fivethirtyeight--2020-05-06--How Political Is The Coronavirus Pandemic Already?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : The U.S. has started to open back up .
Late last week , statewide orders to “ stay at home ” or “ shelter in place ” because of the new coronavirus expired in many states across the U.S. , and roughly half are now partially reopened .
This has led to calls that parts of the country are reopening too soon , and is setting the stage for the coronavirus crisis to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we actually know about how partisanship has influenced people ’ s reactions to COVID-19 so far ?
Do Democrats and Republicans really view the coronavirus differently ?
Let ’ s first talk about what evidence we have that Democrats and Republicans are split in how they view the coronavirus , and what the significance of that is .
Then we can shift gears to talk about how politicians on both sides of the aisle are handling the pandemic and how partisanship may ( or may not ) be a part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open back up .
OK , first up , what evidence do we have that Democrats and Republicans are split on how they view the coronavirus ?
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : According to polls , Republicans are less likely to support public health measures due to the coronavirus , but they are just as likely as Democrats and independents to obey them .
In other words , Republicans might grumble about some of the preventive measures more , but they ’ re still taking the same precautions as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s wrong to say that all ( or even most ) Republicans oppose these measures .
It ’ s just that they ’ re split on them , while Democrats are pretty much unanimously in favor of taking precautions .
For example , an April 28-May 1 poll by Navigator Research found that 32 percent of all registered voters thought we needed stricter social distancing measures , 47 percent said we ’ re doing the right thing right now and 19 percent said we needed to relax social distancing rules .
Among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 47 percent thought we ’ re doing the right thing and 32 percent wanted more relaxed rules — so some difference from the overall universe , but those agitating for more freedom of movement were still a minority .
As for personal behaviors , about the same number of Democrats and Republicans were doing things like avoiding social gatherings and spending almost all their time indoors — about 80 percent of each .
seth.masket ( Seth Masket , political science professor at the University of Denver and FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across a lot of different polls where there isn ’ t that much difference between Democrats and Republicans .
However , I did want to mention a recent survey conducted by Montana State University-Bozeman and the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver , as it found that even though a majority of Democrats , Republicans and independents in Colorado support the state ’ s stay-at-home orders , there are fairly stark differences in enthusiasm for the orders .
Seventy-four percent of Democrats say they strongly support the orders compared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That said , actual opposition to the orders is negligible across parties .
And this poll also found that Democrats , Republicans and independents were equally likely to be engaging in social distancing behavior .
sarahf : One thing I ’ ve been struck by is that while there are some partisan differences on various social distancing measures , they ’ re just not that big .
For instance , a National Bureau Economic Research working paper found partisan differences in self-reported social distancing behaviors and attitudes , but on something like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between those who identified as strong Democrats and those who identified as strong Republicans wasn ’ t that big .
It was only a few percentage points .
In other words , despite a strong partisan split around whether President Trump is doing a good job of handling the crisis ( see the chart below from our tracker on COVID-19 polls ) , there isn ’ t the same kind of dividing line on the actual preventive measures people are taking .
seth.masket : I think that ’ s right .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been striking over the past few years is how much Republicans have largely followed Trump ’ s lead on a number of issues where he has broken from long-standing Republican orthodoxy — whether it ’ s increased support for Russian President Vladimir Putin or moral leadership mattering less .
But with the coronavirus we may see a limit to this elite-led partisanship when death is on the line .
nrakich : Yeah , in this era of partisanship , we ’ re kind of trained to home in on the partisan differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist here , they are just not as polar opposite as we are used to seeing — e.g.
, on approval and disapproval of Trump .
sarahf : Perry , you ’ ve covered the coronavirus-closure protests but found that the push to repeal stay-at-home orders was largely out of line with rank-and-file Republicans .
Is that still true ?
Or are we starting to see that shift ?
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : The polling hasn ’ t really shifted that much amid the protests — as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans aren ’ t in revolt against these social distancing measures .
They do tend to worry ( more than Democrats ) , though , that these measures might go too far and hurt the economy .
nrakich : That ’ s true , but I ’ d still keep an eye out for shifts .
I think the protests are less likely to move Republican opinion than are a bunch of Republican governors telling people it ’ s time to open up .
And that has just started to happen within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may speak out even more in favor of opening up , or opening up further , in the weeks to come .
sarahf : That ’ s a good point , Nathaniel .
Something you looked at for FiveThirtyEight , Seth , was whether a governor ’ s party affiliation made a difference in when he or she issued a statewide order to stay at home , but you found there really wasn ’ t a partisan difference .
True , at the time you wrote the article last month , the eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an order were all Republicans , but putting that aside , the median Democratic and Republican governor took roughly the same amount of time to act — 21 days after the first COVID-19 case was reported for Democratic governors , and 25 days for Republicans .
Is it a similar situation now , Seth , where partisanship doesn ’ t play as much a role in when a governor reopens a state ?
Or is that no longer true ?
seth.masket : It seems to be different with reopening .
According to The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting to reopen , and 22 of them have Republican governors .
And of the 21 states — plus Washington , D.C. — that are keeping their stay-at-home orders in place , 18 ( including D.C. ) are led by Democrats .
And what I ’ ve found is that the party of the governor ( or the state ’ s vote in 2016 ) does a much better job explaining the lifting of stay-at-home orders than either the incidence of the illness or the death count in a given state .
sarahf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot we don ’ t know about the actual prevalence of the disease , given the differences in testing strategies from state to state .
But that ’ s interesting that the death count isn ’ t predictive for whether a state might reopen .
perry : Are there more states with high incidence rates/high death totals opening up ?
Or do we see more states with lower incidence rates and death totals staying closed ?
seth.masket : It ’ s a mixture of both .
On the one hand , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which have current caseloads of 9,401 and 4,137 cases per million residents , respectively , and they ’ re loosening up stay-at-home rules .
A state like Illinois , however , which has a caseload similar to Pennsylvania ’ s , is keeping its orders intact for now .
And on the other hand , Hawaii and Oregon have very low caseloads ( fewer than 1,000 per million residents ) , but they ’ re keeping restrictions in place .
One governor I ’ ve followed with some curiosity is my own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is a fairly liberal Democrat and yet has embraced a modest reopening .
I don ’ t claim to have a great sense of why he ’ s pressing this , unlike most other Democratic governors .
But he ’ s clearly faced some pushback to stay-at-home orders .
We haven ’ t seen many large demonstrations against these orders , but Weld County ( a large rural county stretching from Denver ’ s northern suburbs to the Wyoming and Nebraska borders ) has strongly resisted the orders over the past few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And although Polis threatened to withhold relief funds at one point , I assume he has grown increasingly concerned that he will be unable to compel some areas of the state to comply .
After all , this was the county that led a state-secession movement seven years ago .
nrakich : Right , I think a lot of people have mentally filed Colorado away as a blue state now because it has a Democratic governor and has so many college-educated white voters , but there is a healthy tradition of conservative/libertarian activism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that liberal as a U.S. representative .
I always thought of him as a technocrat/business-friendly Democrat , and I ’ m sure a lot of business associations are eager to reopen .
sarahf : Something we have to remember in this conversation , though , is that when we say “ reopen , ” that applies to a wide range of scenarios .
In Texas , for instance , Gov .
Greg Abbott is reopening the state in phases .
In the first phase , only some nonessential businesses will reopen , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like limiting the capacity of restaurants and some businesses to 25 percent .
In other words , no state that ’ s reopened has returned to operating as they did before the pandemic .
perry : Seth , what about the states in the South that are reopening ?
Are they generally doing that somewhat in proportion to deaths in their state or the number of cases ?
seth.masket : Perry , within the South , there is a modest relationship there — states where the cases per million residents and deaths per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be reopening now .
Louisiana by far has the highest caseload per capita , but it ’ s keeping its restrictions in place .
nrakich : Also one of the only Southern states with a Democratic governor — albeit a conservative one .
seth.masket : Virginia is another example .
sarahf : It ’ s interesting to me that the question of when to reopen the government has such a strong partisan undertone to it .
On the one hand , the end of April/early May is when many Americans thought businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so it ’ s possible that people start to answer questions on preventive measures differently — and not just for partisan reasons .
On the other hand , Trump has been pushing to reopen the economy in subtle — and not so subtle ways — and that obviously plays a role here , but there are also a lot of reasons why a governor might want to reopen the economy that isn ’ t strictly for partisan reasons .
So where do we think this debate over whether to open the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the coronavirus an increasingly politicized issue ?
seth.masket : I ’ m wondering which way we ’ ll see Republican voters moving in the next few weeks/months .
What we ’ re seeing right now , I think , is one of the bigger elite-voter divides within a party in recent history .
Trump isn ’ t wrong to see his political fate tied up with the fate of the economy .
It ’ s probably why he keeps encouraging the country to reopen .
And he ’ s made it clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
Republican governors mostly have ( although Trump pushed back at Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp ) .
Yet voters , even those supportive of Trump , are wary of jumping back into old routines .
So we might see an increase in this intra-party divide over the next few weeks , as GOP governors continue to push to reopen while disease rates ramp up in their states .
As more people get sick or know people who are sick , that really undermines elites ’ rhetoric that the worst is behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
sarahf : I suppose that ’ s what makes all this so difficult — we don ’ t know what effect reopening parts of the economy in certain states might have .
Some states might see an uptick in cases as a result , but that also might not happen , because even though parts of the economy are reopening , it doesn ’ t mean people will be ready to jump back into their old routines as you say , Seth .
Many people will still avoid restaurants or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the ability to do so .
seth.masket : I ’ m not ready to go clubbing again just yet .
Of course , I largely stopped in the early ’ 90s .
sarahf : Ha , and I think you ’ re not alone !
No matter what Gov .
Polis reopens .
But , OK , so far the most partisan aspects of the coronavirus crisis have been around how Americans approve ( or disapprove ) of Trump ’ s handling of it and how much they trust various government institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does this head next ?
Polls show Republicans and Democrats are largely taking preventive measures in roughly equal measures ( although maybe not as enthusiastically ) , but does that change as states reopen ?
In other words , if political leaders are eager to engage in a political blame game around the virus , is the pandemic going to be increasingly politicized ?
perry : The reaction to the pandemic is already very partisan because the anti-social distancing/stay-at-home orders movement is almost entirely driven by Republicans , from the protesters themselves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( So even though most Republicans are not anti-social distancing , most prominent anti-social distancing voices are Republicans . )
The effect of that elite conservative pressure will be to make stay-at-home orders/social distancing almost impossible to sustain , because there will be lawsuits , protests , etc.
, no matter what the public thinks .
We had relative national consensus around social distancing from the end of March until late April — but that ’ s over , I think .
Even if we have a spike in the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put a lot of pressure on state governments not to reimpose these orders .
seth.masket : What we ’ re seeing , I ’ d argue , is a kind of perversion of the concept of states being the “ laboratory for democracy.
” In the absence of national leadership , we see state governments trying to figure out the path forward , but we don ’ t yet have a great sense of how they ’ re balancing things like the politics of it , disease rates , and other considerations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommend .
It ’ ll also be hard to understand the effect that lifting some of these measures will have , as the spread of the disease will be only partially affected by these policies .
States have very porous borders and integrated economies .
