fivethirtyeight--2020-04-27--Few States Are Prepared To Switch To Voting By Mail. That Could Make For A Messy Election.

As with most aspects of our daily lives , the coronavirus pandemic has disrupted the administration of elections .
Several states have already postponed primaries that were scheduled for this spring , and the few in-person elections that have taken place were marred by chaos .
But with an election date of November 3 more or less set in stone , how can the general election be conducted safely if the pandemic is still raging in the fall ?
Many officials and voters alike think the solution is to conduct the election predominantly by mail — but that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vote-by-mail system is arduous and expensive , and most states simply aren ’ t set up to smoothly conduct a mail election with their present resources and laws .
Currently , state laws on the use of mail voting are a patchwork quilt .
Only five states regularly conduct mail elections by default : Colorado , Hawaii , Oregon , Utah and Washington .
Three more , though , do allow counties to opt into mail voting , and nine more allow certain elections to be conducted by mail — although these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a far cry from the 2020 presidential race .
Another 29 states ( plus Washington , D.C. ) give voters the option to vote by mail — also known as no-excuse absentee voting — in federal elections , but the burden is on the voter to request her ballot .
The remaining 16 states still require voters to provide a valid excuse if they want to vote by mail , although this year , some states may accept concerns around the coronavirus as an excuse .
( New Hampshire has already moved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Additionally , several states may consider expanding the use of mail voting in November , at least if the coronavirus is still a threat .
The secretaries of state of Arizona and Minnesota want to mail ballots to all registered voters in the fall , and bills to that effect have been proposed in Illinois and Massachusetts as well .
But don ’ t hold your breath : There are some major obstacles standing in the way of states expanding mail voting .
What it would take to expand mail voting To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mail voting has evolved into a partisan issue .
Republicans , led by President Trump , are strongly opposing efforts to convert to mail voting , arguing it boosts Democratic turnout or enables voter fraud .
In reality , most studies have shown that mail voting does not advantage either party , and voter fraud is extremely rare , both in person and by mail .
Indeed , Republican legislators have already spoken out against the proposals in Arizona and Minnesota , and President Trump and other Republicans have said they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the bigger hurdle may be logistical .
States can ’ t just snap their fingers and pull off a mail election on a dime ; election administrators with whom we spoke agreed that preparing for a mail election is a challenge .
First , ballots need to be printed in massive quantities weeks in advance of the election .
The Brennan Center for Justice , an advocacy group that supports expanded mail voting as one way to insulate elections from the effects of the pandemic , recommends printing 1.2 times as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to account for the possibility of more people registering to vote closer to the election .
That ’ s a tall order for any state , but especially ones that normally use electronic voting machines and aren ’ t used to handling large volumes of paper ballots .
And then , of course , for every ballot , you need a corresponding envelope to mail it in — and , as elections administration expert Tammy Patrick told The Appeal last month , “ it ’ s not like these are just regular old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Home Depot and buy.
” They must include instructions for the voter — which have to be thoughtfully designed to guide confused voters — and are often custom-ordered .
There ’ s also the burden of assisting voters with the transition .
Since Hawaii enacted default mail voting last year , Rex Quidilla , the elections administrator for the City and County of Honolulu , said his office has had to significantly ramp up support services for voters , such as providing replacements for ballots that get lost in the mail .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in maintaining the voter rolls to ensure that each voter ’ s address is up to date — otherwise , she won ’ t get her ballot .
And Myrna Pérez , the director of the Brennan Center ’ s Voting Rights and Elections Program , recommended that officials hire public education specialists to assist with voter education .
“ People need to know that the election system is going to look a little different for them and what their options are , ” she said .
“ [ Election officials ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sure that people know what to do with mail ballots , make sure they have tracking systems , ” and other precautions to ensure no valid voter is disenfranchised .
Doing all that , while also stuffing and mailing out millions of ballot envelopes , is a herculean task — perhaps an impossible one for many election offices at current staffing levels .
Earlier this month , Wisconsin election officials reported being overwhelmed by absentee-ballot requests and simply being physically unable to fulfill them all , which led to many voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting also requires more staff .
For example , Quidilla had to establish multiple new positions to coordinate all the new services Honolulu is providing to voters .
Hiring and training new workers is a big lift under normal circumstances — but election offices in 2020 have the added challenge of doing it during a pandemic .
Then , when the ballots are returned , they need to be counted .
For some jurisdictions , this means even more bodies : Armstead B.C .
Jones Sr. , director of the Baltimore City Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enlisted some election judges to help canvass mail ballots for the two mail elections he is conducting this spring — a special election for Maryland ’ s 7th Congressional District on April 28 and the Maryland primary election on June 2 .
For others , it means investing in specialized equipment like high-speed ballot scanners , automated mail sorting systems and signature-matching software .
Honolulu is one jurisdiction that has embraced automation .
“ We were already at a point where manually processing the returned ballots was just not feasible anymore , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a jurisdiction of half a million registered voters ; it would be very difficult for us to receive and verify all these [ ballots ] on a manual basis.
” And , of course , all this — from printing ballots , to ordering envelopes , to hiring and training new workers , to buying new equipment — costs money .
That alone could thwart some states from switching to mail voting this year , such as Florida , where county officials say they just don ’ t have the cash to purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pop .
In March , the Brennan Center estimated that it would cost between $ 982 million and $ 1.4 billion to implement mail voting nationwide , with the biggest single expense being , simply , postage .
That said , a mail election isn ’ t necessarily more expensive than a traditional one , since mail elections save money in other areas .
Jones told FiveThirtyEight that , while Baltimore did incur additional expenses by paying for postage on “ both ends — going out and coming back , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they won ’ t be needed to staff polling places on election day .
“ There ’ s a give and take on savings and expenses , ” he noted .
“ We ’ ll find out toward the end [ whether the mail election was more or less expensive than usual ] .
” Given these challenges , you might think expanded mail voting has little chance of being adopted , let alone implemented , in any new states by November .
While that skepticism is probably warranted , the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail voting is definitely closer to reality in some states than in others .
Most importantly , experts say that states with at least some level of mail-voting infrastructure in place could more easily make the transition to vote-by-mail .
