 percent of Republican voters and 4 percent of Democratic voters said such measures were not effective), there are signs that Republicans are more eager for these measures to end and to get back to work. When asked if it would be safe to end social distancing measures before or by May 1, 30 percent of Republicans said yes, compared to just 4 percent of Democrats, according to a poll from The Economist/YouGov conducted April 12-14.
The partisan split doesn’t appear to extend to public opinion on medical institutions. A March 24-29 Pew poll found large majorities of Democrats and Republicans have a favorable opinion of the CDC, and a Quinnipiac poll conducted in the first week of April found 77 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats approve of how Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has handled the response.
However, public opinion could change if the timeline to “reopen” the economy becomes a big political fight in the coming weeks, especially if Trump renews calls to fire Fauci or questions his medical expertise. These signals from the president are crucial, too, because studies have found that conservatives have become increasingly distrustful of science, and that distrust is greatest amongst consumers of conservative media. The consequences of a growing misinformation gap might vary from the immediate, such as a shift in adherence to preventive behaviors like avoiding large gatherings, to the long term — such as a difference in who is believed to be responsible for the economic and public health fallout. And all this might hinge on editorial decisions by media outlets in how they choose to cover this ongoing crisis.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-20--Politics Podcast: What Is Motivating The COVID-19 Protests?

Over the past week , protests against COVID-19 mitigation measures have popped up in state capitals around the country .
@ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses what ’ s motivating the protests , as @ @ @ @ @ s support for them .
The team also weighs the electoral pros and cons of @ @ @ @ @ apparent Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the @ @ @ @ @ the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or @ @ @ @ @ If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

Over the past week, protests against COVID-19 mitigation measures have popped up in state capitals around the country. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses what’s motivating the protests, as well as President Trump’s support for them. The team also weighs the electoral pros and cons of possible vice presidential picks for apparent Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: What is motivating the COVID-19 protests?
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-20--Times Of Crisis Reveal Which Political Rules Are Essential To Our Democracy

We ’ re in a political moment that ’ s anything but normal .
The usual expectations for how politics , and life in general , operate are pretty much all on hold , and America is dealing with a lot of anxiety about politics .
First , there ’ s the Trump administration ’ s ever-changing response to the coronavirus .
Then there ’ s the question of how individual states are handling ( or not handling ) the crisis , and lastly , there ’ s the very real question of how our democracy will function come the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen the first cracks , with a number of states deciding whether and how to postpone their primaries and local elections .
The political infighting will likely get worse , too , as states try to figure out how to ensure a safe election , and in many cases , there may not be any easy answers .
In times of crisis , a lot of rules and expectations wind up getting shifted or bent .
For instance , disasters sometimes lead people to give up freedoms they otherwise treasure or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But crises also have a funny way of underscoring which values are actually vital to our democracy .
In 2018 , I wrote about the importance of democratic values and how they are what actually matters when we talk about norms being violated or eroded .
And I offered a few examples of democratic values that have been at the root of some of the early ( and ongoing ) complaints about the Trump administration , including President Trump ’ s disregard for other institutions ’ independence ( think his clashes with Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his inability or unwillingness to gracefully handle dissenting viewpoints as part of the political process ( think insulting reporters and using unflattering nicknames for political opponents ) .
Now , though , in this moment of crisis , a whole new set of norms is coming into tension with our democratic values , once again highlighting which values are most at risk .
Take the controversy around former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s relative silence during the COVID-19 crisis .
The presumptive Democratic nominee has kept a low profile , sparking criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failing to lead , but his behavior is arguably in line with expectations of how a presumptive nominee should act — i.e.
, don ’ t criticize a sitting president in a crisis or campaign during a moment of national tragedy .
But Biden ’ s decision to not do more to question Trump ’ s leadership of the crisis might run afoul of deeper values , like the need for transparency and the importance of a vibrant political opposition .
As political scientist Jonathan Bernstein has observed , Trump has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his job , or offering reassurance and messages of national unity .
But both are central functions of presidential rhetoric , especially in times of uncertainty and stress .
Yet Trump has been combative and inconsistent in his leadership , and Biden has made only limited efforts to fill this symbolic void .
Norms say we must rally around leaders and suspend politics in emergencies , but by remaining silent , Biden may be risking the larger democratic value of holding our leaders accountable .
We ’ ve also seen the script flipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump isn ’ t actually violating some norms — he ’ s holding a White House press briefing pretty much daily , for instance , which falls in line with norms we have about how the president should communicate with the public .
Yet Trump has still managed to subvert the norms of presidential behavior in a way that attacks democratic values .
He has insulted both members of the press and leaders of the Democratic Party , undercutting the idea of legitimate opposition — that is , the give-and-take of political conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holds them accountable .
He ’ s even asserted authority over the nation ’ s governors , disregarding the distinct powers of state and local governments in the federal system ( and tweeting about “ liberating ” some states from rules set by their governors ) .
He ’ s also brought numerous CEOs from private companies to the press conferences , where they ’ ve both praised the president and mentioned their brands — violating a norm that public purposes and private interests should be kept separate .
This is less an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more an indication that going through the standard motions of governing doesn ’ t necessarily guarantee respect for the principles of democracy .
And at a time when extreme measures need to be taken , honesty and transparency from our government leaders is critical to helping the public understand what ’ s happening and why sacrifices are needed to protect the nation .
Yet Trump ’ s talking points , especially early in the crisis , have often undermined the recommendations of experts .
For instance , he initially downplayed the seriousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked about “ reopening ” the economy even though public health experts say states lack the resources to do so safely .
This means some governors , including New York ’ s Andrew Cuomo , Michigan ’ s Gretchen Whitmer and Ohio ’ s Mike DeWine , have drawn the national spotlight for their leadership during the crisis .
But governors ’ leadership may only go so far in encouraging national unity in the face of this crisis , and without a unifying message from Trump , a wider national effort to combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second big area where we ’ ve seen norms and democratic values clash is in our elections .
Under normal circumstances , changing the timing or method of an election at the last minute would be a deeply anti-democratic move .
But governors in several states concluded that the public health dangers posed by the virus were significant enough to merit postponing contests to avoid the risks of in-person voting .
And this was actually an important example of upholding a democratic value — the right of all voters ( including those most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equal access to the polls — at the expense of the norm that election dates shouldn ’ t be moved once they ’ re set .
But the decision to forego this norm and postpone an election can morph into a highly political affair , jeopardizing the very real democratic value — preserving fair and safe elections — that leaders were hoping to protect .
Take what happened in Wisconsin ’ s primary .
It was always going to be a bit trickier for Wisconsin to postpone voting than other states because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot — the state was also holding elections for several local offices whose terms begin on April 20 , meaning the election had to take place before then .