So some states will do “ well ” or “ poorly , ” and blame and credit will be passed around — but not necessarily appropriately .
Not to mention that in the past few months , Trump has moved the goal post quite a bit on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors will likely follow suit , making it even harder to assess the impact .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): The U.S. has started to open back up. Late last week, statewide orders to “stay at home” or “shelter in place” because of the new coronavirus expired in many states across the U.S., and roughly half are now partially reopened.
This has led to calls that parts of the country are reopening too soon, and is setting the stage for the coronavirus crisis to become the latest political football.
But what do we actually know about how partisanship has influenced people’s reactions to COVID-19 so far? Do Democrats and Republicans really view the coronavirus differently?
Let’s first talk about what evidence we have that Democrats and Republicans are split in how they view the coronavirus, and what the significance of that is. Then we can shift gears to talk about how politicians on both sides of the aisle are handling the pandemic and how partisanship may (or may not) be a part of the calculus for when a state decides to open back up.
OK, first up, what evidence do we have that Democrats and Republicans are split on how they view the coronavirus?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): According to polls, Republicans are less likely to support public health measures due to the coronavirus, but they are just as likely as Democrats and independents to obey them. In other words, Republicans might grumble about some of the preventive measures more, but they’re still taking the same precautions as everyone else.
In addition, it’s wrong to say that all (or even most) Republicans oppose these measures. It’s just that they’re split on them, while Democrats are pretty much unanimously in favor of taking precautions.
For example, an April 28-May 1 poll by Navigator Research found that 32 percent of all registered voters thought we needed stricter social distancing measures, 47 percent said we’re doing the right thing right now and 19 percent said we needed to relax social distancing rules.
Among Republicans, 20 percent wanted stricter rules, 47 percent thought we’re doing the right thing and 32 percent wanted more relaxed rules — so some difference from the overall universe, but those agitating for more freedom of movement were still a minority.
As for personal behaviors, about the same number of Democrats and Republicans were doing things like avoiding social gatherings and spending almost all their time indoors — about 80 percent of each.
seth.masket (Seth Masket, political science professor at the University of Denver and FiveThirtyEight contributor): We’re seeing a pretty consistent story across a lot of different polls where there isn’t that much difference between Democrats and Republicans. However, I did want to mention a recent survey conducted by Montana State University-Bozeman and the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver, as it found that even though a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents in Colorado support the state’s stay-at-home orders, there are fairly stark differences in enthusiasm for the orders. Seventy-four percent of Democrats say they strongly support the orders compared with 45 percent of Republicans, for instance. That said, actual opposition to the orders is negligible across parties. And this poll also found that Democrats, Republicans and independents were equally likely to be engaging in social distancing behavior.
sarahf: One thing I’ve been struck by is that while there are some partisan differences on various social distancing measures, they’re just not that big. For instance, a National Bureau Economic Research working paper found partisan differences in self-reported social distancing behaviors and attitudes, but on something like reducing contact with others, the gap between those who identified as strong Democrats and those who identified as strong Republicans wasn’t that big. It was only a few percentage points.
In other words, despite a strong partisan split around whether President Trump is doing a good job of handling the crisis (see the chart below from our tracker on COVID-19 polls), there isn’t the same kind of dividing line on the actual preventive measures people are taking.
seth.masket: I think that’s right. And it may change!
One thing that’s been striking over the past few years is how much Republicans have largely followed Trump’s lead on a number of issues where he has broken from long-standing Republican orthodoxy — whether it’s increased support for Russian President Vladimir Putin or moral leadership mattering less. But with the coronavirus we may see a limit to this elite-led partisanship when death is on the line.
nrakich: Yeah, in this era of partisanship, we’re kind of trained to home in on the partisan differences in everything. And while they do exist here, they are just not as polar opposite as we are used to seeing — e.g., on approval and disapproval of Trump.
sarahf: Perry, you’ve covered the coronavirus-closure protests but found that the push to repeal stay-at-home orders was largely out of line with rank-and-file Republicans. Is that still true? Or are we starting to see that shift?
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): The polling hasn’t really shifted that much amid the protests — as Seth and Nathaniel have said, rank-and-file Republicans aren’t in revolt against these social distancing measures. They do tend to worry (more than Democrats), though, that these measures might go too far and hurt the economy.
nrakich: That’s true, but I’d still keep an eye out for shifts. I think the protests are less likely to move Republican opinion than are a bunch of Republican governors telling people it’s time to open up. And that has just started to happen within the past week. Plus, Republican elites may speak out even more in favor of opening up, or opening up further, in the weeks to come.
sarahf: That’s a good point, Nathaniel. Something you looked at for FiveThirtyEight, Seth, was whether a governor’s party affiliation made a difference in when he or she issued a statewide order to stay at home, but you found there really wasn’t a partisan difference. True, at the time you wrote the article last month, the eight governors who hadn’t issued such an order were all Republicans, but putting that aside, the median Democratic and Republican governor took roughly the same amount of time to act — 21 days after the first COVID-19 case was reported for Democratic governors, and 25 days for Republicans.
Is it a similar situation now, Seth, where partisanship doesn’t play as much a role in when a governor reopens a state? Or is that no longer true?
seth.masket: It seems to be different with reopening. According to The New York Times, 29 states are starting to reopen, and 22 of them have Republican governors. And of the 21 states — plus Washington, D.C. — that are keeping their stay-at-home orders in place, 18 (including D.C.) are led by Democrats.
And what I’ve found is that the party of the governor (or the state’s vote in 2016) does a much better job explaining the lifting of stay-at-home orders than either the incidence of the illness or the death count in a given state.
sarahf: Of course, there’s a lot we don’t know about the actual prevalence of the disease, given the differences in testing strategies from state to state. But that’s interesting that the death count isn’t predictive for whether a state might reopen.
perry: Are there more states with high incidence rates/high death totals opening up? Or do we see more states with lower incidence rates and death totals staying closed?
seth.masket: It’s a mixture of both. On the one hand, you have states like Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, which have current caseloads of 9,401 and 4,137 cases per million residents, respectively, and they’re loosening up stay-at-home rules. A state like Illinois, however, which has a caseload similar to Pennsylvania’s, is keeping its orders intact for now.
And on the other hand, Hawaii and Oregon have very low caseloads (fewer than 1,000 per million residents), but they’re keeping restrictions in place.
One governor I’ve followed with some curiosity is my own, Colorado’s Jared Polis, who is a fairly liberal Democrat and yet has embraced a modest reopening. I don’t claim to have a great sense of why he’s pressing this, unlike most other Democratic governors. But he’s clearly faced some pushback to stay-at-home orders.
We haven’t seen many large demonstrations against these orders, but Weld County (a large rural county stretching from Denver’s northern suburbs to the Wyoming and Nebraska borders) has strongly resisted the orders over the past few weeks and has pushed to reopen. And although Polis threatened to withhold relief funds at one point, I assume he has grown increasingly concerned that he will be unable to compel some areas of the state to comply. After all, this was the county that led a state-secession movement seven years ago.
nrakich: Right, I think a lot of people have mentally filed Colorado away as a blue state now because it has a Democratic governor and has so many college-educated white voters, but there is a healthy tradition of conservative/libertarian activism there.
Polis also wasn’t that liberal as a U.S. representative. I always thought of him as a technocrat/business-friendly Democrat, and I’m sure a lot of business associations are eager to reopen.
sarahf: Something we have to remember in this conversation, though, is that when we say “reopen,” that applies to a wide range of scenarios. In Texas, for instance, Gov. Greg Abbott is reopening the state in phases. In the first phase, only some nonessential businesses will reopen, and he’s also taken additional steps like limiting the capacity of restaurants and some businesses to 25 percent. In other words, no state that’s reopened has returned to operating as they did before the pandemic.
perry: Seth, what about the states in the South that are reopening? Are they generally doing that somewhat in proportion to deaths in their state or the number of cases?
seth.masket: Perry, within the South, there is a modest relationship there — states where the cases per million residents and deaths per million residents are higher are less likely to be reopening now. Louisiana by far has the highest caseload per capita, but it’s keeping its restrictions in place.
nrakich: Also one of the only Southern states with a Democratic governor — albeit a conservative one.
seth.masket: Virginia is another example.
sarahf: It’s interesting to me that the question of when to reopen the government has such a strong partisan undertone to it. On the one hand, the end of April/early May is when many Americans thought businesses and parts of the economy might reopen, so it’s possible that people start to answer questions on preventive measures differently — and not just for partisan reasons.
On the other hand, Trump has been pushing to reopen the economy in subtle — and not so subtle ways — and that obviously plays a role here, but there are also a lot of reasons why a governor might want to reopen the economy that isn’t strictly for partisan reasons.
So where do we think this debate over whether to open the economy heads next? Is it going to make the coronavirus an increasingly politicized issue?
seth.masket: I’m wondering which way we’ll see Republican voters moving in the next few weeks/months. What we’re seeing right now, I think, is one of the bigger elite-voter divides within a party in recent history. Trump isn’t wrong to see his political fate tied up with the fate of the economy. It’s probably why he keeps encouraging the country to reopen. And he’s made it clear he wants governors to reopen their states too. Republican governors mostly have (although Trump pushed back at Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp). Yet voters, even those supportive of Trump, are wary of jumping back into old routines.
So we might see an increase in this intra-party divide over the next few weeks, as GOP governors continue to push to reopen while disease rates ramp up in their states. As more people get sick or know people who are sick, that really undermines elites’ rhetoric that the worst is behind us, probably more than aggregate numbers do.
sarahf: I suppose that’s what makes all this so difficult — we don’t know what effect reopening parts of the economy in certain states might have. Some states might see an uptick in cases as a result, but that also might not happen, because even though parts of the economy are reopening, it doesn’t mean people will be ready to jump back into their old routines as you say, Seth. Many people will still avoid restaurants or other public spaces if they are concerned and have the ability to do so.
seth.masket: I’m not ready to go clubbing again just yet. Of course, I largely stopped in the early ’90s.
sarahf: Ha, and I think you’re not alone! No matter what Gov. Polis reopens.
But, OK, so far the most partisan aspects of the coronavirus crisis have been around how Americans approve (or disapprove) of Trump’s handling of it and how much they trust various government institutions with handling the pandemic. But where does this head next? Polls show Republicans and Democrats are largely taking preventive measures in roughly equal measures (although maybe not as enthusiastically), but does that change as states reopen? In other words, if political leaders are eager to engage in a political blame game around the virus, is the pandemic going to be increasingly politicized?
perry: The reaction to the pandemic is already very partisan because the anti-social distancing/stay-at-home orders movement is almost entirely driven by Republicans, from the protesters themselves to Attorney General William Barr and the president. (So even though most Republicans are not anti-social distancing, most prominent anti-social distancing voices are Republicans.)
The effect of that elite conservative pressure will be to make stay-at-home orders/social distancing almost impossible to sustain, because there will be lawsuits, protests, etc., no matter what the public thinks. We had relative national consensus around social distancing from the end of March until late April — but that’s over, I think. Even if we have a spike in the number of cases, Republican elites are probably going to put a lot of pressure on state governments not to reimpose these orders.
seth.masket: What we’re seeing, I’d argue, is a kind of perversion of the concept of states being the “laboratory for democracy.” In the absence of national leadership, we see state governments trying to figure out the path forward, but we don’t yet have a great sense of how they’re balancing things like the politics of it, disease rates, and other considerations, like the economy and what experts recommend.
It’ll also be hard to understand the effect that lifting some of these measures will have, as the spread of the disease will be only partially affected by these policies. States have very porous borders and integrated economies. So some states will do “well” or “poorly,” and blame and credit will be passed around — but not necessarily appropriately. Not to mention that in the past few months, Trump has moved the goal post quite a bit on how many deaths we should expect, so governors will likely follow suit, making it even harder to assess the impact.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden responds to sexual assault allegations