To better understand which states are most prepared to conduct the 2020 election by mail , we looked at the party control of a state ( since vote-by-mail probably has the best chance of passing in Democratic-controlled states ) , in addition to how many of its registered voters were sent absentee/mail ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By looking at both the percentage who received a ballot and the raw number who didn ’ t receive a ballot ( a useful proxy for the number of additional ballots a state would have to mail in order to achieve full vote-by-mail status ) , we can get a sense of just how close certain states are to a world in which every registered voter is sent a ballot .
Unfortunately for proponents of mail voting , there ’ s no state that does well on all three criteria that doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Note how longtime vote-by-mail states like Oregon and Washington sent ballots to virtually every registered voter . )
But there are some states where the hurdles may not be insurmountable .
Based on the existing prevalence of absentee voting , Montana ( where 63 percent of voters were sent ballots in 2018 , and only about 260,000 were not ) and Arizona ( 62 percent , 1.60 million ) look like the easiest places to implement vote-by-mail ; however , their Republican legislatures may lack the appetite to pass it .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cool on the Democratic secretary of state ’ s proposal to make the switch .
Montana , though , does have a Democratic governor who already steered the state ’ s June primary to a default mail election .
And California isn ’ t that far behind either , having sent ballots to 54 percent of its registered voters in 2018 .
In addition , it ’ s completely run by Democrats , but its sheer size means around 11.48 million more people would need to be sent ballots before the Golden State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mail — a daunting lift .
Far more states are starting from a position of negligible mail-voting infrastructure , however .
A full 29 states ( plus D.C. ) sent ballots to fewer than 10 percent of their registered voters in 2018 .
Even many blue states that might be the most eager to switch to mail voting might find it challenging , such as New York , where only 3 percent of voters were given an absentee ballot in 2018 , and about 12.35 million were not .
As for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Arizona seems best prepared to switch to mail voting .
A respectable proportion of Florida ( 25 percent in both 2016 and 2018 ) already votes by mail , but , as mentioned earlier , a lack of resources will probably prevent the Sunshine State from getting mail ballots in the hands of its remaining 10-11 million registrants .
Michigan ( where 15 percent of voters were sent a ballot in 2018 , but 6.35 million were not ) is in a similar boat , although a 2018 ballot initiative to liberalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help grease the skids .
Finally , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and ( as we ’ ve already seen ) Wisconsin have historically not had a significant culture of mail voting and would likely have a rough transition to a vote-by-mail system , should the need arise .
Any state considering conducting November ’ s election by mail should start laying the groundwork as soon as possible for the best chance of success .
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission ’ s recommended timeline to expand the use of vote-by-mail starts in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , four weeks ago .
“ States should start working on it now , ” Pérez urged .
“ The election is too important to not start troubleshooting now.
” Jones , who learned in mid-March that he would have to conduct a mail election on April 28 , concurred : “ We could ’ ve definitely used more time.
” According to Jones , Maryland did not start mailing ballots for the election until two and a half weeks before the election .
“ That could ’ ve been more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work on them and get them back in .
I ’ m still getting some emails that people haven ’ t received ballots.
” But despite that , Jones thinks the benefits of vote-by-mail outweigh the challenges .
“ I just believe that mail-out ballots are probably the right way to go .
We just need to tighten up the process and get it fine-tuned .
I think it ’ s the way of the future .
”

As with most aspects of our daily lives, the coronavirus pandemic has disrupted the administration of elections. Several states have already postponed primaries that were scheduled for this spring, and the few in-person elections that have taken place were marred by chaos. But with an election date of November 3 more or less set in stone, how can the general election be conducted safely if the pandemic is still raging in the fall?
Many officials and voters alike think the solution is to conduct the election predominantly by mail — but that’s easier said than done. Converting to a vote-by-mail system is arduous and expensive, and most states simply aren’t set up to smoothly conduct a mail election with their present resources and laws.
Currently, state laws on the use of mail voting are a patchwork quilt. Only five states regularly conduct mail elections by default: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Three more, though, do allow counties to opt into mail voting, and nine more allow certain elections to be conducted by mail — although these are typically low-turnout, local elections, a far cry from the 2020 presidential race.
Another 29 states (plus Washington, D.C.) give voters the option to vote by mail — also known as no-excuse absentee voting — in federal elections, but the burden is on the voter to request her ballot. The remaining 16 states still require voters to provide a valid excuse if they want to vote by mail, although this year, some states may accept concerns around the coronavirus as an excuse. (New Hampshire has already moved to do that for the general election.)
Additionally, several states may consider expanding the use of mail voting in November, at least if the coronavirus is still a threat. The secretaries of state of Arizona and Minnesota want to mail ballots to all registered voters in the fall, and bills to that effect have been proposed in Illinois and Massachusetts as well. But don’t hold your breath: There are some major obstacles standing in the way of states expanding mail voting.
What it would take to expand mail voting
To start, there’s the fact that mail voting has evolved into a partisan issue. Republicans, led by President Trump, are strongly opposing efforts to convert to mail voting, arguing it boosts Democratic turnout or enables voter fraud. In reality, most studies have shown that mail voting does not advantage either party, and voter fraud is extremely rare, both in person and by mail. Indeed, Republican legislators have already spoken out against the proposals in Arizona and Minnesota, and President Trump and other Republicans have said they will oppose national efforts to encourage election reform.
But the bigger hurdle may be logistical. States can’t just snap their fingers and pull off a mail election on a dime; election administrators with whom we spoke agreed that preparing for a mail election is a challenge.
Should we sacrifice our data privacy to fight the coronavirus?
First, ballots need to be printed in massive quantities weeks in advance of the election. The Brennan Center for Justice, an advocacy group that supports expanded mail voting as one way to insulate elections from the effects of the pandemic, recommends printing 1.2 times as many ballots as there are registered voters to account for the possibility of more people registering to vote closer to the election. That’s a tall order for any state, but especially ones that normally use electronic voting machines and aren’t used to handling large volumes of paper ballots. And then, of course, for every ballot, you need a corresponding envelope to mail it in — and, as elections administration expert Tammy Patrick told The Appeal last month, “it’s not like these are just regular old envelopes that you can go down to Home Depot and buy.” They must include instructions for the voter — which have to be thoughtfully designed to guide confused voters — and are often custom-ordered.