But part of the difficulty also lay in just how much bad blood exists between Gov .
Tony Evers and the Republican legislature , which always made it seem unlikely that they would reach an agreement on how best to balance the health risks of holding an election with the risk that delaying the election posed to democratic norms .
And sure enough , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency order to postpone the primary , with the state Supreme Court striking the order down .
That meant the Wisconsin primary proceeded as scheduled on April 7 , but it was a mess .
Polling places closed throughout the state due to the lack of poll workers , and voters were forced to stand in long lines .
Turnout was also down in several parts of the state ( though not everywhere ) .
Perhaps the one silver living was the huge surge in absentee ballots returned , but ultimately the Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation might face in November , in particular how elections risk becoming a source of partisan division .
Crises can make it hard for our leaders to operate according to the usual political norms , but they also have a way of crystallizing the importance of our democratic values even when the two are seemingly in opposition .
When the government steps outside its usual boundaries , special attention to core democratic values like transparency , equality and the role of legitimate opposition is needed .
And the backdrop of crisis makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are simply the product of routine and expectations and which are crucial for making our democracy work .

We’re in a political moment that’s anything but normal. The usual expectations for how politics, and life in general, operate are pretty much all on hold, and America is dealing with a lot of anxiety about politics.
First, there’s the Trump administration’s ever-changing response to the coronavirus. Then there’s the question of how individual states are handling (or not handling) the crisis, and lastly, there’s the very real question of how our democracy will function come the general election in November. Already we’ve seen the first cracks, with a number of states deciding whether and how to postpone their primaries and local elections. The political infighting will likely get worse, too, as states try to figure out how to ensure a safe election, and in many cases, there may not be any easy answers.
In times of crisis, a lot of rules and expectations wind up getting shifted or bent. For instance, disasters sometimes lead people to give up freedoms they otherwise treasure or rally around leaders they normally oppose. But crises also have a funny way of underscoring which values are actually vital to our democracy.
In 2018, I wrote about the importance of democratic values and how they are what actually matters when we talk about norms being violated or eroded. And I offered a few examples of democratic values that have been at the root of some of the early (and ongoing) complaints about the Trump administration, including President Trump’s disregard for other institutions’ independence (think his clashes with Congress about fulfilling its oversight duties) or his inability or unwillingness to gracefully handle dissenting viewpoints as part of the political process (think insulting reporters and using unflattering nicknames for political opponents).
Now, though, in this moment of crisis, a whole new set of norms is coming into tension with our democratic values, once again highlighting which values are most at risk. Take the controversy around former Vice President Joe Biden’s relative silence during the COVID-19 crisis. The presumptive Democratic nominee has kept a low profile, sparking criticism in some corners that he’s failing to lead, but his behavior is arguably in line with expectations of how a presumptive nominee should act — i.e., don’t criticize a sitting president in a crisis or campaign during a moment of national tragedy. But Biden’s decision to not do more to question Trump’s leadership of the crisis might run afoul of deeper values, like the need for transparency and the importance of a vibrant political opposition.
As political scientist Jonathan Bernstein has observed, Trump has never been very good at the ceremonial part of his job, or offering reassurance and messages of national unity. But both are central functions of presidential rhetoric, especially in times of uncertainty and stress. Yet Trump has been combative and inconsistent in his leadership, and Biden has made only limited efforts to fill this symbolic void. Norms say we must rally around leaders and suspend politics in emergencies, but by remaining silent, Biden may be risking the larger democratic value of holding our leaders accountable.
We’ve also seen the script flipped in this crisis, though, where Trump isn’t actually violating some norms — he’s holding a White House press briefing pretty much daily, for instance, which falls in line with norms we have about how the president should communicate with the public. Yet Trump has still managed to subvert the norms of presidential behavior in a way that attacks democratic values.
He has insulted both members of the press and leaders of the Democratic Party, undercutting the idea of legitimate opposition — that is, the give-and-take of political conflict between different parties and the press who holds them accountable. He’s even asserted authority over the nation’s governors, disregarding the distinct powers of state and local governments in the federal system (and tweeting about “liberating” some states from rules set by their governors). He’s also brought numerous CEOs from private companies to the press conferences, where they’ve both praised the president and mentioned their brands — violating a norm that public purposes and private interests should be kept separate. This is less an instance of norms clashing with democratic values and more an indication that going through the standard motions of governing doesn’t necessarily guarantee respect for the principles of democracy.
And at a time when extreme measures need to be taken, honesty and transparency from our government leaders is critical to helping the public understand what’s happening and why sacrifices are needed to protect the nation. Yet Trump’s talking points, especially early in the crisis, have often undermined the recommendations of experts. For instance, he initially downplayed the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat and has repeatedly talked about “reopening” the economy even though public health experts say states lack the resources to do so safely. This means some governors, including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and Ohio’s Mike DeWine, have drawn the national spotlight for their leadership during the crisis. But governors’ leadership may only go so far in encouraging national unity in the face of this crisis, and without a unifying message from Trump, a wider national effort to combat the virus may fall apart.
The second big area where we’ve seen norms and democratic values clash is in our elections. Under normal circumstances, changing the timing or method of an election at the last minute would be a deeply anti-democratic move. But governors in several states concluded that the public health dangers posed by the virus were significant enough to merit postponing contests to avoid the risks of in-person voting. And this was actually an important example of upholding a democratic value — the right of all voters (including those most at risk from COVID-19) to have equal access to the polls — at the expense of the norm that election dates shouldn’t be moved once they’re set. But the decision to forego this norm and postpone an election can morph into a highly political affair, jeopardizing the very real democratic value — preserving fair and safe elections — that leaders were hoping to protect.
Take what happened in Wisconsin’s primary. It was always going to be a bit trickier for Wisconsin to postpone voting than other states because it wasn’t just primaries on the ballot — the state was also holding elections for several local offices whose terms begin on April 20, meaning the election had to take place before then. But part of the difficulty also lay in just how much bad blood exists between Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican legislature, which always made it seem unlikely that they would reach an agreement on how best to balance the health risks of holding an election with the risk that delaying the election posed to democratic norms. And sure enough, Republicans successfully challenged Evers’s last-minute emergency order to postpone the primary, with the state Supreme Court striking the order down.
That meant the Wisconsin primary proceeded as scheduled on April 7, but it was a mess. Polling places closed throughout the state due to the lack of poll workers, and voters were forced to stand in long lines. Turnout was also down in several parts of the state (though not everywhere). Perhaps the one silver living was the huge surge in absentee ballots returned, but ultimately the Election Day debacle in Wisconsin highlighted the challenges the nation might face in November, in particular how elections risk becoming a source of partisan division.