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-06--The 2020 House Map Looks Good For Democrats, But Republicans Still Have A Shot

While the presidential contest understandably gets the lion ’ s share of election coverage , don ’ t forget that all 435 seats in the House of Representatives will also be up for grabs in November .
And Democrats currently look like decent favorites to hold onto the majority they won in the 2018 midterm election .
Currently , Democrats hold 233 seats to the Republicans ’ 196 , giving them a sizable 37-seat advantage .
( There are also five vacancies — four seats previously held by the GOP and one held by Democrats . )
That means that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but solidly GOP seats they previously controlled , they will need to pick up 18 seats to win a majority .
But that might be difficult for House Republicans .
The electoral environment currently favors the Democrats , and Republicans have more open seats to defend .
Median race ratings from the three major election handicappers — The Cook Political Report , Inside Elections and Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball — rate 222 seats as safely , likely or lean Democratic , and 193 seats as safely , likely or lean Republican .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could go either way .
One reason Democrats are starting in such a strong position is few of their incumbents are retiring or seeking another office .
In total , only 11 Democratic-held seats have no incumbent running ( including that one vacant seat ) compared to 31 for the GOP ( including those four vacant seats ) .
True , 22 of those 31 open GOP-held seats are currently rated as “ safe , ” but the other nine are competitive — including three where the Democrats are favored .
The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold two open seats that are rated as competitive .
Among the competitive GOP open seats , the two likeliest to flip for Democrats are the 2nd and 6th Congressional Districts in North Carolina , whose current boundaries are the product of court-ordered redistricting drafted late last year .
The new lines made them much more Democratic and precipitated Republican retirements in both .
Democrats are also slight favorites in the Texas 23rd Congressional District , which was carried in 2016 by Hillary Clinton , according to data from Daily Kos Elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticized President Trump , is leaving after three terms .
As for the five open seats currently rated as toss-ups , two are held by Democrats and three by Republicans .
We ’ ll get an early test of the 2020 electoral environment next week with a special election in California ’ s 25th Congressional District .
The district — formerly held by Democratic Rep. Katie Hill , who resigned last November after she admitted to an affair with a campaign staffer and a conservative website published leaked nude photos of her — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2018 blue wave , but it looks like the special election to fill the seat could go to either party .
The Democrats are also defending an open seat in Iowa ’ s 2nd Congressional District , which Trump carried by 4 points .
And three GOP-held open seats are also currently rated as toss-ups : Georgia ’ s 7th Congressional District , which required a recount in 2018 because the contest was so close , as well as Texas ’ s 22nd and 24th Congressional Districts , which former Rep. Beto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won in Texas ’ s 2018 Senate race .
And as for the four open seats that lean toward the GOP , only one is in a district that the party doesn ’ t already control — Michigan ’ s 3rd Congressional District , held by Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash .
However , a win there wouldn ’ t really involve picking up new territory , as Amash was a Republican until he left the GOP last year .
( He has since mounted a Libertarian presidential bid and said he will forgo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also slight favorites to retain Indiana ’ s 5th Congressional District and New York ’ s 2nd Congressional District , and are likely to hold onto Montana ’ s at-large Congressional District .
But these open seats are just a handful of the seats up this year — Democrats also have 42 incumbents running in seats that election handicappers rate as competitive .
The incumbency advantage has lessened in recent years , but incumbents still enjoy a slight edge , so Democrats will be banking on that to help them in some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Take the 30 seats the Democrats won in 2018 but Trump won in 2016 — Democratic incumbents are defending 29 of them ( all but the Iowa 2nd , where the Democrat is retiring ) .
If House Republicans are going to make up ground in 2020 , these are the first seats you ’ d expect them to gain .
But so far , it ’ s mostly good news for Democrats : Yes , 12 are rated as toss-ups , but no seats currently lean toward the GOP even though Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 5 points in 2016 .
Meanwhile , the GOP retains a slight edge in only two districts Clinton won in 2016 : New York ’ s 24th Congressional District and Pennsylvania ’ s 1st Congressional District .
Of course , none of this rules out the GOP retaking the House in November .
For one thing , the generic ballot margin could narrow and the electoral environment could grow more competitive as we get closer to November .
This is especially true if the contest between Trump and former Vice President Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because House results are partially tied to the race for the White House — that is , if the candidate at the top of the ticket does well , that can produce down-ballot gains for their party .
And a good performance from Trump could make a big difference in the House , as the House map already has a slight Republican lean .
The median House seat , using the 2016 margin between Trump and Clinton , is Florida ’ s 25th Congressional District , which Trump carried by about 2 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is about 4 points to the right of the country as a whole , as Clinton won the national popular vote by 2 points .
In other words , even though Democrats are currently favored , a shift in the electoral environment toward the GOP could make them particularly vulnerable , especially considering they have few targets on favorable turf because they already won most Clinton-won districts in 2018 .
And when push comes to shove , those districts that Trump won in 2016 and Democrats picked up in 2018 are where the @ @ @ @ @ @

