fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--Control Of Redistricting Is Up For Grabs In 2020. Here Are The Races To Watch.

Most of the attention on the 2020 election is focused on who will sit in the White House for the next four years .
But the 2020 election could also help decide who controls the House of Representatives for the next decade .
This is the last election before data from the census is released , so whoever emerges from this year holding power on the state level will have the power to redraw their state ’ s congressional maps — and maybe even give their side an unfair advantage in future elections .
( Although this is not true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or bipartisan commissions draw their maps . )
Gerrymandering , or the act of purposefully drawing a map to advantage one political party or group , has a long history in this country — and politicians of all persuasions have been guilty of it .
But the red wave election of 2010 upped the ante by giving Republicans lopsided control of the 2011 redistricting process .
Thanks in large part to the 21 state legislatures and six governorships they picked up , Republicans were able to draw 55 percent of congressional districts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , in both 2012 and 2016 , the House map was more biased toward Republicans than it had been at any point since the 1970s .
Republicans even won 33 more House seats than Democrats in the 2012 election despite Democrats winning the House popular vote by 1.3 percentage points .
And even as courts ruled some states ’ maps unconstitutional and Democrats were able to flip the House in 2018 , the median seat remained 4.4 points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole .
Going into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside track over Democrats in the 2021 redistricting process .
We determined this by using Election Data Services estimates of how many congressional districts each state will have after the 2020 census , looking at which party currently controls the levers of redistricting in those states and assessing ( based on partisanship data , expert opinions and local media reports ) whether the 2020 elections could change that .
Our analysis found that 117 congressional districts ( 27 percent of the entire House ) are likely to be drawn by Republicans , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be drawn by Democrats .
Another 132 ( 30 percent ) will be drawn by independent commissions or by both Republicans and Democrats working together .
And seven districts ( 2 percent ) are at-large districts that cover their entire state ( thus , there are no lines to draw ) .
That leaves 10 states worth 132 congressional districts ( 30 percent of the House ) where control of redistricting is up for grabs in the current election .
However , not all of the redistricting-relevant elections in these states are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the best one party can hope for is simply to block the other from gaining full control .
For example , Republicans could win the ability to draw 71 new districts without Democratic input — but the best they can do with the remaining 61 is to ensure they have a seat at the table so they can force Democrats to compromise .
Still , under this best-case scenario for Republicans , they would have redistricting control over 188 seats in total ( 43 percent ) — almost as many as after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another blue wave election on the horizon , Democrats can probably prevent that from happening .
In the best-case Democratic scenario , the party would gain control over drawing 77 more seats and would share redistricting control over the other 55 with Republicans .
That would give them redistricting control over 124 seats in total ( 29 percent ) — slightly more than Republicans .
Of course , the final redistricting landscape will probably be somewhere in between these two extremes .
To see which party will have the eventual advantage — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here are the states and elections to watch .
• Without question , Texas is the biggest redistricting prize up for grabs this year ; accounting for population growth , it is expected to have 39 congressional districts next decade .
While Republicans currently control all three stakeholders in the congressional redistricting process — the state Senate , state House and governorship — the state House is competitive this year .
Democrats need a net gain of just nine seats to take control of the chamber — and there are 22 districts that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including nine that Democratic Senate candidate Beto O ’ Rourke carried in 2018 .
If Democrats flip the House , they would gain the ability to block GOP-proposed maps , forcing either Republicans to compromise or a court to draw the lines .
• New York is projected to have 26 House seats next decade , but it has relatively new and complex redistricting rules under which a bipartisan commission proposes maps , but the state legislature and governor decide whether to approve them .
However , if they reject the commission ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively draw its own .
Only one wrinkle : If the same party controls both chambers of the legislature ( as Democrats currently do ) , a two-thirds majority is required to pass a new congressional map .
That means Democrats need to win a supermajority in the state Senate ( they already have one in the state Assembly ) in 2020 if they want to be able to impose a map without any Republican votes .
And with 10 Republican senators retiring , including many from competitive seats , Democrats have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional seats they need .