Crises can make it hard for our leaders to operate according to the usual political norms, but they also have a way of crystallizing the importance of our democratic values even when the two are seemingly in opposition. When the government steps outside its usual boundaries, special attention to core democratic values like transparency, equality and the role of legitimate opposition is needed. And the backdrop of crisis makes it easier to see which informal rules are simply the product of routine and expectations and which are crucial for making our democracy work.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Our 2020 Election Priors


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-21--Fundraising Dipped In March As Campaigns Adjust To A New Normal

With no in-person rallies or town halls , the 2020 campaign has taken a back seat to the coronavirus pandemic — and so has political fundraising .
The latest Federal Election Commission filings are in for the first quarter of 2020 , and they show that despite some overall impressive fundraising hauls , many campaigns saw a dip in contributions , especially in March .
As campaigns reckon with the fact that 2020 races will not look like earlier iterations , fundraisers are still figuring out how to adjust to the new reality .
Take the 2020 presidential race .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 74 million in the first quarter , and President Trump raised about $ 34 million .
As you can see in the chart below , Trump experienced a 4 percent drop in March from the month prior , while Biden nearly tripled the amount he made in February .
Trump still has almost four times as much cash on hand than Biden has , but the former vice president had a particularly strong first quarter , perhaps in part because of a series of March primary wins that helped cement his position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal candidates — including Trump and Biden — received more than $ 1.6 billion in the first quarter , and political action committees and party committees received more than $ 1.3 billion and $ 258 million , respectively .
As you can see in the chart below , PACs were able to outpace their growth from February in March , while fundraising for candidates and party committees slowed .
This doesn ’ t mean everyone saw a dip in March fundraising .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee , for example , raised about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about $ 2 million from what it raised in February .
Part of this might be cyclical .
Operatives tell me that the days and weeks leading up to a quarterly FEC fundraising deadline are usually when campaigns kick their fundraising operations into full gear .
“ Mid-to-late March would typically be prime time and when you ’ re holding as many events as possible , ” said Don Goris , president of the conservative fundraising consulting firm Campaign Resource Group , which operates out of western Michigan .
When things started to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his reaction was “ Oh boy , what is this going to do for our end of quarter push ?
” The shift away from physical events , in addition to the state of the economy , has stressed political fundraising , and campaigns now must figure out ways to raise money that don ’ t involve groups of people gathering in one place .
Still , it ’ s a sensitive time to be asking Americans for money , as the economy faces a recession and at least 22 million Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundraising efforts could lead to greater costs down the road , said Catherine Algeri , chief strategy officer at Democratic fundraising firm Chapman Cubine and Hussey .
In 2008 , her firm saw that candidates who spent less on acquiring donors and growing their email lists during the financial crisis struggled the most afterwards trying to build back up that infrastructure .
Some campaigns are now relying more on virtual tools and platforms to meet their fundraising goals .
The last in-person event that Shari Yost Gold , a veteran fundraiser whose consulting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaigns , helped organize was on March 10 in New York .
Now , Yost Gold is helping her clients fundraise over video conferencing software like Zoom .
Yost Gold said Zoom works really well for small , targeted groups , but she ’ s found that larger virtual events are harder .
Those larger events are also often critical in raising money , particularly from big , hundred-dollar donors .
Connecting with those donors remains a priority , Yost Gold said , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small-dollar donors on whom Democrats have relied will continue to increase in number or will taper off .
Of course , not all campaigns are set up to fundraise successfully online .
For instance , many leaner campaigns in smaller House districts often get by with “ more old-school campaign methodologies like knocking on doors , and in-person gatherings , ” Goris told me , adding that often digital fundraising is just less of a priority .
But ramping up digital efforts in the coming weeks may be the only option available .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing her clients to embrace digital outreach , as she doesn ’ t think Democrats will “ have even 30 people in somebody ’ s house doing a fundraiser before the end of this election cycle.
” Of course , other fundraisers are more hopeful that in-person events can still take place at some point .
“ If things start to normalize and improve , we have things we would like to plan .
I guess , we are planning to plan , is the way to put it , ” said Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly federal candidates .
“ As you get in later in the summer and fall , we would hope there can be more in-person events.
” Like everyone else , political fundraisers are trying to adapt to what each week ( or day ) brings in this global pandemic .
But some fundraisers are hopeful because , as Williams puts it , this situation has made the importance of good government clear .
“ I think donors will want to support candidates who are capable of handling situations like this , ” she @ @

With no in-person rallies or town halls, the 2020 campaign has taken a back seat to the coronavirus pandemic — and so has political fundraising. The latest Federal Election Commission filings are in for the first quarter of 2020, and they show that despite some overall impressive fundraising hauls, many campaigns saw a dip in contributions, especially in March. As campaigns reckon with the fact that 2020 races will not look like earlier iterations, fundraisers are still figuring out how to adjust to the new reality.
Take the 2020 presidential race. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden raised about $74 million in the first quarter, and President Trump raised about $34 million. As you can see in the chart below, Trump experienced a 4 percent drop in March from the month prior, while Biden nearly tripled the amount he made in February. Trump still has almost four times as much cash on hand than Biden has, but the former vice president had a particularly strong first quarter, perhaps in part because of a series of March primary wins that helped cement his position as the presumptive nominee.
Overall, federal candidates — including Trump and Biden — received more than $1.6 billion in the first quarter, and political action committees and party committees received more than $1.3 billion and $258 million, respectively. As you can see in the chart below, PACs were able to outpace their growth from February in March, while fundraising for candidates and party committees slowed.
This doesn’t mean everyone saw a dip in March fundraising. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, for example, raised about $11 million in March, up about $2 million from what it raised in February.
Part of this might be cyclical. Operatives tell me that the days and weeks leading up to a quarterly FEC fundraising deadline are usually when campaigns kick their fundraising operations into full gear.
“Mid-to-late March would typically be prime time and when you’re holding as many events as possible,” said Don Goris, president of the conservative fundraising consulting firm Campaign Resource Group, which operates out of western Michigan. When things started to shut down in mid-March, Goris said, his reaction was “Oh boy, what is this going to do for our end of quarter push?”
The shift away from physical events, in addition to the state of the economy, has stressed political fundraising, and campaigns now must figure out ways to raise money that don’t involve groups of people gathering in one place.
Still, it’s a sensitive time to be asking Americans for money, as the economy faces a recession and at least 22 million Americans are unemployed. But dramatically pulling back fundraising efforts could lead to greater costs down the road, said Catherine Algeri, chief strategy officer at Democratic fundraising firm Chapman Cubine and Hussey. In 2008, her firm saw that candidates who spent less on acquiring donors and growing their email lists during the financial crisis struggled the most afterwards trying to build back up that infrastructure.