While the presidential contest understandably gets the lion’s share of election coverage, don’t forget that all 435 seats in the House of Representatives will also be up for grabs in November. And Democrats currently look like decent favorites to hold onto the majority they won in the 2018 midterm election.
Currently, Democrats hold 233 seats to the Republicans’ 196, giving them a sizable 37-seat advantage. (There are also five vacancies — four seats previously held by the GOP and one held by Democrats.) That means that if Republicans hold onto the four vacant but solidly GOP seats they previously controlled, they will need to pick up 18 seats to win a majority.
But that might be difficult for House Republicans. The electoral environment currently favors the Democrats, and Republicans have more open seats to defend. Median race ratings from the three major election handicappers — The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball — rate 222 seats as safely, likely or lean Democratic, and 193 seats as safely, likely or lean Republican. The other 20 seats are toss-ups that could go either way.
Democrats have the upper hand in the House Competitiveness of House races by the party that currently holds the seat, as rated by three major election handicappers Median Race Rating Party Safe D Likely D Lean D Toss-up Lean R Likely R Safe R Dem. 190 13 16 15 0 0 0 Rep. 0 2 1 5 12 15 165 Lib. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total 190 15 17 20 13 15 165 Rating is the race’s median rating among the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. The five vacant House seats are categorized by the party that previously held the seat. Four vacant seats were held by Republicans (all rated safe Republican) and one was held by Democrats (rated a toss-up). Sources: Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Daily Kos Elections, House of Representatives
One reason Democrats are starting in such a strong position is few of their incumbents are retiring or seeking another office. In total, only 11 Democratic-held seats have no incumbent running (including that one vacant seat) compared to 31 for the GOP (including those four vacant seats).
True, 22 of those 31 open GOP-held seats are currently rated as “safe,” but the other nine are competitive — including three where the Democrats are favored. The Democrats, on the other hand, only hold two open seats that are rated as competitive.
Democrats hold an edge in competitive open seats Competitive open House seats by incumbent party, 2016 presidential result and median race rating District Inc. party Outgoing representative 2016 pres. margin Race Rating NC-02 R George Holding D+24.4 Likely D NC-06 R Mark Walker D+21.5 Likely D TX-23 R Will Hurd D+3.4 Lean D CA-25* D Vacant D+6.7 Toss-up IA-02 D Dave Loebsack R+4.1 Toss-up TX-24 R Kenny Marchant R+6.2 Toss-up GA-07 R Rob Woodall R+6.3 Toss-up TX-22 R Pete Olson R+7.9 Toss-up NY-02 R Peter King R+9.1 Lean R MI-03 L Justin Amash R+9.4 Lean R IN-05 R Susan Brooks R+11.8 Lean R MT-AL R Greg Gianforte R+20.6 Likely R Rating is the race’s median rating among the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. *California’s 25th Congressional District holds its special election on May 12, so the winner will be an incumbent for the November election. Sources: The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Daily Kos Elections, House of Representatives
Among the competitive GOP open seats, the two likeliest to flip for Democrats are the 2nd and 6th Congressional Districts in North Carolina, whose current boundaries are the product of court-ordered redistricting drafted late last year. The new lines made them much more Democratic and precipitated Republican retirements in both. Democrats are also slight favorites in the Texas 23rd Congressional District, which was carried in 2016 by Hillary Clinton, according to data from Daily Kos Elections. Texas Rep. Will Hurd, who often criticized President Trump, is leaving after three terms.
As for the five open seats currently rated as toss-ups, two are held by Democrats and three by Republicans. We’ll get an early test of the 2020 electoral environment next week with a special election in California’s 25th Congressional District. The district — formerly held by Democratic Rep. Katie Hill, who resigned last November after she admitted to an affair with a campaign staffer and a conservative website published leaked nude photos of her — was one Democrats flipped as part of the 2018 blue wave, but it looks like the special election to fill the seat could go to either party. The Democrats are also defending an open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District, which Trump carried by 4 points. And three GOP-held open seats are also currently rated as toss-ups: Georgia’s 7th Congressional District, which required a recount in 2018 because the contest was so close, as well as Texas’s 22nd and 24th Congressional Districts, which former Rep. Beto O’Rourke either carried or nearly won in Texas’s 2018 Senate race.
And as for the four open seats that lean toward the GOP, only one is in a district that the party doesn’t already control — Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District, held by Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash. However, a win there wouldn’t really involve picking up new territory, as Amash was a Republican until he left the GOP last year. (He has since mounted a Libertarian presidential bid and said he will forgo a reelection campaign.) Republicans are also slight favorites to retain Indiana’s 5th Congressional District and New York’s 2nd Congressional District, and are likely to hold onto Montana’s at-large Congressional District.
But these open seats are just a handful of the seats up this year — Democrats also have 42 incumbents running in seats that election handicappers rate as competitive. The incumbency advantage has lessened in recent years, but incumbents still enjoy a slight edge, so Democrats will be banking on that to help them in some of the more competitive districts in 2020.
Take the 30 seats the Democrats won in 2018 but Trump won in 2016 — Democratic incumbents are defending 29 of them (all but the Iowa 2nd, where the Democrat is retiring). If House Republicans are going to make up ground in 2020, these are the first seats you’d expect them to gain. But so far, it’s mostly good news for Democrats: Yes, 12 are rated as toss-ups, but no seats currently lean toward the GOP even though Trump carried 13 of these districts by at least 5 points in 2016.
Democrats are defending many districts Trump won Incumbents seeking reelection in seats won by the other party’s presidential candidate in 2016, by 2016 presidential result and median race rating District Inc. party Incumbent seeking reelection 2016 pres. margin race Rating NJ-11 D Mikie Sherrill R+0.9 Safe D NJ-05 D Josh Gottheimer R+1.1 Safe D WI-03 D Ron Kind R+4.5 Safe D IL-17 D Cheri Bustos R+0.7 Likely D AZ-01 D Tom O’Halleran R+1.1 Likely D MN-02 D Angie Craig R+1.2 Likely D NY-18 D Sean Patrick Maloney R+1.9 Likely D PA-17 D Conor Lamb R+2.6 Likely D MI-11 D Haley Stevens R+4.4 Likely D NV-03 D Susie Lee R+1 Lean D NH-01 D Chris Pappas R+1.6 Lean D VA-02 D Elaine Luria R+3.4 Lean D IL-14 D Lauren Underwood R+3.9 Lean D MI-08 D Elissa Slotkin R+6.7 Lean D UT-04 D Ben McAdams R+6.7 Lean D NY-19 D Antonio Delgado R+6.8 Lean D PA-08 D Matt Cartwright R+9.6 Lean D GA-06 D Lucy McBath R+1.5 Toss-up IA-01 D Abby Finkenauer R+3.5 Toss-up IA-03 D Cindy Axne R+3.5 Toss-up NJ-03 D Andy Kim R+6.2 Toss-up VA-07 D Abigail Spanberger R+6.5 Toss-up NY-11 D Max Rose R+9.8 Toss-up NM-02 D Xochitl Torres Small R+10.2 Toss-up ME-02 D Jared Golden R+10.3 Toss-up SC-01 D Joe Cunningham R+13.1 Toss-up OK-05 D Kendra Horn R+13.4 Toss-up NY-22 D Anthony Brindisi R+15.5 Toss-up MN-07 D Collin Peterson R+30.8 Toss-up NY-24 R John Katko D+3.6 Lean R PA-01 R Brian Fitzpatrick D+2 Lean R Rating is the race’s median rating among the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Sources: The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Daily Kos Elections, House of Representatives
Meanwhile, the GOP retains a slight edge in only two districts Clinton won in 2016: New York’s 24th Congressional District and Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District.
Of course, none of this rules out the GOP retaking the House in November. For one thing, the generic ballot margin could narrow and the electoral environment could grow more competitive as we get closer to November. This is especially true if the contest between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden heats up. That’s because House results are partially tied to the race for the White House — that is, if the candidate at the top of the ticket does well, that can produce down-ballot gains for their party.
And a good performance from Trump could make a big difference in the House, as the House map already has a slight Republican lean. The median House seat, using the 2016 margin between Trump and Clinton, is Florida’s 25th Congressional District, which Trump carried by about 2 points. That means the median House seat is about 4 points to the right of the country as a whole, as Clinton won the national popular vote by 2 points. In other words, even though Democrats are currently favored, a shift in the electoral environment toward the GOP could make them particularly vulnerable, especially considering they have few targets on favorable turf because they already won most Clinton-won districts in 2018. And when push comes to shove, those districts that Trump won in 2016 and Democrats picked up in 2018 are where the House will likely be decided.
‘I totally buy â¦ Democrats have a chance at winning (Senate)’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-07--What Went Down In Ohio’s Primary

