fivethirtyeight--2020-03-23--Stimulus Checks Aren’t A Bad Idea, But They’re Not Enough

Congress is about to embark on a huge spending spree .
Last Thursday , after the Trump administration announced that it supports a stimulus package to help individuals and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic , Senate Republicans unveiled a massive spending bill that includes a controversial provision : direct cash payments to many Americans .
The legislation is still in flux , and Republicans and Democrats have clashed on the details of the payments , like who should get checks , whether they should go out more than once , and how much they should be for — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct cash relief will end up in the final package .
On the surface , the idea of sending checks to Americans stricken by a vast and sudden economic slowdown feels like a pretty obvious first step .
The unemployment crisis is unfolding at a terrifying speed , and people need money .
So why not simply give it to them ?
There ’ s also some evidence that the checks are increasingly popular with Americans as the massive economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic comes into focus .
A poll conducted March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Progress showed that support for $ 1,000 cash payments to Americans has skyrocketed since early March , with 58 percent of the country now in favor .
But is an influx of cash actually the best way to cushion workers from what seems likely to be the most dramatic shock in recent memory ?
The consensus , based on my conversations with almost a dozen economic experts , is that it can ’ t hurt to go ahead and send out checks .
But that probably shouldn ’ t be our only — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are preexisting systems , like unemployment insurance programs , that can quickly get money to the people who are losing their jobs .
And in the short term , focusing on shoring up those systems could be just as important as determining how big a windfall Americans should get in the mail .
“ Right now , the risk of overreach is negligible and the risk of doing too little is very high , ” said Indivar Dutta-Gupta , the co-director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one part of a much broader effort to help the tens of millions of people who are going to be hurt economically by this pandemic.
” On Thursday , after the Senate Republicans ’ economic proposal was unveiled , Republican Sen. Richard Shelby questioned the value of sending out a slew of payments over a more targeted approach .
“ I personally think that if we are going to help people , we ought to direct the cash payments maybe as a supplement to unemployment , not to the people that are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Extra funding for the unemployment system is one of the options Congress is considering .
He had a surprising amount of company among some of the left-leaning experts I spoke with , who said the unemployment insurance system needs a lot of help .
“ I ’ m not opposed to sending out checks , but it ’ s not an especially efficient way of helping people right now , ” said Michele Evermore , a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project .
“ We have a system that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have become unemployed , so we should be focusing on making sure that system is capable of responding to the huge surge of people who are relying on it.
” Shoring up the unemployment insurance system came up in almost every conversation I had .
And that ’ s because the system is already threatening to buckle as the number of people applying for unemployment benefits spikes .
According to the Department of Labor , new filings for job losses rose 33 percent for the week ending on March 14 .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , when businesses across the country temporarily shuttered and a tidal wave of layoffs followed .
The state offices that administer unemployment benefits are unprepared to meet the demand in multiple ways — across the country last week , websites crashed , phone lines jammed , and lines snaked outside unemployment offices .
And many states don ’ t have the funds to handle a surge in unemployment claims without assistance from the federal government .
Congress already allocated $ 1 billion in funds to help states ramp up their capacity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that passed last week .
But experts said there ’ s a lot more that could be done to use the unemployment insurance system to get money to people quickly .
For instance , only about 27 percent of unemployed Americans actually received benefits in 2016 , in part because of the complicated maze of restrictions that people face when they apply .
Some states are already starting to remove barriers — like waiting periods or some eligibility requirements — to ensure that more people qualify .
During the last recession , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help cover the ballooning cost of the state unemployment insurance programs , and it seemed to pay off , according to studies that were conducted later .
Arindrajit Dube , an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts , Amherst , suggested increasing the amount of money that recipients are eligible for , too .
Right now , unemployment insurance only replaces between one-third and one-half of a person ’ s income .
In normal times , Dube said , the payments should be capped around 50 percent of workers ’ normal wages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people might not look very hard for another job .
The trouble is that right now , we have the opposite problem .
“ We want people not to work for health reasons , ” he said .
“ So for our purposes in this very specific and unique moment , having a generous payout accomplishes exactly what we want it to.
” Putting more money in Americans ’ pockets through stimulus payments could help too , Dube said — unless the checks simply can ’ t get out to people as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2008 financial crisis , Congress sent a tax rebate out to many Americans , which is similar to what ’ s being proposed now .
A study conducted in the wake of the payments found that the rebates did raise consumer spending .
But the checks didn ’ t actually arrive at people ’ s homes until several months after the legislation had passed , which could be a big problem for low-wage workers , who often have minimal savings .
There are other ways to get funds to low-income Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by putting more money onto the cards that food stamp recipients use to buy groceries .
Angela Rachidi , a Rowe scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute , meanwhile , favors funneling money to poor families through an emergency version of the earned income tax credit , a subsidy that supplements the earnings of low-income workers when they file their taxes .
“ These are the people who are least likely to be able to work from home , and many of them are single parents , which means they may need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their children , ” Rachidi said .
“ We already know they ’ re vulnerable — why not focus on them first ?
” The problem with more targeted interventions is that , inevitably , they leave some people out .
Freelancers and independent contractors working in the “ gig economy , ” for example , don ’ t usually qualify for unemployment insurance .
Part-time workers also can ’ t get access to unemployment benefits in some states .
And there are plenty of people who will be financially harmed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t necessarily lose a job .
“ The economic need is going to be tremendous , and unemployment is only one piece of it , ” said Andrew Stettner , a senior fellow at the left-leaning Century Foundation .
“ Some people are graduating from college and might have trouble finding work .
You might lose overtime or a bonus.
” But Stettner added that from his perspective , the stimulus checks are only one piece of the puzzle .
“ There isn ’ t one single way to shore up people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ We need to be broad and targeted .
On its own , a $ 1,000 check is not going to solve many people ’ s problems right now .
”

Congress is about to embark on a huge spending spree. Last Thursday, after the Trump administration announced that it supports a stimulus package to help individuals and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic, Senate Republicans unveiled a massive spending bill that includes a controversial provision: direct cash payments to many Americans.
The legislation is still in flux, and Republicans and Democrats have clashed on the details of the payments, like who should get checks, whether they should go out more than once, and how much they should be for — but it seems likely that some form of direct cash relief will end up in the final package.
On the surface, the idea of sending checks to Americans stricken by a vast and sudden economic slowdown feels like a pretty obvious first step. The unemployment crisis is unfolding at a terrifying speed, and people need money. So why not simply give it to them? There’s also some evidence that the checks are increasingly popular with Americans as the massive economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic comes into focus. A poll conducted March 16-17 by liberal think tank Data for Progress showed that support for $1,000 cash payments to Americans has skyrocketed since early March, with 58 percent of the country now in favor.
But is an influx of cash actually the best way to cushion workers from what seems likely to be the most dramatic shock in recent memory? The consensus, based on my conversations with almost a dozen economic experts, is that it can’t hurt to go ahead and send out checks. But that probably shouldn’t be our only — or even our primary — economic response. There are preexisting systems, like unemployment insurance programs, that can quickly get money to the people who are losing their jobs. And in the short term, focusing on shoring up those systems could be just as important as determining how big a windfall Americans should get in the mail.
“Right now, the risk of overreach is negligible and the risk of doing too little is very high,” said Indivar Dutta-Gupta, the co-director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. “So stimulus checks should really just be one part of a much broader effort to help the tens of millions of people who are going to be hurt economically by this pandemic.”
On Thursday, after the Senate Republicans’ economic proposal was unveiled, Republican Sen. Richard Shelby questioned the value of sending out a slew of payments over a more targeted approach. “I personally think that if we are going to help people, we ought to direct the cash payments maybe as a supplement to unemployment, not to the people that are still working every day,” Shelby said. Extra funding for the unemployment system is one of the options Congress is considering.
He had a surprising amount of company among some of the left-leaning experts I spoke with, who said the unemployment insurance system needs a lot of help. “I’m not opposed to sending out checks, but it’s not an especially efficient way of helping people right now,” said Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project. “We have a system that is literally designed to help people who have become unemployed, so we should be focusing on making sure that system is capable of responding to the huge surge of people who are relying on it.”