There’s also the burden of assisting voters with the transition. Since Hawaii enacted default mail voting last year, Rex Quidilla, the elections administrator for the City and County of Honolulu, said his office has had to significantly ramp up support services for voters, such as providing replacements for ballots that get lost in the mail. In addition, his office has invested more time in maintaining the voter rolls to ensure that each voter’s address is up to date — otherwise, she won’t get her ballot. And Myrna Pérez, the director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program, recommended that officials hire public education specialists to assist with voter education. “People need to know that the election system is going to look a little different for them and what their options are,” she said. “[Election officials] should start working with local post offices to make sure that people know what to do with mail ballots, make sure they have tracking systems,” and other precautions to ensure no valid voter is disenfranchised.
Doing all that, while also stuffing and mailing out millions of ballot envelopes, is a herculean task — perhaps an impossible one for many election offices at current staffing levels. Earlier this month, Wisconsin election officials reported being overwhelmed by absentee-ballot requests and simply being physically unable to fulfill them all, which led to many voters never receiving their ballots. So mail voting also requires more staff. For example, Quidilla had to establish multiple new positions to coordinate all the new services Honolulu is providing to voters. Hiring and training new workers is a big lift under normal circumstances — but election offices in 2020 have the added challenge of doing it during a pandemic.
Then, when the ballots are returned, they need to be counted. For some jurisdictions, this means even more bodies: Armstead B.C. Jones Sr., director of the Baltimore City Board of Elections, said he has already enlisted some election judges to help canvass mail ballots for the two mail elections he is conducting this spring — a special election for Maryland’s 7th Congressional District on April 28 and the Maryland primary election on June 2. For others, it means investing in specialized equipment like high-speed ballot scanners, automated mail sorting systems and signature-matching software. Honolulu is one jurisdiction that has embraced automation. “We were already at a point where manually processing the returned ballots was just not feasible anymore,” Quidilla said. “We’re a jurisdiction of half a million registered voters; it would be very difficult for us to receive and verify all these [ballots] on a manual basis.”
And, of course, all this — from printing ballots, to ordering envelopes, to hiring and training new workers, to buying new equipment — costs money. That alone could thwart some states from switching to mail voting this year, such as Florida, where county officials say they just don’t have the cash to purchase necessary vote-counting machines at $1 million a pop. In March, the Brennan Center estimated that it would cost between $982 million and $1.4 billion to implement mail voting nationwide, with the biggest single expense being, simply, postage.
That said, a mail election isn’t necessarily more expensive than a traditional one, since mail elections save money in other areas. Jones told FiveThirtyEight that, while Baltimore did incur additional expenses by paying for postage on “both ends — going out and coming back,” he expects to spend less on election judges because they won’t be needed to staff polling places on election day. “There’s a give and take on savings and expenses,” he noted. “We’ll find out toward the end [whether the mail election was more or less expensive than usual].”
The outlook for mail voting
Given these challenges, you might think expanded mail voting has little chance of being adopted, let alone implemented, in any new states by November. While that skepticism is probably warranted, the pandemic is a powerful motivator, and universal mail voting is definitely closer to reality in some states than in others. Most importantly, experts say that states with at least some level of mail-voting infrastructure in place could more easily make the transition to vote-by-mail.
To better understand which states are most prepared to conduct the 2020 election by mail, we looked at the party control of a state (since vote-by-mail probably has the best chance of passing in Democratic-controlled states), in addition to how many of its registered voters were sent absentee/mail ballots in the last two federal general elections. By looking at both the percentage who received a ballot and the raw number who didn’t receive a ballot (a useful proxy for the number of additional ballots a state would have to mail in order to achieve full vote-by-mail status), we can get a sense of just how close certain states are to a world in which every registered voter is sent a ballot.
Switching to mail voting may be hard for most states Select criteria for evaluating how easily a state could shift to mail voting Party Control PCt. of Reg. Voters Sent Ballots No. of Reg. Voters Not Sent Ballots State ▲ ▼
Gov. ▲ ▼
Leg. ▲ ▼
2016 ▲ ▼
2018 ▲ ▼
2016 ▲ ▼
2018 ▲ ▼
Alabama R R 3% 2% 3.24m 3.40m Alaska R Split 5 5 0.56 0.60 Arizona R R 61 62 1.60 1.60 Arkansas R R 2 1 1.74 1.77 California D D 49 54 12.47 11.48 Colorado D D 89 88 0.43 0.49 Connecticut D D 6 4 2.20 2.27 Delaware D D 2 3 0.66 0.68 District of Columbia D D 4 2 0.47 0.60 Florida R R 25 25 10.08 10.63 Georgia R R 4 4 6.42 6.66 Hawaii D D 29 38 0.53 0.47 Idaho R R 22 9 0.73 0.84 Illinois D D 5 6 8.41 8.25 Indiana R R 20 17 3.89 3.73 Iowa R R 30 16 1.55 1.84 Kansas D R 11 10 1.59 1.64 Kentucky D R 1 1 3.26 3.37 Louisiana D R 2 2 2.98 2.93 Maine D D 24 18 0.81 0.86 Maryland R D 5 4 3.69 3.81 Massachusetts R D 4 2 4.36 4.47 Michigan D R 18 15 6.17 6.35 Minnesota D Split 21 21 2.75 2.70 Mississippi R R 5 3 1.96 2.01 Missouri R R 7 6 3.92 3.90 Montana D R 51 63 0.34 0.26 Nebraska R R 21 15 0.96 1.03 Nevada D D 5 6 1.59 1.67 New Hampshire R D 8 5 0.91 0.94 New Jersey D D 7 10 5.34 5.31 New Mexico D D 5 36 1.22 0.81 New York D D 3 3 15.71 12.35 North Carolina D R 3 2 6.71 6.97 Ohio R R 16 13 6.57 7.04 Oklahoma R R 6 4 2.03 2.03 Oregon D D 100 104 0.00 0.00 Pennsylvania D R 3 3 8.43 8.39 Rhode Island D D 6 4 0.71 0.75 South Carolina R R 16 2 2.65 3.46 South Dakota R R 18 15 0.49 0.50 Tennessee R R 1 1 4.05 4.12 Texas R R 4 4 13.86 14.99 Utah R R 69 89 0.49 0.19 Vermont R D 20 6 0.38 0.46 Virginia D D 10 2 5.03 5.56 Washington D D 89 92 0.56 0.38 West Virginia R R 1 1 1.24 1.23 Wisconsin D R 4 5 3.61 3.27 Wyoming R R 29 22 0.20 0.22 It’s not possible to calculate these numbers for North Dakota, as it doesn’t have voter registration. However, it does have a relatively high rate of mail voting — 23 percent of its votes were cast by mail in 2016, and 29 percent in 2018. Republicans control both the governorship and state legislature in North Dakota. When asked how Oregon mailed ballots to 104 percent of voters in 2018, state election officials responded that the EAC number was “off” but did not provide further details. Sources: Ballotpedia, U.S. Election Assistance Commission
Unfortunately for proponents of mail voting, there’s no state that does well on all three criteria that doesn’t already default to vote-by-mail. (Note how longtime vote-by-mail states like Oregon and Washington sent ballots to virtually every registered voter.) But there are some states where the hurdles may not be insurmountable. Based on the existing prevalence of absentee voting, Montana (where 63 percent of voters were sent ballots in 2018, and only about 260,000 were not) and Arizona (62 percent, 1.60 million) look like the easiest places to implement vote-by-mail; however, their Republican legislatures may lack the appetite to pass it. As we mentioned earlier, Arizona Republicans seem cool on the Democratic secretary of state’s proposal to make the switch. Montana, though, does have a Democratic governor who already steered the state’s June primary to a default mail election. And California isn’t that far behind either, having sent ballots to 54 percent of its registered voters in 2018. In addition, it’s completely run by Democrats, but its sheer size means around 11.48 million more people would need to be sent ballots before the Golden State automatically gives everyone the option to vote by mail — a daunting lift.