What Went Down In Ohio’s Primary

The past month has given us a glimpse of how democracy functions — or doesn ’ t — in the age of the coronavirus , as the first handful of states have executed rescheduled and retooled primary elections .
Wisconsin ultimately did not move its April 7 election , leading to long lines that may have contributed to the spread of the coronavirus and leaving the state unprepared to handle a flood of absentee-ballot requests .
On the other hand , Alaska and Wyoming canceled all in-person voting in their Democratic presidential primaries and mailed a ballot to every eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up its monthslong voting period last Tuesday , was a bit of a unique situation .
The primary was originally scheduled for March 17 , and for weeks leading up to that date , early and absentee voting proceeded as normal .
But the day before , confusion reigned as Gov .
Mike DeWine said the election should be postponed but encountered resistance in the courts .
Ultimately , DeWine ’ s side won out , and polling places did not open as scheduled ( although ballots already cast early or absentee remained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new primary date would be June 2 , but in late March the legislature stepped in and laid down new rules for an almost entirely absentee ballot election ending on April 28 .
Like Alaska and Wyoming , the state eliminated virtually all polling places ; only voters with a legal need ( i.e.
, people with disabilities or without mailing addresses ) were allowed to vote in person .
But like Wisconsin , Ohio did little to make it easier for people to vote by mail .
Voters were simply sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply for an absentee ballot .
The unprecedented set-up was Ohio ’ s way of avoiding both the public health and voting problems that plagued Wisconsin , but now that the primary is over , it looks as if the state was only partially successful .
In the end , Ohio faced some of the same problems Wisconsin did , albeit not on the same scale .
However , Ohio also experienced far lower turnout than Wisconsin , which likely reduced the strain on the state ’ s election infrastructure and made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First , as in Wisconsin , election officials in Ohio had to work overtime to process an abnormally high number of absentee-ballot requests .
A total of 1,975,806 Ohioans requested absentee ballots ( for comparison , Ohio issued only 477,844 absentee ballots in the much higher-turnout 2016 presidential primary ) .
And the week before the election , Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose warned that absentee ballots and ballot applications were taking more than a week to arrive in some cases due to delays with the U.S .
Postal Service .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ least two waves of mailings in order to vote ( voters must send in their absentee-ballot applications , and election offices must send back the ballots ) , advocates and elected officials worried that this could disenfranchise voters who didn ’ t request their ballots weeks in advance .
However , the magnitude of the problem isn ’ t totally clear , as in the last days of the election , the USPS implemented measures to speed up ballot delivery .
But several Ohio voters told FiveThirtyEight they experienced delays in getting their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that his ballot arrived eight or nine days after he requested it ; fellow Franklin County voter Dustin White said his took about 12 days .
Others were annoyed by the fact that it wasn ’ t possible to request a ballot online .
Tristan Akers , a law student at the Ohio State University , told us that because he does not have a printer , he had to write all the relevant information on a piece of paper and mail it in .
Despite these difficulties , however , everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually got it in time to vote .
“ It was slower but otherwise no real difference than the past , ” Seth Cutler , a voter in Lake County , wrote in an email .
We know from other news reports that other Ohioans were not so lucky .
It ’ s impossible to know how many , but the number of Ohioans who did not receive a ballot is likely several thousand .
In Butler , Clark , Greene , Miami , Montgomery and Warren counties alone , about 4,500 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one because their request lacked essential information .
Any Ohio voter who requested an absentee ballot by the deadline but did not receive it was allowed to cast a provisional ballot in person on April 28 .
But as was the case in Wisconsin , voters in this situation were forced to choose between risking their health and giving up their right to vote .
Unlike in Wisconsin , however , there were no widespread reports of lines and overcrowding at the few in-person voting sites that were open .
And in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a line — Hamilton County — the wait was 15 minutes , as opposed to up to three hours in Wisconsin .
Indeed , low overall turnout likely saved Ohio from experiencing crowds and absentee-ballot requests at volumes that would have overwhelmed the system .
Through April 28 , 1,760,988 ballots had been counted , representing 20 percent of Ohio ’ s voting eligible population .
That means that Ohio election officials had it easy compared with Wisconsin , where VEP turnout in last month ’ s primary was 36 percent .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhere between disappointing and dismal — more fitting for a midterm primary election than a presidential primary .
At first glance , it ’ s easy to think that the closure of election day polling places , and the state ’ s failure to automatically mail voters absentee ballots ( or at least applications ) to compensate , caused turnout to plummet .
After all , 42 percent of eligible Ohioans voted in the 2008 presidential primary , and 38 percent voted in the 2016 presidential primary .
However , both of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic and Republican sides .
This year barely had one : The Republican race was a foregone conclusion , and former Vice President Joe Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee by the time voting ended ( although for most of the voting period , the race was still contested ) .
Indeed , turnout in the Democratic primary went from 14 percent in 2016 to 10 percent in 2020 , but turnout in the Republican primary went from 23 percent to 8 percent , suggesting that much of the decrease is due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ultimately , it ’ s difficult to know what turnout “ should ” have been , if there were no pandemic and Ohio had been able to vote as usual .
The closest comparison might be 2012 , when only the Republican race was competitive , and overall VEP turnout was 23 percent — almost as meager as 2020 ’ s figure .
However , as the table above demonstrates , turnout almost certainly won ’ t be meager in November ; VEP turnout in Ohio has been between 64 and 68 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
That means Ohio could face some real problems if the coronavirus remains a pressing concern and the state hasn ’ t worked out the kinks in its vote-by-mail process .
( Debate has already begun on changes to the state ’ s procedures . )
Remember , the fact that Ohio ’ s primary produced fewer horror stories than Wisconsin ’ s does not mean that it is any more prepared to hold the general election amid a pandemic .