Shoring up the unemployment insurance system came up in almost every conversation I had. And that’s because the system is already threatening to buckle as the number of people applying for unemployment benefits spikes. According to the Department of Labor, new filings for job losses rose 33 percent for the week ending on March 14. And that data doesn’t even cover last week, when businesses across the country temporarily shuttered and a tidal wave of layoffs followed. The state offices that administer unemployment benefits are unprepared to meet the demand in multiple ways — across the country last week, websites crashed, phone lines jammed, and lines snaked outside unemployment offices. And many states don’t have the funds to handle a surge in unemployment claims without assistance from the federal government.
Congress already allocated $1 billion in funds to help states ramp up their capacity to dole out unemployment benefits in a bill that passed last week. But experts said there’s a lot more that could be done to use the unemployment insurance system to get money to people quickly. For instance, only about 27 percent of unemployed Americans actually received benefits in 2016, in part because of the complicated maze of restrictions that people face when they apply. Some states are already starting to remove barriers — like waiting periods or some eligibility requirements — to ensure that more people qualify. During the last recession, the federal government also pitched in money to help cover the ballooning cost of the state unemployment insurance programs, and it seemed to pay off, according to studies that were conducted later.
Arindrajit Dube, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, suggested increasing the amount of money that recipients are eligible for, too. Right now, unemployment insurance only replaces between one-third and one-half of a person’s income. In normal times, Dube said, the payments should be capped around 50 percent of workers’ normal wages — if the benefits were more generous, people might not look very hard for another job. The trouble is that right now, we have the opposite problem. “We want people not to work for health reasons,” he said. “So for our purposes in this very specific and unique moment, having a generous payout accomplishes exactly what we want it to.”
Putting more money in Americans’ pockets through stimulus payments could help too, Dube said — unless the checks simply can’t get out to people as quickly as they need them. During the 2008 financial crisis, Congress sent a tax rebate out to many Americans, which is similar to what’s being proposed now. A study conducted in the wake of the payments found that the rebates did raise consumer spending. But the checks didn’t actually arrive at people’s homes until several months after the legislation had passed, which could be a big problem for low-wage workers, who often have minimal savings.
There are other ways to get funds to low-income Americans, Dutta-Gupta told me — for example, by putting more money onto the cards that food stamp recipients use to buy groceries. Angela Rachidi, a Rowe scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, meanwhile, favors funneling money to poor families through an emergency version of the earned income tax credit, a subsidy that supplements the earnings of low-income workers when they file their taxes. “These are the people who are least likely to be able to work from home, and many of them are single parents, which means they may need to take time off work to watch their children,” Rachidi said. “We already know they’re vulnerable — why not focus on them first?”
The problem with more targeted interventions is that, inevitably, they leave some people out. Freelancers and independent contractors working in the “gig economy,” for example, don’t usually qualify for unemployment insurance. Part-time workers also can’t get access to unemployment benefits in some states. And there are plenty of people who will be financially harmed by the economic shutdown, but who won’t necessarily lose a job. “The economic need is going to be tremendous, and unemployment is only one piece of it,” said Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Century Foundation. “Some people are graduating from college and might have trouble finding work. You might lose overtime or a bonus.”
But Stettner added that from his perspective, the stimulus checks are only one piece of the puzzle. “There isn’t one single way to shore up people’s incomes right now,” he said. “We need to be broad and targeted. On its own, a $1,000 check is not going to solve many people’s problems right now.”


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-23--This Isn’t The First Time America Has Weathered A Crisis In An Election Year

The COVID-19 pandemic has already disrupted public life in a number of ways — large events are canceled , restaurants are closed and many of us are stuck at home — but a fundamental aspect of our democratic society could also be under threat : voting .
Already , eight states or territories have postponed their presidential primaries — but depending on how long this pandemic affects day-to-day life in the United States , it could impact the November general election , too .
But this isn ’ t the first time our country has had to go to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elections have occurred during economic catastrophes like the Great Depression as well as during both world wars .
The good news is we ’ ve always managed to hold general elections — even in the midst of the Civil War — but the bad news is that our ability to vote is often hampered .
And turnout has usually fallen because voting became harder or costlier in the face of natural or man-made calamities .
Looking ahead to the November election , recent primary elections show that states need to be prepared for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure people can vote despite a health crisis .
Take last Tuesday .
Ohio postponed its election and in Illinois , where there isn ’ t a tradition of voting by mail , turnout was much lower than in the other two states that voted .
( Florida and Arizona both generally cast a large percentage of ballots by mail . )
There ’ s still a lot we don ’ t know about the current health crisis we find ourselves in — how long will the urgency of the coronavirus threat last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will look come November — but if we ’ re looking at elections comparable to our current moment , the most relevant may be the 1918 midterm .
That fall , in the waning days of World War I , the Spanish flu — a strain of influenza that got that name because Spain was one of the few countries to report on it freely — ravaged the United States , killing hundreds of thousands of people , many in the lead-up to the November election .
In response to this devastating disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its spread , but those mitigation policies affected political campaigns .
Marian Moser Jones , a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Health who studies the influenza pandemic , pointed to bans on public gatherings , which we ’ re seeing now too .
“ [ Y ] ou couldn ’ t have the usual election speeches , which were then even more important because you didn ’ t have television or radio , ” Jones said .
“ [ Candidates ] had to actually campaign via newspaper editorials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ west , where the pandemic ’ s severity peaked in the days before the election .
Even election night changed : There was a ban on the display of election returns on large boards outside of newspaper offices so that crowds wouldn ’ t gather to watch results come in , Jones told me .
And in Los Angeles , “ election officers locked themselves in each voting booth to count the votes and to prevent flu transmission.
” The Spanish flu also likely contributed to lower turnout on Election Day .
About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots in the 1918 midterm election , down sharply from the 50 to 52 percent that voted in the previous two midterms .
Jason Marisam , who studied the effect of influenza on the 1918 election as a legal fellow at Harvard Law School ( he ’ s now an assistant attorney general in Minnesota ) , told me that it probably did have an effect on people voting .
“ The San Francisco Chronicle ran photos of Election Day , people lining up to vote all wearing these masks .
They called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , ” said Marisam .
“ You have to think that that kind of mentality had an impact on turnout.
” Observers back in 1918 attributed the drop in turnout to the effects of the pandemic , too .
“ The Los Angeles Times estimated that the flu had kept 40,000 people away from the polls in San Francisco , ” said Jones , adding that newspaper accounts of voting in Arizona and New Mexico talked about the disinfection of polling places and a “ light vote ” due to influenza and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war .
There ’ s one obvious complication when we examine turnout in 1918 : the First World War .
It ’ s difficult to separate out influenza ’ s effect on the election because around 2 million men were also fighting overseas in 1918 , and not much was done to help them vote .
That meant a sizable chunk of the electorate was effectively disenfranchised , as only men 21 years or older could vote in much of the country .
( Remember , the 19th Amendment , which gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t ratified until summer 1920 . )
Nonetheless , even if influenza only explains part of the drop-off in voter turnout , Marisam estimated it was still likely responsible for hundreds of thousands of people not voting .
But despite public health worries associated with influenza , Marisam told me he could find no evidence that people discussed postponing the 1918 election .
Civic pride and patriotism were high during World War I , as war bond campaigns and propaganda from the Committee on Public Information encouraged Americans to do their part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspapers encouraged citizens to go to the polls despite the Spanish flu with headlines like “ Every Loyal Californian Will Cast Vote At Election Today ” in the Los Angeles Times .
There also wasn ’ t a national debate over whether the results were legitimate , even though turnout was lower , and in some parts of the country , officials claimed influenza may have affected the results in congressional and local elections .
Of course , the 1918 election isn ’ t the only election to be held during a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place during one of our country ’ s massive health crises ) .
But just like the 1918 election , other federal elections also held during world wars saw depressed turnout .
In 1942 , during World War II , the government tried to buoy turnout by passing the Soldiers Voting Act , which helped states send federal ballots to service members .
It didn ’ t work particularly well : Less than 30,000 federal ballots were cast under its provisions and turnout in 1942 was very low — just 34 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it the second-lowest midterm turnout since the ratification of the 19th Amendment ( only 1926 , at 33 percent , was lower ) .
Trying to avoid the same problems in 1944 , Congress passed a military ballot law ahead of the election that helped at least 2.6 million soldiers cast ballots — enough to make a difference for President Franklin Roosevelt in at least one state .
( He won enough military votes in New Jersey to overcome his deficit among civilian votes , according to a contemporaneous study . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the previous two presidential elections , and as you can see in the table below , voter turnout in elections during U.S. involvement in the two world wars was lower than in previous midterm and presidential elections .