Some campaigns are now relying more on virtual tools and platforms to meet their fundraising goals. The last in-person event that Shari Yost Gold, a veteran fundraiser whose consulting firm worked with Sen. Kamala Harris and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaigns, helped organize was on March 10 in New York. Now, Yost Gold is helping her clients fundraise over video conferencing software like Zoom.
Yost Gold said Zoom works really well for small, targeted groups, but she’s found that larger virtual events are harder. Those larger events are also often critical in raising money, particularly from big, hundred-dollar donors. Connecting with those donors remains a priority, Yost Gold said, because she’s not sure if the small-dollar donors on whom Democrats have relied will continue to increase in number or will taper off.
Of course, not all campaigns are set up to fundraise successfully online. For instance, many leaner campaigns in smaller House districts often get by with “more old-school campaign methodologies like knocking on doors, and in-person gatherings,” Goris told me, adding that often digital fundraising is just less of a priority. But ramping up digital efforts in the coming weeks may be the only option available.
Yost Gold told me she was really pushing her clients to embrace digital outreach, as she doesn’t think Democrats will “have even 30 people in somebody’s house doing a fundraiser before the end of this election cycle.”
Of course, other fundraisers are more hopeful that in-person events can still take place at some point.
“If things start to normalize and improve, we have things we would like to plan. I guess, we are planning to plan, is the way to put it,” said Elizabeth Williams, an Alabama fundraiser working with mostly federal candidates. “As you get in later in the summer and fall, we would hope there can be more in-person events.”
Like everyone else, political fundraisers are trying to adapt to what each week (or day) brings in this global pandemic. But some fundraisers are hopeful because, as Williams puts it, this situation has made the importance of good government clear. “I think donors will want to support candidates who are capable of handling situations like this,” she said.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: What is motivating the COVID-19 protests?


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-22--What Would Virtual Democratic And Republican Conventions Mean For The 2020 Presidential Race?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : One bit of political pageantry that could undergo a pretty dramatic makeover this year if the coronavirus remains a persistent threat is the party convention .
Democrats have already postponed theirs from mid-July to mid-August and are now entertaining the possibility of hosting a remote convention .
( The Republicans ’ convention was already scheduled for late August and currently remains on track , although that could change . )
But considering in-person campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events have gone entirely online , is this that big of a deal ?
After all , what happens at a convention that is important for a party ?
julia_azari ( Julia Azari , political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : It ’ s a really tricky question in some ways .
Conventions are kind of a holdover from a past era when delegates really picked the nominee , but the transition from “ conventions as real events ” to “ conventions as infomercials ” has been kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just how big of a deal would a remote convention be ?
julia_azari : It ’ s hard to say without knowing the electoral context of the late summer .
If it ’ s close , everything matters , including the possible convention bounce .
And that could be particularly important if Democrats do a virtual convention and Republicans don ’ t , which seems possible .
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : But a big part of the reason why Democrats moved the convention to be immediately before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation , Julia .
sarahf : I was thinking about that earlier , though , as the Republican National Committee said on Monday it is pushing “ full steam ahead ” in planning its convention .
So I think Julia is right that one party could choose to host their convention remotely while the other doesn ’ t .
nrakich : On the question of what happens at a convention that is important for the party , I think there are two broad categories : the formal/bureaucratic part of actually selecting a nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball had a great article the other day on this and how remote conventions could work .
I recommend reading the whole thing , but the TLDR version is that the four important formalities that a convention must address — certifying delegates , approving the convention rules , electing convention officers and , of course , nominating the presidential and vice-presidential candidates — could all be done remotely but will require lots of advance planning .
As for the glitzy , self-promoting elements … I think that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : Right , the party still officially picks its presidential and vice-presidential nominees at the convention and gets hours of television coverage in the process .
But it ’ s really more of an opportunity to generate enthusiasm and support for the ticket and the party as a whole , as everyone already knows who the nominee will be .
There ’ s almost always a convention “ bounce ” in the polls for the party , too , which reflects this enthusiasm for one side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t fully stick around , but part of it can .
For instance , some recent national polls have pegged Biden ’ s support among Democrats at about 80 percent .
We would expect that to be closer to 90 percent on Election Day , and past elections have shown partisans coming home at convention time .
nrakich : One big question I have is , does a virtual convention produce the same kind of bounce ?
I assume the networks will still carry the biggest highlights of the convention , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the scope of their coverage will almost certainly be scaled back , right ?
And there will inevitably be less energy surrounding those speeches if they ’ re delivered from , say , Biden ’ s living room than before an adoring crowd of thousands .
julia_azari : I think this depends quite a bit on context .
Is everyone still at home watching TV all the time ?
Can the virtual convention convey the same energy — or possibly something different ?
I think a lot of us are learning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all cases , but it does provide something different , as you ’ re saying , Nathaniel .
geoffrey.skelley : The pageantry part will be much harder to pull off virtually .
And yeah , there won ’ t be the cheering crowds and energy that are part of that .
No balloon drop .
sarahf : Parties definitely seem to fear losing the pageantry by going remote .
But I keep going back to what you were outlining earlier , Nathaniel — so much of what happens at a convention is about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think your average person cares that much about — so I ’ m not sure there actually is that much of a downside .
Geoffrey was getting at this earlier , but isn ’ t the evidence on the effect of a post-convention bounce kind of mixed , too ?
geoffrey.skelley : Historically , after the convention , one party has gotten at least some sort of gain that lasts ; that is , it isn ’ t just an ephemeral bounce .
That may be less true now , though , given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For instance , recent bounces have tended to be smaller .
Additionally , when conventions are held in back-to-back weeks , as will be the case this year , there ’ s evidence that a bounce can be stunted .
julia_azari : Yeah , it ’ s messy .
If it ’ s close in the polls and one party gets a larger bounce , then that could still matter .
Although it might also be worth noting here that our presidential elections are not determined by popular vote .
sarahf : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if one party held their convention remotely while the other proceeded to have theirs in person , that could be … very messy .
Presumably , Democrats have more to lose from a remote convention , considering they ’ re not currently in control of the White House , right ?
Or put another way , they have more to gain from a convention , right ?
geoffrey.skelley : I think that ’ s right .
There ’ s definitely more of an opportunity for Democrats to use the convention to showcase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most Republicans are already set to rally to the incumbent .
nrakich : If Democrats hold a virtual convention but Republicans hold an in-person one ( I think this is unlikely , but if they do go opposite ways , that ’ s probably the way it would go ) , it could mean Republicans get a convention bounce and Democrats don ’ t .
julia_azari : A lot of this is pretty contextual , though .
For example , if things are still pretty bad with the pandemic , and Democrats did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t , Democrats could still gain , as maybe they ’ d look like the party that ’ s making cautious decisions .
geoffrey.skelley : The fact that Biden is super well-known — more so than , say , Bill Clinton or Michael Dukakis going into their first or only conventions — might make the remote aspect less of a setback , too .
julia_azari : Can we talk geography for a minute ?