The past month has given us a glimpse of how democracy functions — or doesn’t — in the age of the coronavirus, as the first handful of states have executed rescheduled and retooled primary elections. Wisconsin ultimately did not move its April 7 election, leading to long lines that may have contributed to the spread of the coronavirus and leaving the state unprepared to handle a flood of absentee-ballot requests. On the other hand, Alaska and Wyoming canceled all in-person voting in their Democratic presidential primaries and mailed a ballot to every eligible voter.
But Ohio, which wrapped up its monthslong voting period last Tuesday, was a bit of a unique situation. The primary was originally scheduled for March 17, and for weeks leading up to that date, early and absentee voting proceeded as normal. But the day before, confusion reigned as Gov. Mike DeWine said the election should be postponed but encountered resistance in the courts. Ultimately, DeWine’s side won out, and polling places did not open as scheduled (although ballots already cast early or absentee remained valid).
Election officials initially said the new primary date would be June 2, but in late March the legislature stepped in and laid down new rules for an almost entirely absentee ballot election ending on April 28. Like Alaska and Wyoming, the state eliminated virtually all polling places; only voters with a legal need (i.e., people with disabilities or without mailing addresses) were allowed to vote in person. But like Wisconsin, Ohio did little to make it easier for people to vote by mail. Voters were simply sent postcards that contained instructions on how to apply for an absentee ballot.
The unprecedented set-up was Ohio’s way of avoiding both the public health and voting problems that plagued Wisconsin, but now that the primary is over, it looks as if the state was only partially successful. In the end, Ohio faced some of the same problems Wisconsin did, albeit not on the same scale. However, Ohio also experienced far lower turnout than Wisconsin, which likely reduced the strain on the state’s election infrastructure and made it easier to pull off a smooth election.
First, as in Wisconsin, election officials in Ohio had to work overtime to process an abnormally high number of absentee-ballot requests. A total of 1,975,806 Ohioans requested absentee ballots (for comparison, Ohio issued only 477,844 absentee ballots in the much higher-turnout 2016 presidential primary). And the week before the election, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose warned that absentee ballots and ballot applications were taking more than a week to arrive in some cases due to delays with the U.S. Postal Service. Because Ohio’s process required at least two waves of mailings in order to vote (voters must send in their absentee-ballot applications, and election offices must send back the ballots), advocates and elected officials worried that this could disenfranchise voters who didn’t request their ballots weeks in advance.
However, the magnitude of the problem isn’t totally clear, as in the last days of the election, the USPS implemented measures to speed up ballot delivery. But several Ohio voters told FiveThirtyEight they experienced delays in getting their ballots. Aaron Wenzel of Franklin County said that his ballot arrived eight or nine days after he requested it; fellow Franklin County voter Dustin White said his took about 12 days. Others were annoyed by the fact that it wasn’t possible to request a ballot online. Tristan Akers, a law student at the Ohio State University, told us that because he does not have a printer, he had to write all the relevant information on a piece of paper and mail it in. Despite these difficulties, however, everyone we talked to who requested a ballot eventually got it in time to vote. “It was slower but otherwise no real difference than the past,” Seth Cutler, a voter in Lake County, wrote in an email.
We know from other news reports that other Ohioans were not so lucky. It’s impossible to know how many, but the number of Ohioans who did not receive a ballot is likely several thousand. In Butler, Clark, Greene, Miami, Montgomery and Warren counties alone, about 4,500 people who requested a ballot were not sent one because their request lacked essential information.
Any Ohio voter who requested an absentee ballot by the deadline but did not receive it was allowed to cast a provisional ballot in person on April 28. But as was the case in Wisconsin, voters in this situation were forced to choose between risking their health and giving up their right to vote. Unlike in Wisconsin, however, there were no widespread reports of lines and overcrowding at the few in-person voting sites that were open. And in one of the few jurisdictions that did have a line — Hamilton County — the wait was 15 minutes, as opposed to up to three hours in Wisconsin.
Indeed, low overall turnout likely saved Ohio from experiencing crowds and absentee-ballot requests at volumes that would have overwhelmed the system. Through April 28, 1,760,988 ballots had been counted, representing 20 percent of Ohio’s voting eligible population. That means that Ohio election officials had it easy compared with Wisconsin, where VEP turnout in last month’s primary was 36 percent.
But by Ohio standards, that turnout was somewhere between disappointing and dismal — more fitting for a midterm primary election than a presidential primary.
Ohio’s 2020 turnout was among the lowest in recent history Total ballots cast as a share of the voting eligible population in Ohio statewide elections since 2008 Year Type of Election Turnout 2008 Presidential general 68% – 2012 Presidential general 65 – 2016 Presidential general 64 – 2018 Midterm general 51 – 2010 Midterm general 46 – 2008 Presidential primary 42 – 2011 Off-year 42 – 2009 Off-year 39 – 2016 Presidential primary 38 – 2015 Off-year 37 – 2014 Midterm general 36 – 2017 Off-year 27 – 2013 Off-year 24 – 2012 Presidential primary 23 – 2010 Midterm primary 21 – 2020 Presidential primary* 20 – 2018 Midterm primary 19 – 2014 Midterm primary 15 – *Data is preliminary. The voting eligible population in odd years was estimated as the midpoint of the VEPs from the year before and the year after. Sources: Ohio Secretary of State, United States Elections Project
At first glance, it’s easy to think that the closure of election day polling places, and the state’s failure to automatically mail voters absentee ballots (or at least applications) to compensate, caused turnout to plummet. After all, 42 percent of eligible Ohioans voted in the 2008 presidential primary, and 38 percent voted in the 2016 presidential primary. However, both of those years had competitive presidential primaries on both the Democratic and Republican sides. This year barely had one: The Republican race was a foregone conclusion, and former Vice President Joe Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee by the time voting ended (although for most of the voting period, the race was still contested).
Indeed, turnout in the Democratic primary went from 14 percent in 2016 to 10 percent in 2020, but turnout in the Republican primary went from 23 percent to 8 percent, suggesting that much of the decrease is due to the lack of a competitive election.
Ultimately, it’s difficult to know what turnout “should” have been, if there were no pandemic and Ohio had been able to vote as usual. The closest comparison might be 2012, when only the Republican race was competitive, and overall VEP turnout was 23 percent — almost as meager as 2020’s figure.
However, as the table above demonstrates, turnout almost certainly won’t be meager in November; VEP turnout in Ohio has been between 64 and 68 percent in the last three presidential general elections. That means Ohio could face some real problems if the coronavirus remains a pressing concern and the state hasn’t worked out the kinks in its vote-by-mail process. (Debate has already begun on changes to the state’s procedures.) Remember, the fact that Ohio’s primary produced fewer horror stories than Wisconsin’s does not mean that it is any more prepared to hold the general election amid a pandemic.
Why switching to vote-by-mail is tougher than it seems | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-07--Will Justin Amash’s Presidential Run Help Or Hurt Trump?

Elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley looks into what Michigan Rep. Justin Amash ’ s third-party candidacy could mean for President Trump @ @ @ @ @ Biden in November .

Will Justin Amash’s Presidential Run Help Or Hurt Trump?
Elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley looks into what Michigan Rep. Justin Amash’s third-party candidacy could mean for President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in November.


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-07--Many States Are Reporting Race Data For Only Some COVID-19 Cases And Deaths

Last week , we published an analysis finding that several states have yet to break down their COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity .
At least three states — Nevada , North Dakota and Nebraska — and five U.S. territories have yet to release any demographic information about the cases and deaths they ’ ve reported so far .
But even the places reporting some demographic data aren ’ t necessarily giving the full picture .
For both cases and deaths , almost every state is missing varying amounts of race and ethnicity data — data that ’ s critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the novel coronavirus .
According to our review of data available , 18 states and U.S. territories are not reporting information on the race and ethnicity of people who have died of COVID-19 .
As confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S. exceed 1 million , many states are releasing racial and ethnic data on who is getting sick .
But some , including much of the Great Plains and Mountain West , have not released racial and ethnic information on deaths .
And the states that are reporting that data are generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be caused by COVID-19 — the official death count likely significantly underestimates the pandemic ’ s true toll .
The gaps in reporting at the state level make getting an accurate national picture all the more difficult .
While the racial disparities in coronavirus infections and deaths are becoming clearer as states release more data , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not yet released any data on COVID-19 fatalities by race and ethnicity .
And the CDC ’ s data on cases includes race and ethnicity information for less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government .
Indeed , many states releasing breakdowns of COVID-19 cases are missing significant chunks of data .
Of those that have released some demographic data on cases , at least 18 states are missing information on more than 30 percent of cases in their data for either race or ethnicity .
And because of the lack of uniform reporting guidelines , some states don ’ t even specify what percentage of their cases are reporting racial or ethnic information , making it difficult to get the full picture of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , which received nationwide scrutiny for reopening small businesses before experiencing a 14-day decline in COVID-19 hospitalizations , has race data for less than 70 percent of cases statewide .
African Americans make up about 32 percent of the state ’ s population , according to U.S. Census Bureau data , but constitute nearly half of the state ’ s coronavirus cases for which the patient ’ s race is known .
Similarly , Massachusetts and Pennsylvania , which together have more than 100,000 cases and nearly 7,000 deaths , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent to 70 percent of their cases because of incomplete reporting from health care providers .
Some of the states hit hardest by the coronavirus , including New York , New Jersey and Louisiana — all states with large urban areas with huge populations of people of color — are releasing racial information on deaths but not on cases .
The data problem is particularly acute when it comes to Latino and Hispanic Americans .
COVID-19 ’ s disproportionate impact on black Americans has gotten a decent amount of attention , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that Hispanic and Latino populations also appear to be disproportionately hit by the pandemic in some parts of the country .
However , missing data and varying race reporting guidelines have made getting an accurate count of cases in that community nearly impossible .
Some states provide separate breakdowns of race and ethnicity , while others lump Hispanic and Latino identities into the racial breakdown .
For example , California reports racial and ethnic breakdown together under the following categories : Latino , white , Asian , African American/black , multi-race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander , and “ other.
” In comparison , Louisiana reports racial and ethnic breakdowns separately under the following categories for race : American Indian/Alaska Native , Asian , black , Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander , white and “ other.
” The categories the state uses for ethnicity are Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino .
“ This inability for us to do the most basic function , which is to aggregate data , is an example of our institutions in this nation having lost their capacity to be of service to people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Michael McAfee , CEO of Policy Link , a national research advocacy organization focused on racial equality .
“ This is not hard to do .
The question is : Is there the will there to do it ?
” Should we sacrifice our data privacy to fight the coronavirus ?

Last week, we published an analysis finding that several states have yet to break down their COVID-19 data by race and ethnicity. At least three states — Nevada, North Dakota and Nebraska — and five U.S. territories have yet to release any demographic information about the cases and deaths they’ve reported so far.
But even the places reporting some demographic data aren’t necessarily giving the full picture. For both cases and deaths, almost every state is missing varying amounts of race and ethnicity data — data that’s critical to understanding how communities are being affected by the novel coronavirus.
According to our review of data available, 18 states and U.S. territories are not reporting information on the race and ethnicity of people who have died of COVID-19.
As confirmed COVID-19 cases in the U.S. exceed 1 million, many states are releasing racial and ethnic data on who is getting sick. But some, including much of the Great Plains and Mountain West, have not released racial and ethnic information on deaths. And the states that are reporting that data are generally only sharing the number of fatalities known to be caused by COVID-19 — the official death count likely significantly underestimates the pandemic’s true toll.
The gaps in reporting at the state level make getting an accurate national picture all the more difficult. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s data on cases includes race and ethnicity information for less than half of all cases reported to the federal government.
Indeed, many states releasing breakdowns of COVID-19 cases are missing significant chunks of data. Of those that have released some demographic data on cases, at least 18 states are missing information on more than 30 percent of cases in their data for either race or ethnicity.
And because of the lack of uniform reporting guidelines, some states don’t even specify what percentage of their cases are reporting racial or ethnic information, making it difficult to get the full picture of how many cases are missing.
Georgia, for example, which received nationwide scrutiny for reopening small businesses before experiencing a 14-day decline in COVID-19 hospitalizations, has race data for less than 70 percent of cases statewide. African Americans make up about 32 percent of the state’s population, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, but constitute nearly half of the state’s coronavirus cases for which the patient’s race is known.
Similarly, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, which together have more than 100,000 cases and nearly 7,000 deaths, are missing racial and ethnic information in 50 percent to 70 percent of their cases because of incomplete reporting from health care providers.
Some of the states hit hardest by the coronavirus, including New York, New Jersey and Louisiana — all states with large urban areas with huge populations of people of color — are releasing racial information on deaths but not on cases.
The data problem is particularly acute when it comes to Latino and Hispanic Americans. COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on black Americans has gotten a decent amount of attention, but the limited amount of data released by states shows that Hispanic and Latino populations also appear to be disproportionately hit by the pandemic in some parts of the country. However, missing data and varying race reporting guidelines have made getting an accurate count of cases in that community nearly impossible. Some states provide separate breakdowns of race and ethnicity, while others lump Hispanic and Latino identities into the racial breakdown.
For example, California reports racial and ethnic breakdown together under the following categories: Latino, white, Asian, African American/black, multi-race, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and “other.”
In comparison, Louisiana reports racial and ethnic breakdowns separately under the following categories for race: American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, black, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, white and “other.” The categories the state uses for ethnicity are Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino.
“This inability for us to do the most basic function, which is to aggregate data, is an example of our institutions in this nation having lost their capacity to be of service to people who need them the most,” said Michael McAfee, CEO of Policy Link, a national research advocacy organization focused on racial equality. “This is not hard to do. The question is: Is there the will there to do it?”
CORRECTION (May 7, 2020, 11:18 p.m.): A previous version of this article mistakenly said that the CDC does not release any race or ethnicity data for COVID-19 deaths. The article has been updated.
Should we sacrifice our data privacy to fight the coronavirus?