But it ’ s not just war and disease that have disrupted our elections .
Sudden natural disasters have also impeded voting , as demonstrated by Hurricane Sandy , which hit the East Coast just days ahead of the 2012 election .
New Jersey and New York were especially hard-hit , and leaders there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the storm ’ s aftermath .
In New Jersey , the government designated those displaced by the storm as “ overseas voters , ” which allowed them to email or fax absentee ballots , though some localities weren ’ t able to effectively handle the surge in absentee requests .
And in parts of New York City , some voters had to cast ballots in tents because of the damage to polling locations .
It ’ s unlikely that Sandy ’ s effects altered the presidential outcome , given that both New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but turnout was down in areas affected by storm surge in New Jersey .
One study from political scientists at Stony Brook University found that the storm possibly helped Barack Obama carry Virginia because of how it affected turnout in parts of the state .
Other disasters like 9/11 have disrupted our elections more dramatically .
New York ’ s primary election was actually scheduled for Sept. 11 , 2001 , but the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center that morning prompted New York Gov .
George Pataki to postpone the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its primaries two weeks later .
Obviously , this was an especially extreme case , but the suddenness of the delay is a reminder that sometimes elections can ’ t go on .
And it ’ s arguably why states should be preparing now for how voting will work in November .
Turnout has usually declined in crisis elections — sometimes dramatically — and Illinois ’ s diminished turnout last Tuesday demonstrated that it could be challenging to hold an election if COVID-19 is still a significant danger come November , particularly if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Edward Foley , an election law expert at the Ohio State University ’ s Moritz College of Law , told me that states need to start adapting their voting systems .
“ The focus of attention should be on how to conduct a November election that maximizes opportunity for voter participation under current circumstances , ” Foley said .
“ And that means ramping up capacity for vote by mail in states that are not traditionally used to vote by mail.
” However , many states could struggle to adopt vote-by-mail electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election security challenges .
These include changing laws to provide more time for delivering , collecting and processing mailed-in ballots , as well as ensuring that a person only votes once .
There are seemingly mundane obstacles to be overcome , like getting enough high-quality paper for printing ballots and having enough envelopes !
It ’ s enough to make you wonder if there could even be talk of postponing the 2020 election .
But altering the presidential and congressional elections scheduled for November is very hard .
It would require congressional action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented .
Fortunately , state and federal governments have time to get ahead of many potential election challenges stemming from COVID-19 .
“ If [ states ] start doing that preparation , I don ’ t anticipate any reason why Congress would want to change the date of the November election , ” Foley said .
Whether our leaders will make the necessary changes , however , remains to be seen .

The COVID-19 pandemic has already disrupted public life in a number of ways — large events are canceled, restaurants are closed and many of us are stuck at home — but a fundamental aspect of our democratic society could also be under threat: voting.
Already, eight states or territories have postponed their presidential primaries — but depending on how long this pandemic affects day-to-day life in the United States, it could impact the November general election, too. But this isn’t the first time our country has had to go to the polls in a time of crisis. Elections have occurred during economic catastrophes like the Great Depression as well as during both world wars. The good news is we’ve always managed to hold general elections — even in the midst of the Civil War — but the bad news is that our ability to vote is often hampered. And turnout has usually fallen because voting became harder or costlier in the face of natural or man-made calamities. Looking ahead to the November election, recent primary elections show that states need to be prepared for the worst when it comes to making sure people can vote despite a health crisis.
Take last Tuesday. Ohio postponed its election and in Illinois, where there isn’t a tradition of voting by mail, turnout was much lower than in the other two states that voted. (Florida and Arizona both generally cast a large percentage of ballots by mail.) There’s still a lot we don’t know about the current health crisis we find ourselves in — how long will the urgency of the coronavirus threat last, for example, or how things will look come November — but if we’re looking at elections comparable to our current moment, the most relevant may be the 1918 midterm.
That fall, in the waning days of World War I, the Spanish flu — a strain of influenza that got that name because Spain was one of the few countries to report on it freely — ravaged the United States, killing hundreds of thousands of people, many in the lead-up to the November election.
In response to this devastating disease, public health officials tried to limit its spread, but those mitigation policies affected political campaigns. Marian Moser Jones, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Health who studies the influenza pandemic, pointed to bans on public gatherings, which we’re seeing now too. “[Y]ou couldn’t have the usual election speeches, which were then even more important because you didn’t have television or radio,” Jones said. “[Candidates] had to actually campaign via newspaper editorials and mailings.”
This was particularly true out west, where the pandemic’s severity peaked in the days before the election. Even election night changed: There was a ban on the display of election returns on large boards outside of newspaper offices so that crowds wouldn’t gather to watch results come in, Jones told me. And in Los Angeles, “election officers locked themselves in each voting booth to count the votes and to prevent flu transmission.”
The Spanish flu also likely contributed to lower turnout on Election Day. About 40 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots in the 1918 midterm election, down sharply from the 50 to 52 percent that voted in the previous two midterms.
Jason Marisam, who studied the effect of influenza on the 1918 election as a legal fellow at Harvard Law School (he’s now an assistant attorney general in Minnesota), told me that it probably did have an effect on people voting. “The San Francisco Chronicle ran photos of Election Day, people lining up to vote all wearing these masks. They called it the first masked ballot in U.S. history,” said Marisam. “You have to think that that kind of mentality had an impact on turnout.”
Observers back in 1918 attributed the drop in turnout to the effects of the pandemic, too. “The Los Angeles Times estimated that the flu had kept 40,000 people away from the polls in San Francisco,” said Jones, adding that newspaper accounts of voting in Arizona and New Mexico talked about the disinfection of polling places and a “light vote” due to influenza and the absence of many men due to the war.
There’s one obvious complication when we examine turnout in 1918: the First World War. It’s difficult to separate out influenza’s effect on the election because around 2 million men were also fighting overseas in 1918, and not much was done to help them vote. That meant a sizable chunk of the electorate was effectively disenfranchised, as only men 21 years or older could vote in much of the country. (Remember, the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, wasn’t ratified until summer 1920.) Nonetheless, even if influenza only explains part of the drop-off in voter turnout, Marisam estimated it was still likely responsible for hundreds of thousands of people not voting.
But despite public health worries associated with influenza, Marisam told me he could find no evidence that people discussed postponing the 1918 election. Civic pride and patriotism were high during World War I, as war bond campaigns and propaganda from the Committee on Public Information encouraged Americans to do their part to support the war effort. And newspapers encouraged citizens to go to the polls despite the Spanish flu with headlines like “Every Loyal Californian Will Cast Vote At Election Today” in the Los Angeles Times. There also wasn’t a national debate over whether the results were legitimate, even though turnout was lower, and in some parts of the country, officials claimed influenza may have affected the results in congressional and local elections.
Of course, the 1918 election isn’t the only election to be held during a time of crisis (although it did take place during one of our country’s massive health crises). But just like the 1918 election, other federal elections also held during world wars saw depressed turnout.
In 1942, during World War II, the government tried to buoy turnout by passing the Soldiers Voting Act, which helped states send federal ballots to service members. It didn’t work particularly well: Less than 30,000 federal ballots were cast under its provisions and turnout in 1942 was very low — just 34 percent of the voting-eligible population cast a ballot, making it the second-lowest midterm turnout since the ratification of the 19th Amendment (only 1926, at 33 percent, was lower).
Trying to avoid the same problems in 1944, Congress passed a military ballot law ahead of the election that helped at least 2.6 million soldiers cast ballots — enough to make a difference for President Franklin Roosevelt in at least one state. (He won enough military votes in New Jersey to overcome his deficit among civilian votes, according to a contemporaneous study.) Still, turnout in 1944 was lower than the previous two presidential elections, and as you can see in the table below, voter turnout in elections during U.S. involvement in the two world wars was lower than in previous midterm and presidential elections.
Turnout fell during world wars compared to past elections Turnout among the voting-eligible population during WWI and WWII compared to the previous two midterm or presidential elections World War I Midterm Turnout 1910 52.0% 1914 50.4 1918 39.9 World War II Midterm Turnout 1934 44.5% 1938 46.6 1942 33.9 World War II Presidential Turnout 1936 61.0% 1940 62.4 1944 55.9 Source: U.S. Elections Project, Vital Statistics of American Politics
But it’s not just war and disease that have disrupted our elections. Sudden natural disasters have also impeded voting, as demonstrated by Hurricane Sandy, which hit the East Coast just days ahead of the 2012 election. New Jersey and New York were especially hard-hit, and leaders there had to work to ease voting access in the storm’s aftermath. In New Jersey, the government designated those displaced by the storm as “overseas voters,” which allowed them to email or fax absentee ballots, though some localities weren’t able to effectively handle the surge in absentee requests. And in parts of New York City, some voters had to cast ballots in tents because of the damage to polling locations.