( As I sit a couple miles from where this is scheduled to happen . )
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral fates , but holding the convention in Milwaukee was supposed to signal the importance of the Midwest to the Democratic Party .
And while this might have been a gamble to begin with , taking the location out of it removes the significance of deciding to host it there .
And for a small city to have been preparing for this for a year and not have it — there are likely to be devastating consequences .
I don ’ t know that people in Milwaukee ( a deeply blue city ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of this , but it just creates a very different effect than what was intended .
nrakich : That ’ s a great point about the economic consequences of canceling the conventions for their host cities — that ’ s something that gets lost in all this .
But I think any electoral boost that a party gets from holding its convention in a swing state is extremely small to nonexistent .
julia_azari : Yeah , I agree with that .
But like with so many things with campaign that probably don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t step away from the symbolic importance .
sarahf : And I suppose that neither can the media .
Because that ’ s what we ’ ve all landed on as the real downside at stake here , right ?
That is , if the convention is held entirely online , it may not take up as much of the news cycle and might not result in as much of a bounce .
geoffrey.skelley : Yeah , it ’ ll be harder for cable news to cover the conventions if many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Milwaukee or Charlotte .
geoffrey.skelley : I mean , how can we have a convention without the CNN Grill ?
julia_azari : I do wonder , though , how much media coverage is linked to anything that actually happens — like , visible tensions between different camps or unexpected things happening on the floor .
Those are really rare , admittedly .
geoffrey.skelley : Well , 2016 was unusual in that there was some convention drama on both sides , even if the nominations were never in doubt .
Some Republican rebels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to stop Trump , while some of Sanders ’ s supporters were fighting Clinton tooth and nail at the Democratic confab .
sarahf : Of course , this year Trump is the incumbent and Sanders has conceded sooner than he did in 2016 .
So in some ways , if there is going to be an election with a remote convention , this would be the one to have it , as party unity seems to be less of an issue this year .
julia_azari : Yeah .
I am not sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic National Convention , since the Sanders camp has been pretty conciliatory with Biden , and I think Democrats perceive the stakes pretty differently this year .
That said , if party unity were in jeopardy , a virtual format could actually help with that , making off-script events like Sanders supporters chanting during 2016 less likely .
It might even be a relief for party leaders , but it would definitely be a disappointment for those of us who applaud democracy being at least a little messy .
sarahf : So whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — what ’ s the role of the parties ’ conventions this year ?
geoffrey.skelley : The role is the same in the sense of promoting the nominee , bringing the party together and uniting for the fall campaign .
But if they ’ re remote , it remains to be seen how the parties carry that out .
We ’ re in uncharted territory .
And just to reiterate the points above , earned media coverage will be much harder to come by if it ’ s remote .
You won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10-person cable news panel on site to discuss something or show clips of people at the convention during a segment on it .
sarahf : That ’ s true , but I guess I keep wondering what the actual downsides of a remote convention are .
Most of what we ’ re talking about can still be done online , particularly the big keynote addresses from the presidential nominee and the vice-presidential nominee .
I guess I ’ m just not sure if a remote convention is any bigger of a deal than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate .
nrakich : I agree , but I just think the optics will be different — probably in a way that we can ’ t quite predict until we see it .
Or maybe we can — think about how much more natural a State of the Union address ( delivered before an audience ) looks than the State of the Union response ( often just delivered to a camera ) .
julia_azari : Though everyone may be used to stuff like that by August !
I also think talented TV professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we ’ re still mostly staying at home… well , I ’ ve watched three things on live TV in the last week , which probably hasn ’ t happened since 1998 .
That said , while a virtual convention might be better at highlighting party unity , it might also double down on the superficial nature of a convention and push aside brewing conflicts to a later date or a different venue .
Not to mention , a virtual convention might help the more powerful within the party , meaning the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use the in-person gathering to develop their political connections and networks of groups in different parts of the country .
They also won ’ t be able to generate as much media attention .
I ’ m not really sure of the importance of national conventions for this stuff , especially in the digital age , but politics has always been about interpersonal relationships in a way that ’ s hard to quantify .
geoffrey.skelley : It ’ s tough to say what the impact might be , but I can see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go virtual if they don ’ t have to .
There ’ s potentially less coverage of the event and less of a chance to get their message across .
nrakich : Yeah , it ’ s a risk , so it ’ s understandable if a party isn ’ t eager to take it .
That said , sometimes taking a risk works out fine .
It ’ s such an unprecedented situation that I don ’ t want to make any firm predictions .
julia_azari : I will say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Democrats is likely to be that the status quo under Trump is not good for a lot of people .
A virtual convention could be a pretty good ad for that point of view .
geoffrey.skelley : Conventions are also arguably pretty archaic at this point .
I remember the 2012 GOP convention lost a day because of a hurricane , and it wasn ’ t a big deal because who needed a fourth day ?
sarahf : Exactly , Geoffrey .
I can ’ t help but wonder whether we overplay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s really the speeches from the nominee and running mate that people tune in for , and if a remote convention wouldn ’ t actually be that big of a deal , especially when so many other things ( remote debates , voting by mail ) could be ushered in as changes .
nrakich : I suspect that , if we get virtual conventions this year , it will be good for at least a handful of political science dissertations .
julia_azari : It ’ s important to focus on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m being a little sarcastic , but I actually think there ’ s a lot we could learn from this .
It ’ s hard to apply any political science literature on the roles conventions play to our current moment , as studies tend to be about overall trends and ordinary conditions .
And it ’ s hard , for me at least , to imagine that this campaign will be totally ordinary .
There are just so many factors that depend on the context — for example , the economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic .
Then there ’ s also the unusual nature of the incumbent and the fact that Biden is really well-known .
sarahf : OK , to wrap — a remote convention is a very real possibility this year , but like so many other things that are being tossed about as alternatives to how we normally conduct business , there are also a lot of unknowns , i.e.
, will both parties do it remotely ?
And what would a remote convention even look like ?
But say it does happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest downsides for the parties ?
nrakich : Well , there ’ s the loss of the convention bounce as we have already discussed .
But one long-term downside for the parties could be that the networks realize how much of the convention is just pomp and circumstance and they decide they don ’ t have to cover it nearly as much in the future .
julia_azari : There will be downsides in terms of media coverage , in particular as to what is signaled to moderately attentive voters .
When races are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t as plugged in that an election is happening , in addition to what the parties stand for , all while creating a familiar theater of politics .