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-08--Most Americans Think It’s Too Soon To Return To What Life Was Like Pre-Pandemic

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
In the past couple weeks , many states have announced plans to gradually lift the stay-at-home orders put in place to stem the tide of the coronavirus .
However , polls show that most Americans believe it is too soon to reopen .
In their latest poll ( conducted May 3-5 ) , The Economist/YouGov found that only 11 percent of adults believed it was safe to end social distancing and reopen businesses right now .
Six percent said it would be safe in about two weeks , and another 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month or so .
A plurality ( 29 percent ) thought it would take several months , and 15 percent even said a year or longer .
A Morning Consult survey taken April 29-30 found that just 20 percent of registered voters thought the economy should reopen in April ( i.e.
, immediately ) or May , 37 percent said June or July , 16 percent said August or September , and 12 percent said October or later .
And a May 5 poll from Global Strategy Group and GBAO for left-leaning firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans opposed reopening the country in the next few weeks , versus 36 percent who supported it .
Finally , a May 2-5 poll by Civiqs for Daily Kos asked respondents flat out whether they supported having a stay-at-home order in place in their state : Sixty-five percent said yes , and 29 percent said no .
Simply put , Americans think the stay-at-home orders are doing a lot more good than bad .
That same Economist/YouGov survey found that 59 percent of adults believed the orders were extremely or very effective at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional 31 percent said they were somewhat effective , while only 10 percent doubted their effectiveness .
In addition , a whopping 75 percent thought it was either very or somewhat likely that states reopening would result in an increase in COVID-19 cases .
And in an Axios/Ipsos poll conducted May 1-4 , 67 percent of Americans said that they thought returning to their pre-coronavirus life right now would be a large or moderate risk to their health and well-being ; only 30 percent of Americans said they were willing to accept such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
In general , Americans are taking a cautious attitude toward reopening .
According to a Monmouth University poll conducted April 30-May 4 , 63 percent of adults were more concerned about lifting restrictions too quickly than not lifting them quickly enough ; 29 percent said the opposite .
And the Navigator Research poll reported that 59 percent of Americans were more concerned about social distancing ending too soon , while 32 percent were more concerned that it would go on too long .
Even if businesses reopen , polls suggest many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
A Washington Post/University of Maryland poll conducted April 28-May 3 found that 78 percent of adults would be uncomfortable eating out in a restaurant right now , while just 22 percent would be comfortable .
Respondents also said 67 percent to 33 percent that they would be uncomfortable going to a retail clothing store .
However , some people might feel differently if states give the all-clear .
Fifty-nine percent of respondents to an Edison Research poll for Marketplace ( conducted April 23-28 ) said they would be comfortable returning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its stay-at-home order .
There are some signs , though , that people are itching to emerge from quarantine , although most are still following social-distancing guidelines .
Per Navigator Research , the share of Americans who said they are spending almost all their time at home ticked down from 84 percent on April 24 to 78 percent on May 5 .
The percentage who were avoiding in-person interactions with family and friends went from 71 percent to 66 percent .
And the latest poll from Axios/Ipsos reported that 26 percent of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up from 19 percent in their April 17-20 poll .
The slip in Americans ’ social-distancing habits could have to do with the warming weather around the country .
It could also be that , as some public-health officials feared would happen , more people feel safer going outside now that many states are mandating face masks .
Indeed , the share of Americans who say they are wearing face masks in public is on the rise .
According to The Economist/YouGov , 75 percent of adults said they have worn a mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mid-April .
And 73 percent of Axios/Ipsos respondents said they always or sometimes wore a mask when leaving the home ; that number was 56 percent in their April 10-13 survey .
Overall , though , Americans remain as worried about COVID-19 as ever .
According to our coronavirus polling tracker , 68.2 percent of Americans are either very or somewhat concerned that they or someone they know will become infected with the coronavirus ; only 31.3 percent are not very or not at all concerned .
Worries about the economy are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very concerned , 31.4 percent being somewhat concerned and just 11.9 percent being not very or not at all concerned .
But polls consistently show that , to the extent medical and economic concerns come into conflict , Americans are prioritizing their health .
According to Monmouth , 56 percent thought that minimizing the number of people who get sick is a more important consideration in lifting restrictions than avoiding a sustained economic downturn ; only 33 percent thought the economy should be the priority .
In the Edison Research/Marketplace survey , 65 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of COVID-19 was more important to them than relaxing those orders to help the economy , versus 33 percent who said the opposite .
The gap was widest in Morning Consult ’ s data : Eighty percent of voters said Americans should continue to socially distance even if it means damaging the economy , and just 20 percent said the country should stop social distancing to stimulate the economy , even if it means spreading the coronavirus .
Finally , the percentage who approve of President Trump ’ s handling of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Thursday evening , 43.5 percent approved and 51.1 percent disapproved , bringing Trump ’ s coronavirus approval numbers almost perfectly in line with his overall job approval numbers .
Specific polls homed in on Trump ’ s daily coronavirus briefings as something that is hurting his image .
In an April 22-24 Morning Consult poll , 53 percent of adults said the word “ frustrating ” described Trump ’ s conferences either very or somewhat well , versus 30 percent who thought the word did not fit .
Respondents also said 46 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading and 46 percent to 34 percent that they were counterproductive .
And according to Monmouth , only 33 percent of adults found Trump ’ s advice on the coronavirus helpful ; 23 percent found it neither particularly helpful nor harmful , while 42 percent found it actively harmful .
• Monmouth also asked about former Senate staffer Tara Reade ’ s allegation of sexual assault against former Vice President Joe Biden .
The overwhelming majority ( 86 percent ) of registered voters said they had heard about the allegation , but many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it : 37 percent said it was probably true , 32 percent said it was probably not true and 31 percent said that they didn ’ t know .
Other polls by HuffPost/YouGov and Morning Consult found Americans similarly split on the allegation ’ s credibility , with large proportions saying they didn ’ t know enough to say .
• In a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted last week , 36 percent of Democratic registered voters said that Sen. Elizabeth Warren was their first choice for Biden ’ s running mate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 14 percent preferred former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams and 13 percent preferred Sen. Amy Klobuchar .
• An April 30-May 1 poll from Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling showed a tight U.S. Senate race in Iowa : Republican incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst received 43 percent support , while Democrat Theresa Greenfield got 42 percent .
It was the first Senate poll of Iowa since late last year , when polls were giving Ernst a 6- or 7-point lead .
• These are the poll numbers you ’ re looking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all things Star Wars .
Sixty-eight percent of Americans have seen at least one Star Wars film ; the Force is especially strong with the 16 percent who have seen all of them .
Among those who have seen at least one , 64 percent preferred the original trilogy , while 13 percent have turned to the Dark Side ( i.e.
, they like the prequel trilogy best ) .
Never tell Han Solo the odds , but maybe he ’ ll like this poll : A plurality ( 16 percent ) of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their favorite character .
Fifteen percent like Luke Skywalker the most , followed by Chewbacca with 11 percent .
Didn ’ t anyone tell them to let the Wookiee win ?
• Already struggling to contain the coronavirus pandemic , Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is facing a political crisis after a popular , anti-corruption cabinet minister resigned to protest Bolsonaro ’ s firing of Brazil ’ s federal police chief .
In the wake of the scandal , pollster Datafolha finds that 45 percent of Brazilians support impeaching Bolsonaro , while 48 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s presidential approval tracker , 43.3 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 51.4 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -8.1 points ) .
At this time last week , 42.9 percent approved and 52.4 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -9.5 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 45.4 percent and a disapproval rating of 49.7 percent , for a net approval rating of -4.3 points .
In our average of polls of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 7.9 percentage points ( 48.5 percent to 40.6 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 7.7 points ( 48.0 percent to 40.3 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 7.7 points ( 48.9 percent to 41.2 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
In the past couple weeks, many states have announced plans to gradually lift the stay-at-home orders put in place to stem the tide of the coronavirus. However, polls show that most Americans believe it is too soon to reopen.