It’s unlikely that Sandy’s effects altered the presidential outcome, given that both New Jersey and New York were safely Democratic, but turnout was down in areas affected by storm surge in New Jersey. One study from political scientists at Stony Brook University found that the storm possibly helped Barack Obama carry Virginia because of how it affected turnout in parts of the state.
Other disasters like 9/11 have disrupted our elections more dramatically. New York’s primary election was actually scheduled for Sept. 11, 2001, but the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center that morning prompted New York Gov. George Pataki to postpone the election, and the state instead held its primaries two weeks later. Obviously, this was an especially extreme case, but the suddenness of the delay is a reminder that sometimes elections can’t go on.
And it’s arguably why states should be preparing now for how voting will work in November. Turnout has usually declined in crisis elections — sometimes dramatically — and Illinois’s diminished turnout last Tuesday demonstrated that it could be challenging to hold an election if COVID-19 is still a significant danger come November, particularly if some states remain reliant on in-person voting.
Edward Foley, an election law expert at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, told me that states need to start adapting their voting systems. “The focus of attention should be on how to conduct a November election that maximizes opportunity for voter participation under current circumstances,” Foley said. “And that means ramping up capacity for vote by mail in states that are not traditionally used to vote by mail.”
However, many states could struggle to adopt vote-by-mail electoral systems because of legal, logistical and election security challenges. These include changing laws to provide more time for delivering, collecting and processing mailed-in ballots, as well as ensuring that a person only votes once. There are seemingly mundane obstacles to be overcome, like getting enough high-quality paper for printing ballots and having enough envelopes! It’s enough to make you wonder if there could even be talk of postponing the 2020 election.
But altering the presidential and congressional elections scheduled for November is very hard. It would require congressional action, and such a move would be unprecedented. Fortunately, state and federal governments have time to get ahead of many potential election challenges stemming from COVID-19. “If [states] start doing that preparation, I don’t anticipate any reason why Congress would want to change the date of the November election,” Foley said.
Whether our leaders will make the necessary changes, however, remains to be seen.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-24--Can Congress Vote Remotely? Well … Maybe.

Last Wednesday , two U.S. representatives — Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida and Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah — tested positive for the new coronavirus .
And over the weekend , GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he had tested positive .
In total , nearly 30 House members are at some stage of self-quarantine and five senators are self-quarantining .
The outbreak of the coronavirus on Capitol Hill has underscored just how ill-equipped Congress is to govern when its members can not be physically present .
Already five Senate Republicans had to miss Sunday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package because they were quarantined .
And if more members become unable to appear in the Senate or House chambers , we could eventually see a struggle to achieve an in-person quorum .
Technically , the Constitution only requires the Senate and House to have a majority of members present to establish a quorum to pass legislation , but both chambers have rules that require senators and representatives to be physically present to cast votes .
Leadership in both chambers also largely oppose allowing members to vote without being physically present , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from renewing calls for remote voting .
In the Senate , Democratic Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Republican Sen .
Rob Portman introduced a resolution to allow for remote voting for up to 30 days under extraordinary circumstances .
After that , the measure could be extended if three-fifths of the Senate votes in favor .
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed opposition , telling reporters last week , “ We will deal with the social distancing issue without fundamentally changing Senate rules.
” The Senate has tweaked its procedures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each vote so that fewer senators have to be on the floor at the same time , but at this point , it hasn ’ t made moves toward any larger overhauls .
In the House , Democratic Reps. Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell of California and Republican Rep. Van Taylor of Texas have asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to adopt rules for remote voting , and more than 50 members have signed onto the request .
There isn ’ t a specific piece of legislation attached to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern to examine the issue , and on Monday the committee released a memo reviewing possible adjustments to voting procedures .
It sounded a dubious note on the use of remote voting , but was more supportive of proxy voting — whereby an absent member has another member vote on her behalf — which has precedent in the House and Senate ( the Senate allows proxy voting in committee ) .
The memo ’ s opposition to remote voting lines up with the views of the House leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposes remote voting , though the House is planning to alter its voting procedure in some way .
McCarthy is also skeptical , particularly about how remote voting would work with parliamentary motions , which may require members to interject quickly to be heard .
To better understand the stakes of Congress voting remotely , I spoke with two legal experts — one in favor of such a step and the other opposed .
Daniel Hemel , a professor at the University of Chicago School of Law and proponent of remote voting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Constitution stopping Congress from allowing members to cast votes from afar .
Yes , the Constitution requires a quorum for the Senate and House to conduct business , but it doesn ’ t say anything about lawmakers having to be physically present .
That requirement comes from chamber rules , which Hemel argues could be rewritten to allow for remote voting in crisis situations .
While there might be security concerns , Hemel pointed out that corporate boards permit videoconferencing to count toward a quorum , so it ’ s unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a similar system to conduct its business .
If remote voting isn ’ t adopted , Hemel suggested COVID-19 could cause other problems too .
“ You can imagine a circumstance where one party actually gets a majority because the other party is more affected , ” said Hemel , which could create concerns about the long-term legitimacy of votes taken in such circumstances .
Case in point : All five senators currently quarantined are Republican , which has reduced the GOP ’ s edge in the Senate from 53-47 to 48-47 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ability to advance an economic stimulus bill on Sunday , although even without the quarantine , Republicans would have needed some Democratic votes to move forward because of cloture rules , and both sides voted the party line .
Still , we can see how abstentions due to health concerns could make it difficult for lawmakers to weigh in on vital issues down the line .
But Joshua Huder , a senior fellow at Georgetown University ’ s Government Affairs Institute , worries that remote voting could make it easier for leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s legislators .
“ We ’ re already at a place where party leaders have outsized control over the policymaking process , ” said Huder .
“ When the rank-and-file aren ’ t around for the backroom deals and negotiations , you create a legislature that ’ s a rubber stamp for what the leaders want to pass.
” Huder didn ’ t rule out using alternate voting systems in a crisis , suggesting that members could remain in Washington and call in from their offices .
But he did worry that remote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting down on members ’ chances to make personal connections , which could exacerbate the divides that already exist in Washington .
He also said it ’ s possible this could establish a precedent where remote voting was used in non-crisis situations because it becomes “ a long-term or permanent solution through which Congress is going to pass legislation.
” Still , if the coronavirus crisis keeps getting worse in the U.S. , there will be a lot of pressure on Congress — including from its own members — to make changes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re asking Americans to make huge sacrifices to stop the spread of COVID-19 , it is bad leadership for our politicians to then make none of those adjustments themselves , ” said Hemel .

Last Wednesday, two U.S. representatives — Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida and Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah — tested positive for the new coronavirus. And over the weekend, GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he had tested positive. In total, nearly 30 House members are at some stage of self-quarantine and five senators are self-quarantining.
The outbreak of the coronavirus on Capitol Hill has underscored just how ill-equipped Congress is to govern when its members cannot be physically present. Already five Senate Republicans had to miss Sunday’s vote to pass an emergency economic stimulus package because they were quarantined. And if more members become unable to appear in the Senate or House chambers, we could eventually see a struggle to achieve an in-person quorum.
Technically, the Constitution only requires the Senate and House to have a majority of members present to establish a quorum to pass legislation, but both chambers have rules that require senators and representatives to be physically present to cast votes. Leadership in both chambers also largely oppose allowing members to vote without being physically present, but this hasn’t stopped some legislators from renewing calls for remote voting.
In the Senate, Democratic Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Republican Sen. Rob Portman introduced a resolution to allow for remote voting for up to 30 days under extraordinary circumstances. After that, the measure could be extended if three-fifths of the Senate votes in favor.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed opposition, telling reporters last week, “We will deal with the social distancing issue without fundamentally changing Senate rules.” The Senate has tweaked its procedures to increase the amount of time allotted for each vote so that fewer senators have to be on the floor at the same time, but at this point, it hasn’t made moves toward any larger overhauls.