There are also more subtle and interesting questions for parties about what happens when people don ’ t meet and have the kinds of informal interactions they usually do , and I think that could mean changes in the ways that parties handle internal conflicts that will have small but long-term effects .
geoffrey.skelley : Yeah , for me it ’ s coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s probably going to be the biggest casualty of a remote convention , among the other things that Nathaniel and Julia mentioned .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): One bit of political pageantry that could undergo a pretty dramatic makeover this year if the coronavirus remains a persistent threat is the party convention. Democrats have already postponed theirs from mid-July to mid-August and are now entertaining the possibility of hosting a remote convention. (The Republicans’ convention was already scheduled for late August and currently remains on track, although that could change.)
But considering in-person campaign rallies have already been suspended and fundraising events have gone entirely online, is this that big of a deal? After all, what happens at a convention that is important for a party?
julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): It’s a really tricky question in some ways. Conventions are kind of a holdover from a past era when delegates really picked the nominee, but the transition from “conventions as real events” to “conventions as infomercials” has been kind of messy and slow.
sarahf: So just how big of a deal would a remote convention be?
julia_azari: It’s hard to say without knowing the electoral context of the late summer.
If it’s close, everything matters, including the possible convention bounce.
And that could be particularly important if Democrats do a virtual convention and Republicans don’t, which seems possible.
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): But a big part of the reason why Democrats moved the convention to be immediately before the Republican one is probably to avoid that situation, Julia.
sarahf: I was thinking about that earlier, though, as the Republican National Committee said on Monday it is pushing “full steam ahead” in planning its convention. So I think Julia is right that one party could choose to host their convention remotely while the other doesn’t.
nrakich: On the question of what happens at a convention that is important for the party, I think there are two broad categories: the formal/bureaucratic part of actually selecting a nominee, and the public-facing infomercial part.
Sabato’s Crystal Ball had a great article the other day on this and how remote conventions could work. I recommend reading the whole thing, but the TLDR version is that the four important formalities that a convention must address — certifying delegates, approving the convention rules, electing convention officers and, of course, nominating the presidential and vice-presidential candidates — could all be done remotely but will require lots of advance planning.
As for the glitzy, self-promoting elements … I think that’s more of an open question.
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Right, the party still officially picks its presidential and vice-presidential nominees at the convention and gets hours of television coverage in the process. But it’s really more of an opportunity to generate enthusiasm and support for the ticket and the party as a whole, as everyone already knows who the nominee will be.
There’s almost always a convention “bounce” in the polls for the party, too, which reflects this enthusiasm for one side to some extent. That bounce doesn’t fully stick around, but part of it can. For instance, some recent national polls have pegged Biden’s support among Democrats at about 80 percent. We would expect that to be closer to 90 percent on Election Day, and past elections have shown partisans coming home at convention time.
nrakich: One big question I have is, does a virtual convention produce the same kind of bounce?
I assume the networks will still carry the biggest highlights of the convention, like the presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ speeches. But the scope of their coverage will almost certainly be scaled back, right?
And there will inevitably be less energy surrounding those speeches if they’re delivered from, say, Biden’s living room than before an adoring crowd of thousands.
julia_azari: I think this depends quite a bit on context. Is everyone still at home watching TV all the time? Can the virtual convention convey the same energy — or possibly something different? I think a lot of us are learning that virtual may not be worse in all cases, but it does provide something different, as you’re saying, Nathaniel.
geoffrey.skelley: The pageantry part will be much harder to pull off virtually. And yeah, there won’t be the cheering crowds and energy that are part of that. No balloon drop.
sarahf: Parties definitely seem to fear losing the pageantry by going remote. But I keep going back to what you were outlining earlier, Nathaniel — so much of what happens at a convention is about intraparty rules that I don’t think your average person cares that much about — so I’m not sure there actually is that much of a downside.
Geoffrey was getting at this earlier, but isn’t the evidence on the effect of a post-convention bounce kind of mixed, too?
geoffrey.skelley: Historically, after the convention, one party has gotten at least some sort of gain that lasts; that is, it isn’t just an ephemeral bounce. That may be less true now, though, given how polarized and partisan our politics are. For instance, recent bounces have tended to be smaller.
Additionally, when conventions are held in back-to-back weeks, as will be the case this year, there’s evidence that a bounce can be stunted.
julia_azari: Yeah, it’s messy. If it’s close in the polls and one party gets a larger bounce, then that could still matter. Although it might also be worth noting here that our presidential elections are not determined by popular vote.
nrakich: Wait, they’re not?
😛
sarahf: And as we were talking about earlier, if one party held their convention remotely while the other proceeded to have theirs in person, that could be … very messy.
Presumably, Democrats have more to lose from a remote convention, considering they’re not currently in control of the White House, right?
Or put another way, they have more to gain from a convention, right?
geoffrey.skelley: I think that’s right. There’s definitely more of an opportunity for Democrats to use the convention to showcase the party coming together. Remember, most Republicans are already set to rally to the incumbent.
nrakich: If Democrats hold a virtual convention but Republicans hold an in-person one (I think this is unlikely, but if they do go opposite ways, that’s probably the way it would go), it could mean Republicans get a convention bounce and Democrats don’t.
julia_azari: A lot of this is pretty contextual, though. For example, if things are still pretty bad with the pandemic, and Democrats did hold their convention remotely while Republicans didn’t, Democrats could still gain, as maybe they’d look like the party that’s making cautious decisions.
geoffrey.skelley: The fact that Biden is super well-known — more so than, say, Bill Clinton or Michael Dukakis going into their first or only conventions — might make the remote aspect less of a setback, too.
julia_azari: Can we talk geography for a minute? (As I sit a couple miles from where this is scheduled to happen.) It’s not obvious that convention locations shape electoral fates, but holding the convention in Milwaukee was supposed to signal the importance of the Midwest to the Democratic Party.
And while this might have been a gamble to begin with, taking the location out of it removes the significance of deciding to host it there. And for a small city to have been preparing for this for a year and not have it — there are likely to be devastating consequences. I don’t know that people in Milwaukee (a deeply blue city) will be put off the Democratic ticket because of this, but it just creates a very different effect than what was intended.
nrakich: That’s a great point about the economic consequences of canceling the conventions for their host cities — that’s something that gets lost in all this. But I think any electoral boost that a party gets from holding its convention in a swing state is extremely small to nonexistent.
julia_azari: Yeah, I agree with that. But like with so many things with campaign that probably don’t matter — parties and politicians can’t step away from the symbolic importance.
sarahf: And I suppose that neither can the media. Because that’s what we’ve all landed on as the real downside at stake here, right? That is, if the convention is held entirely online, it may not take up as much of the news cycle and might not result in as much of a bounce.