In their latest poll (conducted May 3-5), The Economist/YouGov found that only 11 percent of adults believed it was safe to end social distancing and reopen businesses right now. Six percent said it would be safe in about two weeks, and another 19 percent said it would be in a month or so. A plurality (29 percent) thought it would take several months, and 15 percent even said a year or longer. A Morning Consult survey taken April 29-30 found that just 20 percent of registered voters thought the economy should reopen in April (i.e., immediately) or May, 37 percent said June or July, 16 percent said August or September, and 12 percent said October or later. And a May 5 poll from Global Strategy Group and GBAO for left-leaning firm Navigator Research found that 60 percent of Americans opposed reopening the country in the next few weeks, versus 36 percent who supported it. Finally, a May 2-5 poll by Civiqs for Daily Kos asked respondents flat out whether they supported having a stay-at-home order in place in their state: Sixty-five percent said yes, and 29 percent said no.
Simply put, Americans think the stay-at-home orders are doing a lot more good than bad. That same Economist/YouGov survey found that 59 percent of adults believed the orders were extremely or very effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19; an additional 31 percent said they were somewhat effective, while only 10 percent doubted their effectiveness. In addition, a whopping 75 percent thought it was either very or somewhat likely that states reopening would result in an increase in COVID-19 cases. And in an Axios/Ipsos poll conducted May 1-4, 67 percent of Americans said that they thought returning to their pre-coronavirus life right now would be a large or moderate risk to their health and well-being; only 30 percent of Americans said they were willing to accept such a risk to return to their normal lives.
In general, Americans are taking a cautious attitude toward reopening. According to a Monmouth University poll conducted April 30-May 4, 63 percent of adults were more concerned about lifting restrictions too quickly than not lifting them quickly enough; 29 percent said the opposite. And the Navigator Research poll reported that 59 percent of Americans were more concerned about social distancing ending too soon, while 32 percent were more concerned that it would go on too long.
Even if businesses reopen, polls suggest many Americans would still choose not to patronize them. A Washington Post/University of Maryland poll conducted April 28-May 3 found that 78 percent of adults would be uncomfortable eating out in a restaurant right now, while just 22 percent would be comfortable. Respondents also said 67 percent to 33 percent that they would be uncomfortable going to a retail clothing store. However, some people might feel differently if states give the all-clear. Fifty-nine percent of respondents to an Edison Research poll for Marketplace (conducted April 23-28) said they would be comfortable returning to their normal routine when their state relaxes its stay-at-home order.
There are some signs, though, that people are itching to emerge from quarantine, although most are still following social-distancing guidelines. Per Navigator Research, the share of Americans who said they are spending almost all their time at home ticked down from 84 percent on April 24 to 78 percent on May 5. The percentage who were avoiding in-person interactions with family and friends went from 71 percent to 66 percent. And the latest poll from Axios/Ipsos reported that 26 percent of Americans had recently visited friends or relatives, up from 19 percent in their April 17-20 poll.
The slip in Americans’ social-distancing habits could have to do with the warming weather around the country. It could also be that, as some public-health officials feared would happen, more people feel safer going outside now that many states are mandating face masks. Indeed, the share of Americans who say they are wearing face masks in public is on the rise. According to The Economist/YouGov, 75 percent of adults said they have worn a mask in public, up from 53 percent in mid-April. And 73 percent of Axios/Ipsos respondents said they always or sometimes wore a mask when leaving the home; that number was 56 percent in their April 10-13 survey.
Overall, though, Americans remain as worried about COVID-19 as ever. According to our coronavirus polling tracker, 68.2 percent of Americans are either very or somewhat concerned that they or someone they know will become infected with the coronavirus; only 31.3 percent are not very or not at all concerned.
Worries about the economy are stable too, with 55.2 percent being very concerned, 31.4 percent being somewhat concerned and just 11.9 percent being not very or not at all concerned.
But polls consistently show that, to the extent medical and economic concerns come into conflict, Americans are prioritizing their health. According to Monmouth, 56 percent thought that minimizing the number of people who get sick is a more important consideration in lifting restrictions than avoiding a sustained economic downturn; only 33 percent thought the economy should be the priority. In the Edison Research/Marketplace survey, 65 percent said maintaining stay-at-home orders to stop the spread of COVID-19 was more important to them than relaxing those orders to help the economy, versus 33 percent who said the opposite. The gap was widest in Morning Consult’s data: Eighty percent of voters said Americans should continue to socially distance even if it means damaging the economy, and just 20 percent said the country should stop social distancing to stimulate the economy, even if it means spreading the coronavirus.
Finally, the percentage who approve of President Trump’s handling of the pandemic continues to decline. As of Thursday evening, 43.5 percent approved and 51.1 percent disapproved, bringing Trump’s coronavirus approval numbers almost perfectly in line with his overall job approval numbers.
Specific polls homed in on Trump’s daily coronavirus briefings as something that is hurting his image. In an April 22-24 Morning Consult poll, 53 percent of adults said the word “frustrating” described Trump’s conferences either very or somewhat well, versus 30 percent who thought the word did not fit. Respondents also said 46 percent to 36 percent that they were misleading and 46 percent to 34 percent that they were counterproductive. And according to Monmouth, only 33 percent of adults found Trump’s advice on the coronavirus helpful; 23 percent found it neither particularly helpful nor harmful, while 42 percent found it actively harmful.
Other polling bites
Monmouth also asked about former Senate staffer Tara Reade’s allegation of sexual assault against former Vice President Joe Biden. The overwhelming majority (86 percent) of registered voters said they had heard about the allegation, but many weren’t sure what to make of it: 37 percent said it was probably true, 32 percent said it was probably not true and 31 percent said that they didn’t know. Other polls by HuffPost/YouGov and Morning Consult found Americans similarly split on the allegation’s credibility, with large proportions saying they didn’t know enough to say.
In a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted last week, 36 percent of Democratic registered voters said that Sen. Elizabeth Warren was their first choice for Biden’s running mate. Another 19 percent preferred Sen. Kamala Harris, 14 percent preferred former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams and 13 percent preferred Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
An April 30-May 1 poll from Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling showed a tight U.S. Senate race in Iowa: Republican incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst received 43 percent support, while Democrat Theresa Greenfield got 42 percent. It was the first Senate poll of Iowa since late last year, when polls were giving Ernst a 6- or 7-point lead.
These are aren’t the poll numbers you’re looking for: SSRS has released a survey of all things Star Wars. Sixty-eight percent of Americans have seen at least one Star Wars film; the Force is especially strong with the 16 percent who have seen all of them. Among those who have seen at least one, 64 percent preferred the original trilogy, while 13 percent have turned to the Dark Side (i.e., they like the prequel trilogy best). Never tell Han Solo the odds, but maybe he’ll like this poll: A plurality (16 percent) of Star Wars viewers say he’s their favorite character. Fifteen percent like Luke Skywalker the most, followed by Chewbacca with 11 percent. Didn’t anyone tell them to let the Wookiee win?
the poll numbers you’re looking for: SSRS has released a survey of all things Star Wars. Sixty-eight percent of Americans have seen at least one Star Wars film; the Force is especially strong with the 16 percent who have seen all of them. Among those who have seen at least one, 64 percent preferred the original trilogy, while 13 percent have turned to the Dark Side (i.e., they like the prequel trilogy best). Never tell Han Solo the odds, but maybe he’ll like this poll: A plurality (16 percent) of Star Wars viewers say he’s their favorite character. Fifteen percent like Luke Skywalker the most, followed by Chewbacca with 11 percent. Didn’t anyone tell them to let the Wookiee win? Already struggling to contain the coronavirus pandemic, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is facing a political crisis after a popular, anti-corruption cabinet minister resigned to protest Bolsonaro’s firing of Brazil’s federal police chief. In the wake of the scandal, pollster Datafolha finds that 45 percent of Brazilians support impeaching Bolsonaro, while 48 percent oppose it.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.3 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 51.4 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -8.1 points). At this time last week, 42.9 percent approved and 52.4 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -9.5 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 45.4 percent and a disapproval rating of 49.7 percent, for a net approval rating of -4.3 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.9 percentage points (48.5 percent to 40.6 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.7 points (48.0 percent to 40.3 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.7 points (48.9 percent to 41.2 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-08--Politics Podcast: How Long The Unemployment Pain Could Last

The April jobs report , released Friday , revealed a record number of Americans — 14.7 percent — unemployed as @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
The country has not seen levels this high since the Great Depression .
@ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics , Erica @ @ @ @ @ underneath the top-line unemployment number and how long the pain could last .
You can @ @ @ @ @ clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it @ @ @ @ @ App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by @ @ @ @ @ review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling @ @ @ @ @ Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

The April jobs report, released Friday, revealed that a record share of Americans — 14.7 percent — were unemployed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The country has not seen unemployment levels this high since the Great Depression. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Erica Groshen, former commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, discusses the data under the top-line unemployment number and how long the pain could last.
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.