In the House, Democratic Reps. Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell of California and Republican Rep. Van Taylor of Texas have asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to adopt rules for remote voting, and more than 50 members have signed onto the request. There isn’t a specific piece of legislation attached to the letter, but Pelosi did ask House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern to examine the issue, and on Monday the committee released a memo reviewing possible adjustments to voting procedures. It sounded a dubious note on the use of remote voting, but was more supportive of proxy voting — whereby an absent member has another member vote on her behalf — which has precedent in the House and Senate (the Senate allows proxy voting in committee).
The memo’s opposition to remote voting lines up with the views of the House leadership. Pelosi has said privately that she opposes remote voting, though the House is planning to alter its voting procedure in some way. McCarthy is also skeptical, particularly about how remote voting would work with parliamentary motions, which may require members to interject quickly to be heard.
To better understand the stakes of Congress voting remotely, I spoke with two legal experts — one in favor of such a step and the other opposed. Daniel Hemel, a professor at the University of Chicago School of Law and proponent of remote voting, stressed to me that there is nothing in the Constitution stopping Congress from allowing members to cast votes from afar.
Yes, the Constitution requires a quorum for the Senate and House to conduct business, but it doesn’t say anything about lawmakers having to be physically present. That requirement comes from chamber rules, which Hemel argues could be rewritten to allow for remote voting in crisis situations. While there might be security concerns, Hemel pointed out that corporate boards permit videoconferencing to count toward a quorum, so it’s unclear why Congress would be incapable of using a similar system to conduct its business.
If remote voting isn’t adopted, Hemel suggested COVID-19 could cause other problems too. “You can imagine a circumstance where one party actually gets a majority because the other party is more affected,” said Hemel, which could create concerns about the long-term legitimacy of votes taken in such circumstances.
Case in point: All five senators currently quarantined are Republican, which has reduced the GOP’s edge in the Senate from 53-47 to 48-47. This has already affected the party’s ability to advance an economic stimulus bill on Sunday, although even without the quarantine, Republicans would have needed some Democratic votes to move forward because of cloture rules, and both sides voted the party line. Still, we can see how abstentions due to health concerns could make it difficult for lawmakers to weigh in on vital issues down the line.
But Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, worries that remote voting could make it easier for leadership to ride roughshod over their party’s legislators. “We’re already at a place where party leaders have outsized control over the policymaking process,” said Huder. “When the rank-and-file aren’t around for the backroom deals and negotiations, you create a legislature that’s a rubber stamp for what the leaders want to pass.”
Huder didn’t rule out using alternate voting systems in a crisis, suggesting that members could remain in Washington and call in from their offices. But he did worry that remote voting would reduce face-to-face interactions, inevitably cutting down on members’ chances to make personal connections, which could exacerbate the divides that already exist in Washington. He also said it’s possible this could establish a precedent where remote voting was used in non-crisis situations because it becomes “a long-term or permanent solution through which Congress is going to pass legislation.”
Still, if the coronavirus crisis keeps getting worse in the U.S., there will be a lot of pressure on Congress — including from its own members — to make changes. “At a time when we’re asking Americans to make huge sacrifices to stop the spread of COVID-19, it is bad leadership for our politicians to then make none of those adjustments themselves,” said Hemel.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-25--How Much Does Biden Need Sanders Voters To Beat Trump?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : With the spread of the new coronavirus in the U.S. , the 2020 Democratic primary is on a bit of a hiatus .
Many states have postponed their primaries , and now we might not wrap things up until late June .
But the expected outcome is hardly a surprise — former Vice President Joe Biden is for all intents and purposes the presumptive nominee .
Sen. Bernie Sanders is still in the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question is less about what Sanders can do to mount a comeback and more about what can Biden do — if anything — to win over Sanders voters , particularly as we start to transition to the general-election phase of 2020 .
So , let ’ s unpack this question in three parts : First , how much does Biden need Sanders supporters ?
Or in other words , what does it mean for Biden ’ s base of support if he ’ s able to win over Sanders supporters ?
What does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Second , how does Biden actually win over Sanders supporters ?
And third , how important is party unity — or Democrats rallying behind one candidate — for what happens in 2020 ?
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : Well , this is so obvious that it sounds stupid to say out loud , but : Biden needs some Sanders primary voters to support him in November , since Sanders has won about 31 percent of the national popular vote so far .
But he doesn ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might stay home in November ; that happens to some degree in every election .
But most Sanders voters don ’ t fit that description .
According to a recent Morning Consult poll , 82 percent of Sanders supporters say they would vote for Biden in the general election , and just 7 percent said they would vote for Trump .
And Quinnipiac University found that 86 percent of Sanders voters would vote for Biden , 3 percent would vote for Trump , 2 percent would vote for someone else , 4 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent didn ’ t know who they ’ d vote for .
geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : Yeah , I mean , you have polls showing Biden winning ~90 percent of Democrats in general election trial heats against Trump .
So he ’ s likely winning over most Sanders voters .
But if a Trump-Biden matchup were to be a close election like 2016 , any shortfall in support from Sanders voters would be magnified .
nrakich : Yeah , Biden should certainly want to win over as many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One thing you ’ ve written about for the site , Perry , is the age divide we ’ ve seen play out in the Democratic primary with Sanders consistently winning voters under 45 .
But you ’ ve also written that these voters generally vote Democratic in a general election , so maybe Biden doesn ’ t have to worry all that much about making special inroads here ?
That is , it will come with time ?
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : Every bit of enthusiasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That said , it ’ s worth separating the cohort of people under 45 from the “ Sanders-or-bust ” people .
Overall , I think the under 45 group will be fine with Biden because they hate Trump more .
geoffrey.skelley : Data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study suggested that about three-fourths of Sanders ’ s voters backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Might that number be higher in 2020 ?
Maybe .
On the one hand , it ’ s possible that some of the anti-Hillary , conservative Democratic voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and West Virginia are now Republicans who didn ’ t participate in the 2020 primary .
But it ’ s also possible that a handful of those voters back Biden .
For instance , he ’ s already been doing better than Sanders among white primary voters without a college degree , a group Sanders won handily in 2016 .
So the tradeoff for Biden in 2020 may be that he loses youth turnout but gets more votes from suburban moderate types who are older .
Given that older voters are more reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade for Biden .
nrakich : Yeah , I think there are a lot more votes up for grabs among suburban Romney-Clinton voters than there are among young voters .
Biden winning suburban areas in the primary doesn ’ t necessarily mean he ’ ll win them in the general ( the actual voters are different — primaries are just a fraction of the general electorate ) .
But as a more moderate candidate who doesn ’ t rail against the rich , he is likely to appeal more to these more moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : That makes sense , especially based on your analysis , Nathaniel , of turnout in the primary so far , but I can ’ t help but wonder about your other point — voters in the primary are different than the general — so maybe some of Biden ’ s support among the Romney-Clinton style voters is inflated ?
Or the fact that Biden has won rural areas that Clinton did poorly in in 2016 isn ’ t actually that good of a sign for his coalition in a general election context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters will actually be very important to Biden ’ s coalition ?
nrakich : People shouldn ’ t use primary election results as a portent of the general election .
Biden won every county in Michigan in the primary , but he obviously won ’ t do that in the general .
Winning white working-class Democrats isn ’ t the same as winning white working-class independents or Republicans .
That said , I don ’ t think it ’ s a bad sign for him that turnout was up so much in highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should try to win older voters and younger voters , moderate voters and liberal voters , and I don ’ t necessarily see those things as trade-offs .
Obama was stronger than Clinton across all kinds of voting blocs in 2008 .
So getting younger voters excited about his candidacy is important and useful for Biden .
He will likely win the under 45 vote ( historically , Democrats do ) , but growing that margin should be a goal of his campaign .
sarahf : OK , so what does Biden do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nrakich : Well , the first and most obvious answer is to adopt some of Sanders ’ s positions .
He has already started moving left ( although , it should be noted , not as far left as Sanders ) on issues like free college tuition — quite savvily , in my opinion , because that is one progressive policy that actually has strong support among all voters , not just Democrats .
geoffrey.skelley : Exactly .
That seems like a pretty transparent play for younger voters , and possibly older millennials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids and are starting to think about how they ’ ll pay for college some day .
nrakich : Two other progressive positions that Biden could take without alienating general-election voters are coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana and implementing an Elizabeth Warren-style wealth tax .
geoffrey.skelley : Of course , the latter might alienate some donors .