• In Pennsylvania ( likely home to 17 congressional districts ) , Democrats are guaranteed a seat at the table in redistricting thanks to Democratic Gov .
Tom Wolf , who was reelected in 2018 .
If they flip both the state Senate and state House this year , they could draw congressional lines however they want .
However , Democrats would need a net gain of nine seats to take the state House ( despite having plenty of vulnerable members of their own ) and sweep every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most likely outcome may be that Wolf will share redistricting power with Republican legislators .
• North Carolina ’ s House and Senate will draw the state ’ s projected 14 congressional districts ; the governor doesn ’ t get a say .
Both chambers are competitive in this year ’ s elections , meaning either party could have full control of redistricting ( divided control is very possible as well ) .
Right now Republicans have majorities in both chambers , but Democrats could change that by flipping five seats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House .
• By contrast , the fate of Virginia ’ s 11 congressional districts will be decided by Amendment # 1 , a ballot measure to reform redistricting .
( Control of state government in Virginia is decided in odd years and so isn ’ t in play this year . )
Amendment # 1 would set up a bipartisan commission of state legislators and ordinary citizens to draw Virginia ’ s new congressional map .
The state legislature would still have to approve it , but if they don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own map .
Polling so far shows that Amendment # 1 will probably pass , but if not , Virginia ’ s Democratic-controlled state government would draw the lines .
• Republicans currently control all three redistricting entities — the state Senate , state House and governorship — in Missouri , worth eight congressional seats .
But Democrats have an outside shot at breaking up that monopoly if two things go right for them .
First , Democrat Nicole Galloway would need to overcome her polling deficit to defeat Republican Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ also have to break up the Republican supermajority in the state Senate , which they could do by flipping two seats — perhaps vulnerable Senate districts 15 and 19 .
Otherwise , Republicans could simply override Galloway ’ s veto of their maps .
• The power to draw Minnesota ’ s projected seven congressional districts is currently divided : Democrats control the governorship and state House , while Republicans control the state Senate .
The question of redistricting control will boil down to whether Democrats can flip the state Senate ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year ) .
Democrats have six viable pickup opportunities but only need to net two seats to attain a majority , giving them a good shot of drawing the maps alone next year .
• Iowa will use a unique process to redraw its four House districts .
The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency draws a map , and the legislature gives it an up-or-down vote .
If the legislature rejects two of the LSA ’ s maps , though , they can amend the third or draw their own , putting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right now , that means in Republican hands — the GOP controls the state Senate , state House and governorship .
However , Democrats need to net only four seats to take control of the state House , which would probably make it more likely that one of the LSA ’ s maps is accepted .
• At first glance , control of redrawing Kansas ’ s four congressional districts appears to be split between Democratic Gov .
Laura Kelly and the Republican legislature .
However , the GOP currently has veto-proof majorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , meaning they could enact a new map without Kelly ’ s input .
Those supermajorities are very much at risk in the 2020 elections , though .
If Democrats net three Senate seats or even just one House seat this year , they ’ ll ensure a new map can only pass if Democrats approve .
• Finally , only two congressional districts are at stake in New Hampshire , but almost every possible scenario is on the table .
All three redistricting stakeholders ( the state Senate , state House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and all three are competitive .
If polling showing Republicans close to flipping both chambers of the legislature is correct , Republicans could gain total control of redistricting .
If Democrats pull an upset and defeat Republican Gov .
Chris Sununu , they would .
However , the status quo ( shared control between Sununu and a Democratic legislature ) may be the most likely outcome .

Most of the attention on the 2020 election is focused on who will sit in the White House for the next four years. But the 2020 election could also help decide who controls the House of Representatives for the next decade.
This is the last election before data from the census is released, so whoever emerges from this year holding power on the state level will have the power to redraw their state’s congressional maps — and maybe even give their side an unfair advantage in future elections. (Although this is not true everywhere, as some states have independent or bipartisan commissions draw their maps.)