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, it’ll be harder for cable news to cover the conventions if many journalists and hosts aren’t gathered in Milwaukee or Charlotte.
nrakich: That’s a good point, Geoffrey.
geoffrey.skelley: I mean, how can we have a convention without the CNN Grill?
julia_azari: I do wonder, though, how much media coverage is linked to anything that actually happens — like, visible tensions between different camps or unexpected things happening on the floor. Those are really rare, admittedly.
geoffrey.skelley: Well, 2016 was unusual in that there was some convention drama on both sides, even if the nominations were never in doubt. Some Republican rebels were trying to get an open convention vote to stop Trump, while some of Sanders’s supporters were fighting Clinton tooth and nail at the Democratic confab.
sarahf: Of course, this year Trump is the incumbent and Sanders has conceded sooner than he did in 2016. So in some ways, if there is going to be an election with a remote convention, this would be the one to have it, as party unity seems to be less of an issue this year.
julia_azari: Yeah. I am not sure what I would expect from a live Democratic National Convention, since the Sanders camp has been pretty conciliatory with Biden, and I think Democrats perceive the stakes pretty differently this year.
That said, if party unity were in jeopardy, a virtual format could actually help with that, making off-script events like Sanders supporters chanting during 2016 less likely. It might even be a relief for party leaders, but it would definitely be a disappointment for those of us who applaud democracy being at least a little messy.
sarahf: So whether they’re remote — or not — what’s the role of the parties’ conventions this year?
geoffrey.skelley: The role is the same in the sense of promoting the nominee, bringing the party together and uniting for the fall campaign. But if they’re remote, it remains to be seen how the parties carry that out. We’re in uncharted territory.
And just to reiterate the points above, earned media coverage will be much harder to come by if it’s remote. You won’t be able to turn to a 10-person cable news panel on site to discuss something or show clips of people at the convention during a segment on it.
sarahf: That’s true, but I guess I keep wondering what the actual downsides of a remote convention are. Most of what we’re talking about can still be done online, particularly the big keynote addresses from the presidential nominee and the vice-presidential nominee. I guess I’m just not sure if a remote convention is any bigger of a deal than a remote campaign rally or a remote debate.
nrakich: I agree, but I just think the optics will be different — probably in a way that we can’t quite predict until we see it.
Or maybe we can — think about how much more natural a State of the Union address (delivered before an audience) looks than the State of the Union response (often just delivered to a camera).
julia_azari: Though everyone may be used to stuff like that by August! I also think talented TV professionals can still make it interesting. And if we’re still mostly staying at home… well, I’ve watched three things on live TV in the last week, which probably hasn’t happened since 1998.
That said, while a virtual convention might be better at highlighting party unity, it might also double down on the superficial nature of a convention and push aside brewing conflicts to a later date or a different venue. Not to mention, a virtual convention might help the more powerful within the party, meaning the less-powerful factions won’t be able to use the in-person gathering to develop their political connections and networks of groups in different parts of the country. They also won’t be able to generate as much media attention.
I’m not really sure of the importance of national conventions for this stuff, especially in the digital age, but politics has always been about interpersonal relationships in a way that’s hard to quantify.
geoffrey.skelley: It’s tough to say what the impact might be, but I can see why the parties don’t want to go virtual if they don’t have to. There’s potentially less coverage of the event and less of a chance to get their message across.
nrakich: Yeah, it’s a risk, so it’s understandable if a party isn’t eager to take it. That said, sometimes taking a risk works out fine. It’s such an unprecedented situation that I don’t want to make any firm predictions.
julia_azari: I will say, though, that a big campaign point for Democrats is likely to be that the status quo under Trump is not good for a lot of people. A virtual convention could be a pretty good ad for that point of view.
geoffrey.skelley: Conventions are also arguably pretty archaic at this point. I remember the 2012 GOP convention lost a day because of a hurricane, and it wasn’t a big deal because who needed a fourth day?
sarahf: Exactly, Geoffrey. I can’t help but wonder whether we overplay the importance of the convention, when it’s really the speeches from the nominee and running mate that people tune in for, and if a remote convention wouldn’t actually be that big of a deal, especially when so many other things (remote debates, voting by mail) could be ushered in as changes.
nrakich: I suspect that, if we get virtual conventions this year, it will be good for at least a handful of political science dissertations.
julia_azari: It’s important to focus on the real impact. Research. 🙂
I’m being a little sarcastic, but I actually think there’s a lot we could learn from this.
It’s hard to apply any political science literature on the roles conventions play to our current moment, as studies tend to be about overall trends and ordinary conditions. And it’s hard, for me at least, to imagine that this campaign will be totally ordinary. There are just so many factors that depend on the context — for example, the economy and the new nature of virtual life under this pandemic. Then there’s also the unusual nature of the incumbent and the fact that Biden is really well-known.
sarahf: OK, to wrap — a remote convention is a very real possibility this year, but like so many other things that are being tossed about as alternatives to how we normally conduct business, there are also a lot of unknowns, i.e., will both parties do it remotely? And what would a remote convention even look like? But say it does happen — what do you see as the biggest downsides for the parties?
nrakich: Well, there’s the loss of the convention bounce as we have already discussed.
But one long-term downside for the parties could be that the networks realize how much of the convention is just pomp and circumstance and they decide they don’t have to cover it nearly as much in the future.
julia_azari: There will be downsides in terms of media coverage, in particular as to what is signaled to moderately attentive voters. When races are close, conventions can remind those who aren’t as plugged in that an election is happening, in addition to what the parties stand for, all while creating a familiar theater of politics.
There are also more subtle and interesting questions for parties about what happens when people don’t meet and have the kinds of informal interactions they usually do, and I think that could mean changes in the ways that parties handle internal conflicts that will have small but long-term effects.
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, for me it’s coverage, coverage, coverage. That’s probably going to be the biggest casualty of a remote convention, among the other things that Nathaniel and Julia mentioned.
How a shortage of sand could delay coronavirus vaccine l FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-22--Politics Podcast: How One Modeler Is Trying To Forecast The Toll Of COVID-19

Governments across the United States and around the world have relied on forecast models in planning their response to the @ @ @ @ @ special edition of “ Model Talk ” on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Dr. Chris @ @ @ @ @ frequently cited Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model — discusses how he went about @ @ @ @ @ challenges he has encountered .
Murray says honing the IHME model has been an ongoing @ @ @ @ @ the virus has emerged as it spread .
You can listen to the episode by @ @ @ @ @ button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN @ @ @ @ @ platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The @ @ @ @ @ and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and @ @ @ @ @ a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ , on Twitter or in the comments .

Governments across the United States and around the world have relied on forecast models in planning their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this special edition of “Model Talk” on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Dr. Chris Murray — who created the frequently cited Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model — discusses how he went about building his model and the challenges he has encountered. Murray says honing the IHME model has been an ongoing process as new data about the virus has emerged as it spread.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Forecasting the toll of COVID-19
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-22--Trump’s Latest Attempt To Limit Immigration Isn’t Really About The Coronavirus

Not many public health experts have been calling for new limits on immigration as a major part of the U.S. strategy to fight the spread of the coronavirus .