I also don ’ t think Biden will ever fully replace Sanders in many voters ’ minds — a lot of Sanders ’ s appeal is based on his personality and tear-down-the-system rhetoric .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s appeal has been that of a safe harbor in a storm — even more so now that we face the new coronavirus threat .
He ’ s interested in reforming the system , not breaking it up and then rebuilding it .
perry : I honestly don ’ t think Biden has to do much of anything to win the votes of the overwhelming majority of Sanders voters — except to not be Trump .
The question is more about , “ How does he get them excited ?
” The danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton in 2016 — he wins the votes of the older , traditional Democrats in the primary , but he is not a candidate people are jazzed about — and that shows up in voter turnout , in donations , in the general mood of the campaign .
Biden can ’ t be Obama in 2008 , but he should avoid being Clinton in 2016 or Kerry in 2004 .
I think he should aim for a running mate people are really excited to vote for .
geoffrey.skelley : Is that Sen. Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it being Sen. Amy Klobuchar .
perry : Geoff , I honestly don ’ t know who that person is .
But I think it should be an Obama-like person — exciting less in terms of policy ( the party is divided on policy ) but more in terms of persona and charisma .
As I was saying earlier , Biden should focus on energizing “ Democrats under 45 , ” not “ Sanders supporters.
” nrakich : The problem is that everyone has a different definition of who is “ exciting.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t going to be jazzed about Harris , who has her own problems among the progressive flank .
Maybe not even someone like Stacey Abrams , who appeals to the “ woke ” wing of the party but is certainly closer to Biden than Sanders on policy .
And then there is the fact that it ’ s debatable how much of an impact vice-presidential candidates even have .
sarahf : That makes sense , Perry , definitely from a messaging vantage point , anyway .
But right , to Nathaniel ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me to imagine Sanders voters being excited by Harris as his VP pick .
But maybe that ’ s the point — it isn ’ t about the diehard loyal fans as much as it is about just generally energizing younger voters .
That especially holds true given that turnout in these primaries hasn ’ t been historic , as many thought it would be .
It ’ s easy to read too much into the primary and try to apply that to the general election , but the turnout question for 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , like you say , is someone the Democratic Party rallies around but isn ’ t necessarily jazzed about .
nrakich : But how many young voters are against Biden because he ’ s not far left enough , and how many are against him because they just want a new generation of leadership ?
I genuinely don ’ t know .
perry : I think the second group ( new generation of leadership ) is both bigger and easier to satisfy ( because moving left might create electoral problems ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in 2017 that while younger Democrats and those who leaned Democratic were more liberal than older Democrats , they weren ’ t that much more liberal .
sarahf : So how important is party unity for what happens in 2020 ?
As has been said in this chat , in many ways the biggest factor for the Democratic nominee is that they ’ re not Trump .
That said , is there a risk that Democrats don ’ t rally behind Biden ?
After all , that was a critique of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders cost Clinton the election .
Could that happen again in 2020 ?
perry : Party unity is super important .
But I think Trump will create party unity .
Sanders and Warren will eventually be strongly behind Biden .
And the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is not between Clinton and Biden ( they are very similar candidates ) but between Trump 2016 ( theoretical ) and Trump 2020 ( a reality Democrats hate ) .
Because of Trump , some of the problems Clinton faced in getting the base behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an issue for Biden .
nrakich : Yeah , I think we ’ ve been getting at this question indirectly .
Party unity will be important , sure , but according to the polls cited above , Democrats largely already have it .
And some of those Sanders voters who may have cost Clinton the 2016 general election may have just been anti-Clinton voters in the primary as well .
It doesn ’ t seem like there is a rash of anti-Biden protest voting this year .
geoffrey.skelley : It helps to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a quarter century before becoming your party ’ s nominee .
Also , while we do have some exit-poll data suggesting some Sanders voters might not want to vote for Biden , it ’ s important to remember that some might answer that question differently once they are no longer in the thick of the primary .
I ’ m reminded of “ Party Unity My Ass ” Clinton voters ( PUMAs ) in 2008 .
Obviously , Democrats were largely unified behind Obama that November .
nrakich : Right , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters cost Obama that election — he won handily !
So it ’ s clearly possible to win after a divisive primary .
In fact , according to one study , only 70 percent of Clinton voters in 2008 voted for Obama — comparable to , and even a bit lower than , the three-quarters of Sanders voters who we think voted for Clinton in the 2016 general election .
So it wasn ’ t party unity per se that cost Clinton the 2016 election — the party was about equally united in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was how close the election already was that made the difference .
And it could come down to that again in 2020 .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): With the spread of the new coronavirus in the U.S., the 2020 Democratic primary is on a bit of a hiatus. Many states have postponed their primaries, and now we might not wrap things up until late June. But the expected outcome is hardly a surprise — former Vice President Joe Biden is for all intents and purposes the presumptive nominee.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is still in the race, but at this point, the question is less about what Sanders can do to mount a comeback and more about what Biden can do — if anything — to win over Sanders voters, particularly as we start to transition to the general-election phase of 2020.
So, let’s unpack this question in three parts:
First, how much does Biden need Sanders supporters? Or in other words, what does it mean for Biden’s base of support if he’s able to win over Sanders supporters? What does it mean if he can’t?
Second, how does Biden actually win over Sanders supporters?
And third, how important is party unity — or Democrats rallying behind one candidate — for what happens in 2020?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): Well, this is so obvious that it sounds stupid to say out loud, but: Biden needs some Sanders primary voters to support him in November, since Sanders has won about 31 percent of the national popular vote so far. But he doesn’t need every single one.
Some Sanders-or-bust voters might stay home in November; that happens to some degree in every election.
But most Sanders voters don’t fit that description. According to a recent Morning Consult poll, 82 percent of Sanders supporters say they would vote for Biden in the general election, and just 7 percent said they would vote for Trump. And Quinnipiac University found that 86 percent of Sanders voters would vote for Biden, 3 percent would vote for Trump, 2 percent would vote for someone else, 4 percent wouldn’t vote, and 5 percent didn’t know who they’d vote for.
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Yeah, I mean, you have polls showing Biden winning ~90 percent of Democrats in general election trial heats against Trump. So he’s likely winning over most Sanders voters. But if a Trump-Biden matchup were to be a close election like 2016, any shortfall in support from Sanders voters would be magnified.
nrakich: Yeah, Biden should certainly want to win over as many Sanders supporters as possible.
Every little bit counts!
sarahf: One thing you’ve written about for the site, Perry, is the age divide we’ve seen play out in the Democratic primary with Sanders consistently winning voters under 45.
But you’ve also written that these voters generally vote Democratic in a general election, so maybe Biden doesn’t have to worry all that much about making special inroads here? That is, it will come with time?
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Every bit of enthusiasm and turnout from younger voters helps Biden. That said, it’s worth separating the cohort of people under 45 from the “Sanders-or-bust” people. Overall, I think the under 45 group will be fine with Biden because they hate Trump more.
geoffrey.skelley: Data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study suggested that about three-fourths of Sanders’s voters backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. Might that number be higher in 2020? Maybe.
On the one hand, it’s possible that some of the anti-Hillary, conservative Democratic voters that Sanders won in places like Oklahoma and West Virginia are now Republicans who didn’t participate in the 2020 primary. But it’s also possible that a handful of those voters back Biden. For instance, he’s already been doing better than Sanders among white primary voters without a college degree, a group Sanders won handily in 2016.
So the tradeoff for Biden in 2020 may be that he loses youth turnout but gets more votes from suburban moderate types who are older. Given that older voters are more reliable voters, that might be an OK trade for Biden.
nrakich: Yeah, I think there are a lot more votes up for grabs among suburban Romney-Clinton voters than there are among young voters.
Biden winning suburban areas in the primary doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll win them in the general (the actual voters are different — primaries are just a fraction of the general electorate). But as a more moderate candidate who doesn’t rail against the rich, he is likely to appeal more to these more moderate, well-to-do voters than Sanders.
sarahf: That makes sense, especially based on your analysis, Nathaniel, of turnout in the primary so far, but I can’t help but wonder about your other point — voters in the primary are different than the general — so maybe some of Biden’s support among the Romney-Clinton style voters is inflated?