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
Gerrymandering, or the act of purposefully drawing a map to advantage one political party or group, has a long history in this country — and politicians of all persuasions have been guilty of it. But the red wave election of 2010 upped the ante by giving Republicans lopsided control of the 2011 redistricting process. Thanks in large part to the 21 state legislatures and six governorships they picked up, Republicans were able to draw 55 percent of congressional districts, while Democrats drew just 10 percent.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
As a result, in both 2012 and 2016, the House map was more biased toward Republicans than it had been at any point since the 1970s. Republicans even won 33 more House seats than Democrats in the 2012 election despite Democrats winning the House popular vote by 1.3 percentage points. And even as courts ruled some states’ maps unconstitutional and Democrats were able to flip the House in 2018, the median seat remained 4.4 points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole.
Going into the 2020 elections, Republicans still have the inside track over Democrats in the 2021 redistricting process. We determined this by using Election Data Services estimates of how many congressional districts each state will have after the 2020 census, looking at which party currently controls the levers of redistricting in those states and assessing (based on partisanship data, expert opinions and local media reports) whether the 2020 elections could change that.
Our analysis found that 117 congressional districts (27 percent of the entire House) are likely to be drawn by Republicans, while 47 (11 percent) are likely to be drawn by Democrats. Another 132 (30 percent) will be drawn by independent commissions or by both Republicans and Democrats working together. And seven districts (2 percent) are at-large districts that cover their entire state (thus, there are no lines to draw).
That leaves 10 states worth 132 congressional districts (30 percent of the House) where control of redistricting is up for grabs in the current election. However, not all of the redistricting-relevant elections in these states are winnable by both parties; in some, the best one party can hope for is simply to block the other from gaining full control.
For example, Republicans could win the ability to draw 71 new districts without Democratic input — but the best they can do with the remaining 61 is to ensure they have a seat at the table so they can force Democrats to compromise. Still, under this best-case scenario for Republicans, they would have redistricting control over 188 seats in total (43 percent) — almost as many as after 2010.
But with the possibility of another blue wave election on the horizon, Democrats can probably prevent that from happening. In the best-case Democratic scenario, the party would gain control over drawing 77 more seats and would share redistricting control over the other 55 with Republicans. That would give them redistricting control over 124 seats in total (29 percent) — slightly more than Republicans.
Of course, the final redistricting landscape will probably be somewhere in between these two extremes. To see which party will have the eventual advantage — and how big that advantage will be — here are the states and elections to watch.
Without question, Texas is the biggest redistricting prize up for grabs this year; accounting for population growth, it is expected to have 39 congressional districts next decade. While Republicans currently control all three stakeholders in the congressional redistricting process — the state Senate, state House and governorship — the state House is competitive this year. Democrats need a net gain of just nine seats to take control of the chamber — and there are 22 districts that the party thinks it can flip, including nine that Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke carried in 2018. If Democrats flip the House, they would gain the ability to block GOP-proposed maps, forcing either Republicans to compromise or a court to draw the lines.
is the biggest redistricting prize up for grabs this year; accounting for population growth, it is expected to have 39 congressional districts next decade. While Republicans currently control all three stakeholders in the congressional redistricting process — the state Senate, state House and governorship — the state House is competitive this year. Democrats need a net gain of just nine seats to take control of the chamber — and there are 22 districts that the party thinks it can flip, including nine that Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke carried in 2018. If Democrats flip the House, they would gain the ability to block GOP-proposed maps, forcing either Republicans to compromise or a court to draw the lines. New York is projected to have 26 House seats next decade, but it has relatively new and complex redistricting rules under which a bipartisan commission proposes maps, but the state legislature and governor decide whether to approve them. However, if they reject the commission’s maps twice, the legislature can effectively draw its own. Only one wrinkle: If the same party controls both chambers of the legislature (as Democrats currently do), a two-thirds majority is required to pass a new congressional map. That means Democrats need to win a supermajority in the state Senate (they already have one in the state Assembly) in 2020 if they want to be able to impose a map without any Republican votes. And with 10 Republican senators retiring, including many from competitive seats, Democrats have a good chance of picking up the two additional seats they need.