Far more states are starting from a position of negligible mail-voting infrastructure, however. A full 29 states (plus D.C.) sent ballots to fewer than 10 percent of their registered voters in 2018. Even many blue states that might be the most eager to switch to mail voting might find it challenging, such as New York, where only 3 percent of voters were given an absentee ballot in 2018, and about 12.35 million were not.
As for the states that could decide the presidential election, Arizona seems best prepared to switch to mail voting. A respectable proportion of Florida (25 percent in both 2016 and 2018) already votes by mail, but, as mentioned earlier, a lack of resources will probably prevent the Sunshine State from getting mail ballots in the hands of its remaining 10-11 million registrants. Michigan (where 15 percent of voters were sent a ballot in 2018, but 6.35 million were not) is in a similar boat, although a 2018 ballot initiative to liberalize the state’s voting laws could help grease the skids. Finally, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and (as we’ve already seen) Wisconsin have historically not had a significant culture of mail voting and would likely have a rough transition to a vote-by-mail system, should the need arise.
Any state considering conducting November’s election by mail should start laying the groundwork as soon as possible for the best chance of success. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s recommended timeline to expand the use of vote-by-mail starts in the first week of April — which was, of course, four weeks ago. “States should start working on it now,” Pérez urged. “The election is too important to not start troubleshooting now.” Jones, who learned in mid-March that he would have to conduct a mail election on April 28, concurred: “We could’ve definitely used more time.” According to Jones, Maryland did not start mailing ballots for the election until two and a half weeks before the election. “That could’ve been more timely, to give people ample time to work on them and get them back in. I’m still getting some emails that people haven’t received ballots.” But despite that, Jones thinks the benefits of vote-by-mail outweigh the challenges. “I just believe that mail-out ballots are probably the right way to go. We just need to tighten up the process and get it fine-tuned. I think it’s the way of the future.”


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-27--Politics Podcast: Is Trump Slipping In The Polls Because Of COVID-19?

A slew of recent polling in swing states shows President Trump losing ground to presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew asks whether the narrative of Trump ’ s handling @ @ @ @ @ already been cemented , and what Trump could do to turn his numbers around .
@ @ @ @ @ responses to the pandemic — among the public and politicians — has been rooted in @ @ @ @ @ to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above @ @ @ @ @ iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new @ @ @ @ @ to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners @ @ @ @ @ us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion @ @ @ @ @ bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the @ @

A slew of recent polling in swing states shows President Trump losing ground to presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew asks whether the narrative of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis has already been cemented, and what Trump could do to turn his numbers around. They also weigh how much responses to the pandemic — among the public and politicians — has been rooted in partisanship.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Is COVID-19 already hurting Trump politically?
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--2020-04-28--How Does Biden Stack Up To Past Democratic Nominees?

Depending on who you listen to , you might hear one of two very different narratives about former Vice President Joe Biden .
One says he ’ s a strong candidate : He leads President Trump in most early polls , his folksy demeanor will win back working-class white voters , and he ’ s moderate enough to attract ex-Republicans in the suburbs .
The other says he ’ s a weak one : He ’ s gaffe-prone , his fundraising has been anemic and he ’ s been absent from the public eye during the coronavirus pandemic .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell whether a candidate is strong or weak without knowing how he actually performs in the election .
But one thing we can do is place Biden in the context of Democrats ’ previous presidential nominees .
So we picked four easily quantifiable , objective barometers of electoral prowess — primary performance , favorability , endorsements and fundraising — and calculated them for the past seven nonincumbent Democratic presidential nominees : Walter Mondale in 1984 , Michael Dukakis in 1988 , Bill Clinton in 1992 , Al Gore in 2000 , John Kerry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Then we checked how Biden measures up .
Let ’ s start with the most elemental metric of all — the share of the popular vote each nominee received in the primaries .
( This is a useful proxy for how united Democratic voters were behind the candidate heading into the general election . )
To keep things fair , let ’ s look at what percentage of the national vote each candidate had received at the time that he or she became the presumptive Democratic nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the best position ( otherwise , the numbers for past candidates would be inflated by all the contests they won unopposed ) .
We also excluded caucuses from these calculations , since caucus states often did not release popular-vote totals .
With 42 percent of the primary popular vote won so far , Biden ranks toward the bottom of the list of recent Democratic nominees .
Only Mondale , who ’ d won 38 percent of the popular vote when he became the presumptive nominee , went to the general election with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not a great place to be in considering that Mondale got crushed in November 1984 .
Of course , Biden also faced a historically large field of opponents , whereas Gore and Hillary Clinton — the Democrats with the strongest primary performances — faced only one serious rival , making it easier for them to capture primary majorities .