Or the fact that Biden has won rural areas that Clinton did poorly in in 2016 isn’t actually that good of a sign for his coalition in a general election context? So maybe young and very liberal voters will actually be very important to Biden’s coalition?
nrakich: People shouldn’t use primary election results as a portent of the general election. Biden won every county in Michigan in the primary, but he obviously won’t do that in the general. Winning white working-class Democrats isn’t the same as winning white working-class independents or Republicans. That said, I don’t think it’s a bad sign for him that turnout was up so much in highly educated suburban areas.
perry: Biden should try to win older voters and younger voters, moderate voters and liberal voters, and I don’t necessarily see those things as trade-offs. Obama was stronger than Clinton across all kinds of voting blocs in 2008.
So getting younger voters excited about his candidacy is important and useful for Biden. He will likely win the under 45 vote (historically, Democrats do), but growing that margin should be a goal of his campaign.
sarahf: OK, so what does Biden do to actually win over Sanders supporters?
nrakich: Well, the first and most obvious answer is to adopt some of Sanders’s positions. He has already started moving left (although, it should be noted, not as far left as Sanders) on issues like free college tuition — quite savvily, in my opinion, because that is one progressive policy that actually has strong support among all voters, not just Democrats.
geoffrey.skelley: Exactly. That seems like a pretty transparent play for younger voters, and possibly older millennials who like Sanders and who also have kids and are starting to think about how they’ll pay for college some day.
nrakich: Two other progressive positions that Biden could take without alienating general-election voters are coming out in favor of legalizing marijuana and implementing an Elizabeth Warren-style wealth tax.
geoffrey.skelley: Of course, the latter might alienate some donors.
nrakich: True.
I also don’t think Biden will ever fully replace Sanders in many voters’ minds — a lot of Sanders’s appeal is based on his personality and tear-down-the-system rhetoric.
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, and Biden’s appeal has been that of a safe harbor in a storm — even more so now that we face the new coronavirus threat. He’s interested in reforming the system, not breaking it up and then rebuilding it.
perry: I honestly don’t think Biden has to do much of anything to win the votes of the overwhelming majority of Sanders voters — except to not be Trump. The question is more about, “How does he get them excited?” The danger of Biden is that he is like Clinton in 2016 — he wins the votes of the older, traditional Democrats in the primary, but he is not a candidate people are jazzed about — and that shows up in voter turnout, in donations, in the general mood of the campaign.
Biden can’t be Obama in 2008, but he should avoid being Clinton in 2016 or Kerry in 2004. I think he should aim for a running mate people are really excited to vote for.
geoffrey.skelley: Is that Sen. Kamala Harris? I don’t see it being Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
perry: Geoff, I honestly don’t know who that person is. But I think it should be an Obama-like person — exciting less in terms of policy (the party is divided on policy) but more in terms of persona and charisma.
As I was saying earlier, Biden should focus on energizing “Democrats under 45,” not “Sanders supporters.”
nrakich: The problem is that everyone has a different definition of who is “exciting.” The stereotypical leftist Sanders voter isn’t going to be jazzed about Harris, who has her own problems among the progressive flank. Maybe not even someone like Stacey Abrams, who appeals to the “woke” wing of the party but is certainly closer to Biden than Sanders on policy.
And then there is the fact that it’s debatable how much of an impact vice-presidential candidates even have.
sarahf: That makes sense, Perry, definitely from a messaging vantage point, anyway. But right, to Nathaniel’s point, it’s hard for me to imagine Sanders voters being excited by Harris as his VP pick. But maybe that’s the point — it isn’t about the diehard loyal fans as much as it is about just generally energizing younger voters.
That especially holds true given that turnout in these primaries hasn’t been historic, as many thought it would be.
It’s easy to read too much into the primary and try to apply that to the general election, but the turnout question for 2020 does give me pause, especially if Biden, like you say, is someone the Democratic Party rallies around but isn’t necessarily jazzed about.
nrakich: But how many young voters are against Biden because he’s not far left enough, and how many are against him because they just want a new generation of leadership? I genuinely don’t know.
perry: I think the second group (new generation of leadership) is both bigger and easier to satisfy (because moving left might create electoral problems).
geoffrey.skelley: Right. Pew Research found back in 2017 that while younger Democrats and those who leaned Democratic were more liberal than older Democrats, they weren’t that much more liberal.
sarahf: So how important is party unity for what happens in 2020? As has been said in this chat, in many ways the biggest factor for the Democratic nominee is that they’re not Trump. That said, is there a risk that Democrats don’t rally behind Biden? After all, that was a critique of what happened in 2016, with some arguing Sanders cost Clinton the election. Could that happen again in 2020?
perry: Party unity is super important. But I think Trump will create party unity. Sanders and Warren will eventually be strongly behind Biden. And the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is not between Clinton and Biden (they are very similar candidates) but between Trump 2016 (theoretical) and Trump 2020 (a reality Democrats hate). Because of Trump, some of the problems Clinton faced in getting the base behind her won’t be as much of an issue for Biden.
nrakich: Yeah, I think we’ve been getting at this question indirectly. Party unity will be important, sure, but according to the polls cited above, Democrats largely already have it. And some of those Sanders voters who may have cost Clinton the 2016 general election may have just been anti-Clinton voters in the primary as well. It doesn’t seem like there is a rash of anti-Biden protest voting this year.
geoffrey.skelley: It helps to not have been a target of attacks for a quarter century before becoming your party’s nominee.
Also, while we do have some exit-poll data suggesting some Sanders voters might not want to vote for Biden, it’s important to remember that some might answer that question differently once they are no longer in the thick of the primary. I’m reminded of “Party Unity My Ass” Clinton voters (PUMAs) in 2008. Obviously, Democrats were largely unified behind Obama that November.
nrakich: Right, and also, no one asked whether PUMA voters cost Obama that election — he won handily! So it’s clearly possible to win after a divisive primary.
In fact, according to one study, only 70 percent of Clinton voters in 2008 voted for Obama — comparable to, and even a bit lower than, the three-quarters of Sanders voters who we think voted for Clinton in the 2016 general election. So it wasn’t party unity per se that cost Clinton the 2016 election — the party was about equally united in 2008 and 2016. Instead, it was how close the election already was that made the difference. And it could come down to that again in 2020.
How blood from recovered patients could slow the spread of coronavirus


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-25--13 Presidential Primaries Have Now Been Delayed Over The Coronavirus

The coronavirus pandemic continues to grind everyday life to a halt — and in many states , that means postponing elections .
A total of 12 states and Puerto Rico have now pushed back their presidential primaries , leaving a gaping hole in the primary calendar and leaving some states with precious little time to prepare for the Democratic National Convention .
Since our last update , five more in-person presidential primaries have been rescheduled due to COVID-19 : • Last Thursday , Connecticut Gov .
Ned Lamont , with the support of local election officials and the secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary from April 28 to June 2 .
Connecticut law allows the governor to modify and suspend statutes during public-health emergencies .
• Last Friday , Indiana delayed its primaries for both president and down-ballot offices from May 5 to June 2 .
Gov .
Eric Holcomb did so by executive order but made the announcement jointly with the secretary of state and leaders of the state Democratic and Republican parties .
On Wednesday , the Indiana Election Commission also decreed that absentee voting be an option for all voters ( under normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request an absentee ballot ) .
• Puerto Rico Gov .
Wanda Vázquez Garced signed a bill moving the primary from March 29 to April 26 , with the option for the presidents of the Puerto Rico Democratic Party and State Elections Commission to postpone it further if the coronavirus crisis has not ended by then .
• On Monday , Rhode Island Gov .
Gina Raimondo , at the request of the state Board of Elections , signed an executive order moving the presidential primary from April 28 to June 2 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plan to conduct “ a predominantly mail ballot primary.
” • Finally , Delaware joined the exodus by moving its presidential primary from April 28 to June 2 .
As recently as last week , election officials were saying they had no plans to reschedule , but Gov .
John Carney issued an executive order to postpone ( and designate COVID-19 as a valid excuse to cast an absentee ballot ) on Tuesday .
Given former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s extremely strong position , these changes may not affect who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s not the case for every election that ’ s being delayed .
Many still-competitive primaries are also being postponed down ballot , which means there ’ s more uncertainty around the outcome and less time for general-election campaigning .
For example , primary runoff elections in Alabama and Texas have both been moved to July 14 ( previously , Alabama ’ s were scheduled for March 31 , and Texas ’ s for May 26 ) ; among others , Democratic Sen. Doug Jones and Republican Sen. John Cornyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identities of their November opponents as a result .
Congressional primary runoffs were also delayed to June 23 in North Carolina ( from May 12 ) and Mississippi ( from March 31 ) .