is projected to have 26 House seats next decade, but it has relatively new and complex redistricting rules under which a bipartisan commission proposes maps, but the state legislature and governor decide whether to approve them. However, if they reject the commission’s maps twice, the legislature can effectively draw its own. Only one wrinkle: If the same party controls both chambers of the legislature (as Democrats currently do), a two-thirds majority is required to pass a new congressional map. That means Democrats need to win a supermajority in the state Senate (they already have one in the state Assembly) in 2020 if they want to be able to impose a map without any Republican votes. And with 10 Republican senators retiring, including many from competitive seats, Democrats have a good chance of picking up the two additional seats they need. In Pennsylvania (likely home to 17 congressional districts), Democrats are guaranteed a seat at the table in redistricting thanks to Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who was reelected in 2018. If they flip both the state Senate and state House this year, they could draw congressional lines however they want. However, Democrats would need a net gain of nine seats to take the state House (despite having plenty of vulnerable members of their own) and sweep every competitive district in the Senate. So the most likely outcome may be that Wolf will share redistricting power with Republican legislators.
(likely home to 17 congressional districts), Democrats are guaranteed a seat at the table in redistricting thanks to Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, who was reelected in 2018. If they flip both the state Senate and state House this year, they could draw congressional lines however they want. However, Democrats would need a net gain of nine seats to take the state House (despite having plenty of vulnerable members of their own) and sweep every competitive district in the Senate. So the most likely outcome may be that Wolf will share redistricting power with Republican legislators. North Carolina ’s House and Senate will draw the state’s projected 14 congressional districts; the governor doesn’t get a say. Both chambers are competitive in this year’s elections, meaning either party could have full control of redistricting (divided control is very possible as well). Right now Republicans have majorities in both chambers, but Democrats could change that by flipping five seats in the Senate and/or six seats in the House.
’s House and Senate will draw the state’s projected 14 congressional districts; the governor doesn’t get a say. Both chambers are competitive in this year’s elections, meaning either party could have full control of redistricting (divided control is very possible as well). Right now Republicans have majorities in both chambers, but Democrats could change that by flipping five seats in the Senate and/or six seats in the House. By contrast, the fate of Virginia ’s 11 congressional districts will be decided by Amendment #1, a ballot measure to reform redistricting. (Control of state government in Virginia is decided in odd years and so isn’t in play this year.) Amendment #1 would set up a bipartisan commission of state legislators and ordinary citizens to draw Virginia’s new congressional map. The state legislature would still have to approve it, but if they don’t, the state Supreme Court would create its own map. Polling so far shows that Amendment #1 will probably pass, but if not, Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state government would draw the lines.
’s 11 congressional districts will be decided by Amendment #1, a ballot measure to reform redistricting. (Control of state government in Virginia is decided in odd years and so isn’t in play this year.) Amendment #1 would set up a bipartisan commission of state legislators and ordinary citizens to draw Virginia’s new congressional map. The state legislature would still have to approve it, but if they don’t, the state Supreme Court would create its own map. Polling so far shows that Amendment #1 will probably pass, but if not, Virginia’s Democratic-controlled state government would draw the lines. Republicans currently control all three redistricting entities — the state Senate, state House and governorship — in Missouri , worth eight congressional seats. But Democrats have an outside shot at breaking up that monopoly if two things go right for them. First, Democrat Nicole Galloway would need to overcome her polling deficit to defeat Republican Gov. Mike Parson. Then, Democrats would also have to break up the Republican supermajority in the state Senate, which they could do by flipping two seats — perhaps vulnerable Senate districts 15 and 19. Otherwise, Republicans could simply override Galloway’s veto of their maps.