( That said , the fact that they were largely able to clear the field and Biden was not suggests something about the perceived strength of each of those candidates . )
Notably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost their general elections ( although they did win the popular vote ) , so this may not be a very telling metric .
However , just because many Democrats voted for someone else in the primary doesn ’ t mean they won ’ t come around to the nominee by the convention .
Shortly before the 2008 and 2016 Democratic National Conventions , both Obama and Hillary Clinton were viewed favorably by an overwhelming majority of Democrats — far more than the share who voted for them in the primary .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 77 percent of Democrats in 2008 had a positive opinion of Obama compared to only 10 percent with an unfavorable view , and Democrats in 2016 had a strongly positive opinion of Clinton , 81 percent favorable to 12 percent unfavorable .
In other words , it ’ s a bit premature at this point to say that Biden has an intraparty problem .
Of course , the Democrats are only a fraction of the electorate that passes judgment on nominees in November , so it ’ s also worth asking what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominee at this point in the campaign .
( Popularity can change , of course , but this will give us a sense of where Biden is starting relative to his predecessors . )
Let ’ s compare the eight candidates ’ favorable and unfavorable ratings in national polls conducted the month after they became the presumptive nominee .
In terms of net favorability ( favorable rating minus unfavorable rating ) , Biden is right in the middle of the pack — about the same share of Americans like him as dislike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the best-known Democratic nominees of the last 36 years .
In total , 91 percent of Americans have some opinion of him , positive or negative .
Only Hillary Clinton had made an impression on a larger share of U.S. adults .
This is important because it means people would have to change their minds about Biden to meaningfully affect his approval rating .
In other words , there aren ’ t a lot of people left on whom he could make a favorable first impression — but on the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room for his opponents to define him .
That was the danger Dukakis faced in 1988 , when he became the presumptive nominee with a fantastic +28 net favorability rating — but only 67 percent of Americans had formed an opinion of him .
By November , CBS News/New York Times polling was giving him a negative net favorability rating .
Among recent Democratic presidential nominees , Obama in 2008 was in the most enviable position in terms of likeability : 93 percent of Americans had an opinion of him , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net favorability rating ) .
Hillary Clinton was in the worst position : Almost everyone in the country had an opinion of her , and they really disliked her ( a -15 net favorability rating ) .
Biden is well known but has a net favorability rating in between the two , so it ’ s hard to be either optimistic or pessimistic about his candidacy .
Another way to assess a candidate ’ s strength is to see how much support he or she had with party leaders at this point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this dimension , we counted up the number of endorsements he or she had received from sitting governors , U.S. senators and U.S. representatives before sewing up the nomination .
To account for the fact that some endorsements are more valuable than others , we combined them into a single metric : “ endorsement points.
” We weighted the endorsements the same way we did in 2016 : A governor ’ s endorsement is worth 10 endorsement points , a senator ’ s is worth 5 and a representative ’ s is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intraparty support is underwhelming : He has the second-fewest endorsement points among modern Democratic nominees — just barely ahead of Kerry .
Eventual presidents like Obama and Bill Clinton did a better job convincing their colleagues to endorse them ; however , the Democrats with the most endorsement points were once again Hillary Clinton and Gore , and it didn ’ t do them much good .
Finally , let ’ s compare the candidates ’ finances .
Their cash on hand at the time they became the presumptive nominee tells us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election with ; the amount they raised from individual contributions hints at their fundraising ability .
To control for the fact that the candidates all kicked off their campaigns and became the presumptive nominee on different dates , we converted their individual contributions into a rate — amount raised per 30 days — so we could compare how fast they raised money over the course of the campaign .
And , of course , all numbers are adjusted for inflation .
Biden is raising money at a decent pace by the standards of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s important to consider how modern fundraising is easier than ever .
Even adjusted for inflation , more recent nominees raised money at far faster clips and had much more cash in their coffers than nominees from earlier cycles .
The proliferation of the internet now means that candidates can raise money from anyone , anywhere in the country , at any time , instead of having to rely on personally glad-handing elite donors .
These days , small donors giving through services like ActBlue have become the dominant source of Democratic campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising that Biden has more cash on hand than Mondale and Dukakis , and no one should be citing the fact that he ’ s outraised Bill Clinton as a reason that he ’ ll outperform Clinton electorally .
In fact , by modern standards , Biden has been a comparatively weak fundraiser , raising nearly $ 5 million less per month than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 .
He also has less than two-thirds of what Kerry had in the bank going into the 2004 general election .
That said , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ match Obama ’ s extraordinary fundraising numbers .
Thanks to his strength with grassroots donors , he raised ( after adjusting for inflation ) $ 22.8 million a month during the 2008 primary and entered the general election with a whopping $ 85.9 million on hand .
OK !
Now that we ’ ve graded Biden on four fronts , how does his report card look overall ?
These yardsticks , at least , suggest that he is indeed a weak Democratic presidential nominee by historical standards ; he ’ s below average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that comes with a big asterisk attached .
But at the same time , how good are these yardsticks , really ?
They don ’ t seem strongly correlated with general-election success .
Bill Clinton ranks fourth , seventh , third and sixth in them ; Obama ranks fifth , second , fourth and first .
How a candidate starts the general-election campaign simply isn ’ t as important as how he finishes it .
So even if Biden starts the general election on the weaker side , there ’ s plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history will ultimately judge him for one thing : whether he beats Trump in November .

Depending on who you listen to, you might hear one of two very different narratives about former Vice President Joe Biden. One says he’s a strong candidate: He leads President Trump in most early polls, his folksy demeanor will win back working-class white voters, and he’s moderate enough to attract ex-Republicans in the suburbs. The other says he’s a weak one: He’s gaffe-prone, his fundraising has been anemic and he’s been absent from the public eye during the coronavirus pandemic.
In reality, it’s hard to tell whether a candidate is strong or weak without knowing how he actually performs in the election. But one thing we can do is place Biden in the context of Democrats’ previous presidential nominees. So we picked four easily quantifiable, objective barometers of electoral prowess — primary performance, favorability, endorsements and fundraising — and calculated them for the past seven nonincumbent Democratic presidential nominees: Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Then we checked how Biden measures up.