Other states have responded to the coronavirus pandemic by leaning more heavily into voting by mail .
For example , rather than reschedule the May 12 special election in California ’ s 25th Congressional District , the state will mail a ballot to every voter instead .
And Nevada has now announced plans to conduct its June 9 down-ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , three upcoming party-run presidential primaries where mail voting was already the default option will now be 100 percent vote-by-mail .
Alaska , Hawaii and Wyoming will no longer offer any in-person voting on April 4 , which — in order to ensure everyone still has the opportunity to vote — has effectively delayed those primaries as well : • In order to accommodate those who had planned on voting in person on April 4 , Alaska has extended the deadline to vote by mail from a postmark date of March 24 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All Alaska Democrats had already been mailed a ballot , but now they can download one from the state party ’ s website as well .
• In lieu of opening 21 in-person voting centers , Hawaii will send another wave of mail ballots to anyone who registers with the party by April 4 .
The state party has not yet announced a new deadline for ballots to be mailed back ; however , it is now saying that results will not be available until late May , indicating that the primary will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already canceled the in-person caucus component of its vote-by-mail/caucus hybrid presidential contest , but over the weekend it also removed the option for people to vote in person .
People who registered too late to receive a ballot in the mail the first time around will now be mailed a ballot , and voters can request replacement ballots ( e.g.
, if they threw it out in anticipation of voting in person ) until March 31 .
Previously , ballots had to be postmarked by March 20 or dropped off by April 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party will now accept ballots that arrive as late as April 17 .
It was relatively simple for the three states above to embrace mail voting , since they were already planning to conduct these elections mostly by mail anyway .
But other states lack the money and infrastructure to process millions of mail ballots ; Maryland , for example , postponed its primary over a week ago in part because it determined it was infeasible to hold an all-mail primary on the original date of April 28 .
Still , as mentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t accustomed to heavy mail voting ( e.g.
, Rhode Island ) nevertheless are making an effort to expand its use , given enough time to prepare .
More election changes are almost certainly coming down the pike .
For example , over the weekend , Pennsylvania ’ s governor and legislative leaders reached a deal to delay its primary from April 28 to June 2 ; a bill to that effect is currently working its way through the legislature .
And in Ohio , legislators are working on passing a bill that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote-by-mail election , with ballots due April 28 .
( Ohio had already postponed its primary , previously scheduled for March 17 . )
We ’ ll continue to provide regular updates .

The coronavirus pandemic continues to grind everyday life to a halt — and in many states, that means postponing elections. A total of 12 states and Puerto Rico have now pushed back their presidential primaries, leaving a gaping hole in the primary calendar and leaving some states with precious little time to prepare for the Democratic National Convention. Since our last update, five more in-person presidential primaries have been rescheduled due to COVID-19:
Last Thursday, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, with the support of local election officials and the secretary of state, moved Connecticut’s presidential primary from April 28 to June 2. Connecticut law allows the governor to modify and suspend statutes during public-health emergencies.
Gov. Ned Lamont, with the support of local election officials and the secretary of state, moved Connecticut’s presidential primary from April 28 to June 2. Connecticut law allows the governor to modify and suspend statutes during public-health emergencies. Last Friday, Indiana delayed its primaries for both president and down-ballot offices from May 5 to June 2. Gov. Eric Holcomb did so by executive order but made the announcement jointly with the secretary of state and leaders of the state Democratic and Republican parties. On Wednesday, the Indiana Election Commission also decreed that absentee voting be an option for all voters (under normal circumstances, Indiana requires an excuse to request an absentee ballot).
delayed its primaries for both president and down-ballot offices from May 5 to June 2. Gov. Eric Holcomb did so by executive order but made the announcement jointly with the secretary of state and leaders of the state Democratic and Republican parties. On Wednesday, the Indiana Election Commission also decreed that absentee voting be an option for all voters (under normal circumstances, Indiana requires an excuse to request an absentee ballot). Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez Garced signed a bill moving the primary from March 29 to April 26, with the option for the presidents of the Puerto Rico Democratic Party and State Elections Commission to postpone it further if the coronavirus crisis has not ended by then.
Gov. Wanda Vázquez Garced signed a bill moving the primary from March 29 to April 26, with the option for the presidents of the Puerto Rico Democratic Party and State Elections Commission to postpone it further if the coronavirus crisis has not ended by then. On Monday, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, at the request of the state Board of Elections, signed an executive order moving the presidential primary from April 28 to June 2. She also directed the board to devise a plan to conduct “a predominantly mail ballot primary.”
Gov. Gina Raimondo, at the request of the state Board of Elections, signed an executive order moving the presidential primary from April 28 to June 2. She also directed the board to devise a plan to conduct “a predominantly mail ballot primary.” Finally, Delaware joined the exodus by moving its presidential primary from April 28 to June 2. As recently as last week, election officials were saying they had no plans to reschedule, but Gov. John Carney issued an executive order to postpone (and designate COVID-19 as a valid excuse to cast an absentee ballot) on Tuesday.
Given former Vice President Joe Biden’s extremely strong position, these changes may not affect who wins the Democratic nomination for president. But that’s not the case for every election that’s being delayed. Many still-competitive primaries are also being postponed down ballot, which means there’s more uncertainty around the outcome and less time for general-election campaigning. For example, primary runoff elections in Alabama and Texas have both been moved to July 14 (previously, Alabama’s were scheduled for March 31, and Texas’s for May 26); among others, Democratic Sen. Doug Jones and Republican Sen. John Cornyn must now wait months before knowing the identities of their November opponents as a result. Congressional primary runoffs were also delayed to June 23 in North Carolina (from May 12) and Mississippi (from March 31).
Other states have responded to the coronavirus pandemic by leaning more heavily into voting by mail. For example, rather than reschedule the May 12 special election in California’s 25th Congressional District, the state will mail a ballot to every voter instead. And Nevada has now announced plans to conduct its June 9 down-ballot primary predominantly by mail. Most drastically, three upcoming party-run presidential primaries where mail voting was already the default option will now be 100 percent vote-by-mail. Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming will no longer offer any in-person voting on April 4, which — in order to ensure everyone still has the opportunity to vote — has effectively delayed those primaries as well:
In order to accommodate those who had planned on voting in person on April 4, Alaska has extended the deadline to vote by mail from a postmark date of March 24 to a receipt date of April 10. All Alaska Democrats had already been mailed a ballot, but now they can download one from the state party’s website as well.
has extended the deadline to vote by mail from a postmark date of March 24 to a receipt date of April 10. All Alaska Democrats had already been mailed a ballot, but now they can download one from the state party’s website as well. In lieu of opening 21 in-person voting centers, Hawaii will send another wave of mail ballots to anyone who registers with the party by April 4. The state party has not yet announced a new deadline for ballots to be mailed back; however, it is now saying that results will not be available until late May , indicating that the primary will be significantly delayed.
will send another wave of mail ballots to anyone who registers with the party by April 4. The state party has not yet announced a new deadline for ballots to be mailed back; however, it is now saying that results will not be available until late , indicating that the primary will be significantly delayed. Wyoming had already canceled the in-person caucus component of its vote-by-mail/caucus hybrid presidential contest, but over the weekend it also removed the option for people to vote in person. People who registered too late to receive a ballot in the mail the first time around will now be mailed a ballot, and voters can request replacement ballots (e.g., if they threw it out in anticipation of voting in person) until March 31. Previously, ballots had to be postmarked by March 20 or dropped off by April 4 in order to count, but the party will now accept ballots that arrive as late as April 17.
It was relatively simple for the three states above to embrace mail voting, since they were already planning to conduct these elections mostly by mail anyway. But other states lack the money and infrastructure to process millions of mail ballots; Maryland, for example, postponed its primary over a week ago in part because it determined it was infeasible to hold an all-mail primary on the original date of April 28. Still, as mentioned above, some states that aren’t accustomed to heavy mail voting (e.g., Rhode Island) nevertheless are making an effort to expand its use, given enough time to prepare.
More election changes are almost certainly coming down the pike. For example, over the weekend, Pennsylvania’s governor and legislative leaders reached a deal to delay its primary from April 28 to June 2; a bill to that effect is currently working its way through the legislature. And in Ohio, legislators are working on passing a bill that would turn the Ohio primary into a vote-by-mail election, with ballots due April 28. (Ohio had already postponed its primary, previously scheduled for March 17.) We’ll continue to provide regular updates.