, worth eight congressional seats. But Democrats have an outside shot at breaking up that monopoly if two things go right for them. First, Democrat Nicole Galloway would need to overcome her polling deficit to defeat Republican Gov. Mike Parson. Then, Democrats would have to break up the Republican supermajority in the state Senate, which they could do by flipping two seats — perhaps vulnerable Senate districts 15 and 19. Otherwise, Republicans could simply override Galloway’s veto of their maps. The power to draw Minnesota ’s projected seven congressional districts is currently divided: Democrats control the governorship and state House, while Republicans control the state Senate. The question of redistricting control will boil down to whether Democrats can flip the state Senate (the governor isn’t up for reelection this year). Democrats have six viable pickup opportunities but only need to net two seats to attain a majority, giving them a good shot of drawing the maps alone next year.
’s projected seven congressional districts is currently divided: Democrats control the governorship and state House, while Republicans control the state Senate. The question of redistricting control will boil down to whether Democrats can flip the state Senate (the governor isn’t up for reelection this year). Democrats have six viable pickup opportunities but only need to net two seats to attain a majority, giving them a good shot of drawing the maps alone next year. Iowa will use a unique process to redraw its four House districts. The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency draws a map, and the legislature gives it an up-or-down vote. If the legislature rejects two of the LSA’s maps, though, they can amend the third or draw their own, putting the ultimate power in politicians’ hands. Right now, that means in Republican hands — the GOP controls the state Senate, state House and governorship. However, Democrats need to net only four seats to take control of the state House, which would probably make it more likely that one of the LSA’s maps is accepted.
will use a unique process to redraw its four House districts. The nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency draws a map, and the legislature gives it an up-or-down vote. If the legislature rejects two of the LSA’s maps, though, they can amend the third or draw their own, putting the ultimate power in politicians’ hands. Right now, that means in Republican hands — the GOP controls the state Senate, state House and governorship. However, Democrats need to net only four seats to take control of the state House, which would probably make it more likely that one of the LSA’s maps is accepted. At first glance, control of redrawing Kansas ’s four congressional districts appears to be split between Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly and the Republican legislature. However, the GOP currently has veto-proof majorities in both the state Senate and state House, meaning they could enact a new map without Kelly’s input. Those supermajorities are very much at risk in the 2020 elections, though. If Democrats net three Senate seats or even just one House seat this year, they’ll ensure a new map can only pass if Democrats approve.
’s four congressional districts appears to be split between Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly and the Republican legislature. However, the GOP currently has veto-proof majorities in both the state Senate and state House, meaning they could enact a new map without Kelly’s input. Those supermajorities are very much at risk in the 2020 elections, though. If Democrats net three Senate seats or even just one House seat this year, they’ll ensure a new map can only pass if Democrats approve. Finally, only two congressional districts are at stake in New Hampshire, but almost every possible scenario is on the table. All three redistricting stakeholders (the state Senate, state House and governorship) are on the ballot, and all three are competitive. If polling showing Republicans close to flipping both chambers of the legislature is correct, Republicans could gain total control of redistricting. If Democrats pull an upset and defeat Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, they would. However, the status quo (shared control between Sununu and a Democratic legislature) may be the most likely outcome.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--Election Day Technical Difficulties Won’t Mean Democracy Is Over

The 2020 election season kicked off with a technological mishap ( remember the broken Iowa caucuses app ?
? )
, and it will likely end with at least a few more .
But that doesn ’ t mean we ’ re facing a new , unprecedented crisis of democracy .
Understandably , a lot of concern this year has been focused on potential issues with mail-in voting .
But the Rube Goldberg machine of our election system involves a number of independent pieces of technology , as well , including servers that host voter-registration websites and ballot-scanning devices that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the system , there is an opportunity for glitches that can slow things down , and experts say we should expect some technical difficulties on Election Day .
“ I guarantee that something will happen on Election Day , ” said David Becker , the executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research .
“ Election Day is the culmination of a process in which 150 million Americans are doing the same thing in a process run by about 1 million volunteers .
There are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen a glimpse of what hiccups can occur .
The voter registration portals in both Virginia and Florida were knocked offline on the last day to register — thanks to an accidentally severed fiber optic cable in Virginia and an overwhelming rush of traffic to Florida ’ s site .