Primary performance
Let’s start with the most elemental metric of all — the share of the popular vote each nominee received in the primaries. (This is a useful proxy for how united Democratic voters were behind the candidate heading into the general election.) To keep things fair, let’s look at what percentage of the national vote each candidate had received at the time that he or she became the presumptive Democratic nominee to see who crossed the finish line in the best position (otherwise, the numbers for past candidates would be inflated by all the contests they won unopposed). We also excluded caucuses from these calculations, since caucus states often did not release popular-vote totals.
Biden won a smaller share of the popular vote The share of the primary popular vote (excluding caucuses) won by the past eight nonincumbent Democratic presidential nominees at the time they became the presumptive nominee Candidate Year Share of Primary Popular Vote Al Gore 2000 72% – Hillary Clinton 2016 56 – John Kerry 2004 54 – Bill Clinton 1992 52 – Barack Obama 2008 47 – Michael Dukakis 1988 43 – Joe Biden 2020 42 – Walter Mondale 1984 38 – Bolded candidates won the general election. Sources: United States Presidential Primary Elections 1968-1996, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, Edison Research
With 42 percent of the primary popular vote won so far, Biden ranks toward the bottom of the list of recent Democratic nominees. Only Mondale, who’d won 38 percent of the popular vote when he became the presumptive nominee, went to the general election with a smaller share of the primary vote — not a great place to be in considering that Mondale got crushed in November 1984. Of course, Biden also faced a historically large field of opponents, whereas Gore and Hillary Clinton — the Democrats with the strongest primary performances — faced only one serious rival, making it easier for them to capture primary majorities. (That said, the fact that they were largely able to clear the field and Biden was not suggests something about the perceived strength of each of those candidates.) Notably, though, Gore and Clinton also lost their general elections (although they did win the popular vote), so this may not be a very telling metric.
However, just because many Democrats voted for someone else in the primary doesn’t mean they won’t come around to the nominee by the convention. Shortly before the 2008 and 2016 Democratic National Conventions, both Obama and Hillary Clinton were viewed favorably by an overwhelming majority of Democrats — far more than the share who voted for them in the primary. According to national polls by Quinnipiac University, 77 percent of Democrats in 2008 had a positive opinion of Obama compared to only 10 percent with an unfavorable view, and Democrats in 2016 had a strongly positive opinion of Clinton, 81 percent favorable to 12 percent unfavorable. In other words, it’s a bit premature at this point to say that Biden has an intraparty problem.
Overall favorability
Of course, the Democrats are only a fraction of the electorate that passes judgment on nominees in November, so it’s also worth asking what the American public as a whole thought about the nominee at this point in the campaign. (Popularity can change, of course, but this will give us a sense of where Biden is starting relative to his predecessors.) Let’s compare the eight candidates’ favorable and unfavorable ratings in national polls conducted the month after they became the presumptive nominee.
Biden isn’t necessarily beloved, but he is well-known The past eight nonincumbent Democratic presidential nominees’ average favorable and unfavorable ratings in national polls conducted within a month after they became the presumptive nominee Candidate Year Favorable Unfavorable share with Opinion Net Favorability Michael Dukakis 1988 47% 20% 67% +28 Barack Obama 2008 57 37 93 +20 John Kerry 2004 44 31 75 +13 Al Gore 2000 48 39 87 +10 Joe Biden 2020 45 46 91 -1 Walter Mondale 1984 38 43 81 -5 Bill Clinton 1992 37 43 80 -5 Hillary Clinton 2016 41 55 96 -15 Bolded candidates won the general election. Dates are based on the poll’s median date. Source: Polls
In terms of net favorability (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating), Biden is right in the middle of the pack — about the same share of Americans like him as dislike him. But Biden is also one of the best-known Democratic nominees of the last 36 years. In total, 91 percent of Americans have some opinion of him, positive or negative, basically tying him with Obama on that measure and trailing the leader among recent nominees, Hillary Clinton.
This is important because it means people would have to change their minds about Biden to meaningfully affect his approval rating. In other words, there aren’t a lot of people left on whom he could make a favorable first impression — but on the other hand, nor is there a lot of room for his opponents to define him. That was the danger Dukakis faced in 1988, when he became the presumptive nominee with a fantastic +28 net favorability rating — but only 67 percent of Americans had formed an opinion of him. By November, CBS News/New York Times polling was giving him a negative net favorability rating.
Among recent Democratic presidential nominees, Obama in 2008 was in the most enviable position in terms of likeability: 93 percent of Americans had an opinion of him, and that opinion was overwhelmingly positive (a +20 net favorability rating). Hillary Clinton was in the worst position: Almost everyone in the country had an opinion of her, and they really disliked her (a -15 net favorability rating). Biden is well known but has a net favorability rating in between the two, so it’s hard to be either optimistic or pessimistic about his candidacy.
Endorsements
Another way to assess a candidate’s strength is to see how much support he or she had with party leaders at this point in the race. To grade each nominee on this dimension, we counted up the number of endorsements he or she had received from sitting governors, U.S. senators and U.S. representatives before sewing up the nomination. To account for the fact that some endorsements are more valuable than others, we combined them into a single metric: “endorsement points.” We weighted the endorsements the same way we did in 2016: A governor’s endorsement is worth 10 endorsement points, a senator’s is worth 5 and a representative’s is worth 1.
Biden got fewer endorsements than other nominees How many sitting governors, U.S. senators and U.S. representatives endorsed the past eight nonincumbent Democratic presidential nominees before they became the presumptive nominee Candidate Year Governors Senators Representatives Endorsement Points Hillary Clinton 2016 15 41 167 522 Al Gore 2000 14 35 122 437 Bill Clinton 1992 18 25 57 362 Barack Obama 2008 11 17 101 296 Michael Dukakis 1988 13 23 49 294 Walter Mondale 1984 14 9 97 282 Joe Biden 2020 6 16 115 255 John Kerry 2004 8 20 71 251 Bolded candidates won the general election. A governor’s endorsement is worth 10 endorsement points, a senator’s is worth 5 and a representative’s is worth 1. Sources: Marty Cohen, news reports
Again, Biden’s intraparty support is underwhelming: He has the second-fewest endorsement points among modern Democratic nominees — just barely ahead of Kerry. Eventual presidents like Obama and Bill Clinton did a better job convincing their colleagues to endorse them; however, the Democrats with the most endorsement points were once again Hillary Clinton and Gore, and it didn’t do them much good.