In fact , some health experts have explicitly said the U.S. should not take such steps .
So why is President Trump opting for new immigration restrictions ?
Probably because Trump is always looking to limit immigration — no matter the context .
Trump has suggested that his proposal , which is expected to halt the issuance of new green cards for at least the next 60 days , is justified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rationale is that it will help stop the spread the virus — and economic ones — where the rationale is that in the middle of a likely recession , immigrants should not take away jobs from people already in the country .
It ’ s probably too soon to evaluate this new policy by those rationales , as the executive order describing the policy has not yet been released .
Furthermore , it ’ s likely that its implementation will be complicated , and the courts could block the policy itself before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are reasons to be skeptical of Trump ’ s stated rationales .
The president nearly always cites economic and security reasons for adopting various anti-immigration stances — and experts nearly always say that those rationales don ’ t stand up to scrutiny .
Instead , the simplest explanation for Trump ’ s decision to halt some legal immigration to the U.S. is that it aligns with his long-held ideological beliefs , and the electoral strategies and policy choices that spring out of those .
Since well before the coronavirus outbreak , Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses people of color and immigrants as foils .
Since well before the coronavirus , one of Trump ’ s core policy ideas was limiting immigration however possible .
And Trump has campaigned on being tough on immigration since he entered the Republican presidential primary in 2015 .
In this light , it ’ s pretty easy to explain Trump ’ s new policy .
One likely rationale is simply that Trump is an immigration hawk who has long wanted to essentially “ shut down the border , ” and the virus gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his more aggressive anti-immigration moves as president .
In fact , this new policy might have a limited impact because the administration had already dramatically curtailed immigration since the outbreak of COVID-19 .
A second explanation is electoral .
Trump is up for reelection in November , and he and his team probably think that the president ’ s anti-immigration stances help him at the ballot box .
After all , it ’ s hard to imagine Trump being in the White House without his promises to build a wall on the U.S-Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. — Trump ’ s anti-immigration approach was likely a major factor in his winning the GOP primary in 2016 .
Those anti-immigration stances may not actually help Trump in the general election this November — even if he thinks they will .
Polls suggest Americans overall don ’ t hold strongly anti-immigration views .
And it ’ s not clear that Trump ’ s immigration stances were particularly helpful electorally to him or Republicans in general in the 2016 general election and the 2018 midterms .
In the final weeks before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about immigration nonstop and his party lost badly , including key races in Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states where Trump won in 2016 .
More fundamentally , this new immigration ban fits with Trump ’ s approach to both governing and electoral politics , which relies on a kind of identity politics that casts certain groups , particularly people who are white and Christians , as allies , and casts others , often those who are non-white , as enemies .
Amid the virus outbreak , Trump and his team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China , attacked the World Health Organization as too tied to the Chinese and released an ad connecting presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to China that the New York Times described as xenophobic .
In addition , Trump has increasingly attacked the media and Democratic governors who have issued state-at-home orders .
The president has homed in on Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer in particular .
If you ’ ve been following Trump ’ s campaign and presidency for awhile , the president ’ s attacks on China , immigrants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t feel novel at all .
These are his normal political instincts — to frame people and groups outside of his core coalition as foils .
This time , the difference is that it ’ s happening amid a global pandemic .

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

Not many public health experts have been calling for new limits on immigration as a major part of the U.S. strategy to fight the spread of the coronavirus. In fact, some health experts have explicitly said the U.S. should not take such steps. So why is President Trump opting for new immigration restrictions? Probably because Trump is always looking to limit immigration — no matter the context.
Trump has suggested that his proposal, which is expected to halt the issuance of new green cards for at least the next 60 days, is justified on both national security grounds — where the rationale is that it will help stop the spread the virus — and economic ones — where the rationale is that in the middle of a likely recession, immigrants should not take away jobs from people already in the country. It’s probably too soon to evaluate this new policy by those rationales, as the executive order describing the policy has not yet been released. Furthermore, it’s likely that its implementation will be complicated, and the courts could block the policy itself before it goes into effect.
But there are reasons to be skeptical of Trump’s stated rationales. The president nearly always cites economic and security reasons for adopting various anti-immigration stances — and experts nearly always say that those rationales don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Instead, the simplest explanation for Trump’s decision to halt some legal immigration to the U.S. is that it aligns with his long-held ideological beliefs, and the electoral strategies and policy choices that spring out of those. Since well before the coronavirus outbreak, Trump has practiced an identity politics where he often uses people of color and immigrants as foils. Since well before the coronavirus, one of Trump’s core policy ideas was limiting immigration however possible. And Trump has campaigned on being tough on immigration since he entered the Republican presidential primary in 2015.
In this light, it’s pretty easy to explain Trump’s new policy. One likely rationale is simply that Trump is an immigration hawk who has long wanted to essentially “shut down the border,” and the virus gave him the pretext for taking one of his more aggressive anti-immigration moves as president. In fact, this new policy might have a limited impact because the administration had already dramatically curtailed immigration since the outbreak of COVID-19.
A second explanation is electoral. Trump is up for reelection in November, and he and his team probably think that the president’s anti-immigration stances help him at the ballot box. After all, it’s hard to imagine Trump being in the White House without his promises to build a wall on the U.S-Mexico border and ban Muslims from entering the U.S. — Trump’s anti-immigration approach was likely a major factor in his winning the GOP primary in 2016.
Those anti-immigration stances may not actually help Trump in the general election this November — even if he thinks they will. Polls suggest Americans overall don’t hold strongly anti-immigration views. And it’s not clear that Trump’s immigration stances were particularly helpful electorally to him or Republicans in general in the 2016 general election and the 2018 midterms. In the final weeks before the midterms, for example, Trump talked about immigration nonstop and his party lost badly, including key races in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states where Trump won in 2016.
More fundamentally, this new immigration ban fits with Trump’s approach to both governing and electoral politics, which relies on a kind of identity politics that casts certain groups, particularly people who are white and Christians, as allies, and casts others, often those who are non-white, as enemies. Amid the virus outbreak, Trump and his team have continually highlighted that the virus originated in China, attacked the World Health Organization as too tied to the Chinese and released an ad connecting presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to China that the New York Times described as xenophobic.
In addition, Trump has increasingly attacked the media and Democratic governors who have issued state-at-home orders. The president has homed in on Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in particular.
If you’ve been following Trump’s campaign and presidency for awhile, the president’s attacks on China, immigrants, the media and prominent female politicians shouldn’t feel novel at all. These are his normal political instincts — to frame people and groups outside of his core coalition as foils. This time, the difference is that it’s happening amid a global pandemic.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Forecasting the toll of COVID-19