Fundraising
Finally, let’s compare the candidates’ finances. Their cash on hand at the time they became the presumptive nominee tells us how much money they started the general election with; the amount they raised from individual contributions hints at their fundraising ability. To control for the fact that the candidates all kicked off their campaigns and became the presumptive nominee on different dates, we converted their individual contributions into a rate — amount raised per 30 days — so we could compare how fast they raised money over the course of the campaign. And, of course, all numbers are adjusted for inflation.
Recent Democratic nominees have been cash juggernauts The past eight nonincumbent Democratic presidential nominees’ cash on hand and rate of raising individual contributions as of the beginning of the general election, in 2020 dollars Candidate Year Cash on Hand Individual Contributions per 30 Days Barack Obama 2008 $85.9m $22.8m Hillary Clinton 2016 47.7 16.8 Joe Biden 2020 26.4 11.8 John Kerry 2004 43.7 6.3 Al Gore 2000 5.7 3.2 Bill Clinton 1992 2.3 3.0 Michael Dukakis 1988 4.8 2.7 Walter Mondale 1984 1.4 2.0 Bolded candidates won the general election. Based on the first fundraising report filed after they became the presumptive nominee or, for Biden, the most recent fundraising report available as of April 27, 2020. Sources: Federal Election Commission, U.S. Inflation Calculator
Biden is raising money at a decent pace by the standards of past Democratic nominees, but it’s important to consider how modern fundraising is easier than ever. Even adjusted for inflation, more recent nominees raised money at far faster clips and had much more cash in their coffers than nominees from earlier cycles. The proliferation of the internet now means that candidates can raise money from anyone, anywhere in the country, at any time, instead of having to rely on personally glad-handing elite donors. These days, small donors giving through services like ActBlue have become the dominant source of Democratic campaign cash.
So it’s hardly surprising that Biden has more cash on hand than Mondale and Dukakis, and no one should be citing the fact that he’s outraised Bill Clinton as a reason that he’ll outperform Clinton electorally. In fact, by modern standards, Biden has been a comparatively weak fundraiser, raising nearly $5 million less per month than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. He also has less than two-thirds of what Kerry had in the bank going into the 2004 general election. That said, no one should feel bad about failing to match Obama’s extraordinary fundraising numbers. Thanks to his strength with grassroots donors, he raised (after adjusting for inflation) $22.8 million a month during the 2008 primary and entered the general election with a whopping $85.9 million on hand.
OK! Now that we’ve graded Biden on four fronts, how does his report card look overall? These yardsticks, at least, suggest that he is indeed a weak Democratic presidential nominee by historical standards; he’s below average on everything except fundraising, and even that comes with a big asterisk attached.
But at the same time, how good are these yardsticks, really? They don’t seem strongly correlated with general-election success. Bill Clinton ranks fourth, seventh, third and sixth in them; Obama ranks fifth, second, fourth and first. How a candidate starts the general-election campaign simply isn’t as important as how he finishes it. So even if Biden starts the general election on the weaker side, there’s plenty of time for that to change, and history will ultimately judge him for one thing: whether he beats Trump in November.
CORRECTION (April 28, 2020, 10:55 a.m.): A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that only Hillary Clinton ranked ahead of Joe Biden in the share of U.S. adults who had an opinion of recent Democratic nominees. Biden was behind both Clinton and Barack Obama.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Is COVID-19 already hurting Trump politically?


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-28--Is Trump Slipping In The Polls Because Of COVID-19?

In this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Nate , Clare , Micah and Galen discuss what Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic could mean for the general election .

Is Trump Slipping In The Polls Because Of COVID-19?
In this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Nate, Clare, Micah and Galen discuss what Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic could mean for the general election.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-29--Could The Coronavirus And Economic Crash Make Republicans Abandon Trump?

The coronavirus pandemic has raised a host of new questions about the 2020 election .
What will the economy look like in November ?
How do voters think President Trump is handling the crisis ?
How will Americans physically cast their votes ?
And could the current moment be so extraordinary that it outweighs partisanship and causes Republican voters to abandon Trump in November ?
For the last question , at least , we can look to history for some clues .
The 2008 election isn ’ t exactly parallel to our current situation , but there were some similarities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , George W. Bush , sat in the White House amid an economic disaster , though he wasn ’ t running for reelection .
But the environment that GOP nominee Sen. John McCain was running in may be not unlike the one Trump faces in 2020 .
( One important caveat : When McCain ran , the GOP had already held the presidency for two terms , and historically , it ’ s rare for the same party to win three times in a row .
Conversely , it ’ s very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win a second term . )
The 2008 election resulted in a Democratic landslide , as then-Sen. Barack Obama defeated McCain by about 7 percentage points in the national popular vote .
Considering how polarized our politics are , this was a large victory by modern standards , as the chart below shows .
Democrats didn ’ t just take the White House either .
They also made huge gains in the Senate and House of Representatives , adding to their majorities in both chambers .
But Democrats didn ’ t win because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Democrat en masse — McCain still won support from most Republicans who turned out that year .
The 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study , a massive survey that asks Americans about their politics and voting habits , found that McCain won 95 percent of self-identified Republicans who voted , as well as 90 percent of independents who leaned Republican .
Similarly , Obama won the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents ( 92 and 93 percent ) .
This partisan split is in line with results from other recent presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 was the makeup of the electorate : 51 percent of voters identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents while 41 percent identified as Republicans or Republican-leaning , according to CCES data .
Some of this was because Democratic identification more or less peaked in 2008 while Republican identification was at a low point .
Democrats also saw strong turnout from Democratic-leaning demographic groups like African Americans , who showed up in historic numbers to vote for America ’ s first black president .
And getting those partisans to the ballot box was vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he actually lost among “ pure ” independents , or those who didn ’ t lean toward either party , by 11 percentage points .
Fortunately , for Obama , true independents only made up about 7 percent of the total electorate .
Of course , we don ’ t know how many votes McCain might have lost because people abandoned the GOP before the election or because some Republicans simply didn ’ t show up to vote .
Corwin Smidt , a political scientist at Michigan State University , told me that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switched parties because of the financial crisis or the Iraq War , but he said it was probably a fairly small share of the electorate .
One study estimated that Obama may have won 15 percent of voters who said they backed George W. Bush in 2004 .
Smidt told me he thought we could see some people switch parties here in 2020 , though , with some Republicans leaving the party because of the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus .
In fact , there is some evidence that a small share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump presidency .
In 2017 , the Pew Research Center found that roughly one-tenth of Democrats and Republicans ( including those who leaned toward one party ) defected to the other party over the course of the 2016 campaign and in the early days of Trump ’ s presidency .
But Smidt cautioned that we ’ re still likely only talking about a small slice of the electorate who might switch parties in 2020 because Trump is so polarizing and there is such a gulf between Democrats and Republicans on most political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , people are less likely to switch , ” said Smidt .
And right now , he says , “ It is hard for people to switch.
” Studies have shown that partisans are more likely to stick with their party now than they were just a few years ago , and people feel more negatively than ever toward members of the other party .
Surveys also suggest that the overall share of people who identify with or lean toward each party has been relatively stable .
So that means Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong as McCain ’ s was in 2008 .
His approval rating has been remarkably steady , and he ’ s enjoyed very strong Republican backing throughout his presidency , with as many as 91 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Republican leaners approving of his job performance before the 2018 midterm elections , according to CCES data for registered voters .
There ’ s little sign that Republicans are backing away from Trump either .
A late March poll from Pew found that , among registered voters , 92 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 79 percent of independents who leaned Republican .
While the approval among leaners may seem low compared to the 2018 CCES data , it was actually similar to previous Pew polls that found 70 to 75 percent of Republican leaners approved of Trump .
So just like McCain in 2008 , Trump likely still has very strong backing from Republicans that will almost certainly hold up even if things go poorly for him in the coming months .
What we can ’ t know , of course , is just how much a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP before the election , or how many partisans might simply stay home .

The coronavirus pandemic has raised a host of new questions about the 2020 election. What will the economy look like in November? How do voters think President Trump is handling the crisis? How will Americans physically cast their votes? And could the current moment be so extraordinary that it outweighs partisanship and causes Republican voters to abandon Trump in November?
For the last question, at least, we can look to history for some clues. The 2008 election isn’t exactly parallel to our current situation, but there were some similarities. Back then, an unpopular Republican president, George W. Bush, sat in the White House amid an economic disaster, though he wasn’t running for reelection. But the environment that GOP nominee Sen. John McCain was running in may be not unlike the one Trump faces in 2020. (One important caveat: When McCain ran, the GOP had already held the presidency for two terms, and historically, it’s rare for the same party to win three times in a row. Conversely, it’s very common for incumbent presidents like Trump to win a second term.)
The 2008 election resulted in a Democratic landslide, as then-Sen. Barack Obama defeated McCain by about 7 percentage points in the national popular vote. Considering how polarized our politics are, this was a large victory by modern standards, as the chart below shows.
Democrats didn’t just take the White House either. They also made huge gains in the Senate and House of Representatives, adding to their majorities in both chambers.
But Democrats didn’t win because Republicans were fleeing the party or voting for the Democrat en masse — McCain still won support from most Republicans who turned out that year. The 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a massive survey that asks Americans about their politics and voting habits, found that McCain won 95 percent of self-identified Republicans who voted, as well as 90 percent of independents who leaned Republican. Similarly, Obama won the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (92 and 93 percent). This partisan split is in line with results from other recent presidential elections, too.
The difference in 2008 was the makeup of the electorate: 51 percent of voters identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents while 41 percent identified as Republicans or Republican-leaning, according to CCES data.
Some of this was because Democratic identification more or less peaked in 2008 while Republican identification was at a low point. Democrats also saw strong turnout from Democratic-leaning demographic groups like African Americans, who showed up in historic numbers to vote for America’s first black president. And getting those partisans to the ballot box was vital to Obama’s victory, as he actually lost among “pure” independents, or those who didn’t lean toward either party, by 11 percentage points. Fortunately, for Obama, true independents only made up about 7 percent of the total electorate.
Of course, we don’t know how many votes McCain might have lost because people abandoned the GOP before the election or because some Republicans simply didn’t show up to vote. Corwin Smidt, a political scientist at Michigan State University, told me that it’s likely that some people switched parties because of the financial crisis or the Iraq War, but he said it was probably a fairly small share of the electorate. One study estimated that Obama may have won 15 percent of voters who said they backed George W. Bush in 2004.
Smidt told me he thought we could see some people switch parties here in 2020, though, with some Republicans leaving the party because of the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus. In fact, there is some evidence that a small share of voters have already shifted parties during the Trump presidency. In 2017, the Pew Research Center found that roughly one-tenth of Democrats and Republicans (including those who leaned toward one party) defected to the other party over the course of the 2016 campaign and in the early days of Trump’s presidency. But Smidt cautioned that we’re still likely only talking about a small slice of the electorate who might switch parties in 2020 because Trump is so polarizing and there is such a gulf between Democrats and Republicans on most political issues. “If party differences are clear, people are less likely to switch,” said Smidt. And right now, he says, “It is hard for people to switch.”
Studies have shown that partisans are more likely to stick with their party now than they were just a few years ago, and people feel more negatively than ever toward members of the other party. Surveys also suggest that the overall share of people who identify with or lean toward each party has been relatively stable. So that means Trump’s intraparty support may be just as strong as McCain’s was in 2008. His approval rating has been remarkably steady, and he’s enjoyed very strong Republican backing throughout his presidency, with as many as 91 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Republican leaners approving of his job performance before the 2018 midterm elections, according to CCES data for registered voters.
There’s little sign that Republicans are backing away from Trump either. A late March poll from Pew found that, among registered voters, 92 percent of Republicans approved of Trump, as did 79 percent of independents who leaned Republican. While the approval among leaners may seem low compared to the 2018 CCES data, it was actually similar to previous Pew polls that found 70 to 75 percent of Republican leaners approved of Trump.
So just like McCain in 2008, Trump likely still has very strong backing from Republicans that will almost certainly hold up even if things go poorly for him in the coming months. What we can’t know, of course, is just how much a bad economy might move people away from the GOP before the election, or how many partisans might simply stay home.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Is COVID-19 already hurting Trump politically?