Both states extended the deadlines to register to make up for the outages .
In Georgia , voter sign-in tablets generate a card that voters then use in conjunction with a touchscreen device .
But on the first day of early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the largest voting centers in Atlanta , the cards caused an “ invalid ” error when inserted into the touchscreens .
Eventually , poll workers fixed the problem by rebooting all of the machines .
( The answer , even in democracy , is almost always to turn it off and on again . )
On Election Day , any number of glitches could slow things down at a given site , as we ’ ve seen in years past , including electronic pollbooks crashing , touchscreens registering the wrong vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to tally votes — dropping ballots .
While the vast majority of polling sites will likely have no issues , it ’ s inevitable that some things can go wrong , sometimes causing massive delays that risk voters not being able to cast their ballot .
Election security experts often refer to a tradeoff between security and convenience .
Touchscreen machines that record a digital ballot , for example , may be simple , but they are not considered as secure because they do not create a paper trail .
In recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ switch to more secure systems , such as hand-marked paper ballots , or ballot-marking devices , which use a touchscreen machine to mark a paper ballot that can then be scanned with the paper trail retained .
More Americans will use a paper ballot this year than any time since voting first started to go digital , according to the Brennan Center , which estimates less than 4 percent of voters will cast a ballot on a paperless machine .
But while the switch to paper is good from a security standpoint , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mishaps , according to Mark Lindeman , the co-director of Verified Voting , an election security organization .
“ It ’ s pretty common for a certain percentage of machines to fail .
It ’ s also true that when poll workers are unfamiliar with the systems , they sometimes have trouble getting them started in the morning , ” Lindeman said , noting that the pandemic has made it difficult to do further pilot tests of new equipment .
“ We ’ re really excited about the move to paper but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any kind of technological transition.
” Of particular concern are jurisdictions that have introduced new technology recently , which include several swing states .
Georgia replaced all of its direct-reporting machines with ballot-marking devices last year .
Voters in six counties used the machines during local elections last fall , and the state used the machines for its primaries , but both of those pilots had some equipment malfunctions , and many Georgians have yet to use the machines .
The same is true for Pennsylvania in many regions , including Philadelphia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new ballot marking devices .
Technical troubles can cause real harm , including disenfranchising voters : if lines are seven hours long and you ’ re trying to vote on your 20-minute lunch break , there ’ s a chance you might not vote at all .
But it ’ s also not necessarily evidence of a deliberate attack or an undermined election , despite president Trump ’ s near-constant portending of election malfeasance .
“ I do think because we ’ re in this environment , ordinary problems that of course we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election get blown out of proportion , ” said Lawrence Norden , director of the election reform program at New York University ’ s Brennan Center for Justice .
“ They ’ re easy to use for disinformation , [ to suggest ] that there ’ s some bigger problem with the system or that the system has been hacked .
But these problems are just going to happen when you ’ ve got 10,000 separate election jurisdictions , all with different technology.
” In other words , one isolated incident does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think of it , that ’ s advice for the next couple of months , in general .

The 2020 election season kicked off with a technological mishap (remember the broken Iowa caucuses app??), and it will likely end with at least a few more. But that doesn’t mean we’re facing a new, unprecedented crisis of democracy.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Understandably, a lot of concern this year has been focused on potential issues with mail-in voting. But the Rube Goldberg machine of our election system involves a number of independent pieces of technology, as well, including servers that host voter-registration websites and ballot-scanning devices that count our votes. At each point in the system, there is an opportunity for glitches that can slow things down, and experts say we should expect some technical difficulties on Election Day.
Nate Silver on how 6 key states could impact election results
“I guarantee that something will happen on Election Day,” said David Becker, the executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “Election Day is the culmination of a process in which 150 million Americans are doing the same thing in a process run by about 1 million volunteers. There are going to be problems and mistakes.”
Already, we’ve seen a glimpse of what hiccups can occur. The voter registration portals in both Virginia and Florida were knocked offline on the last day to register — thanks to an accidentally severed fiber optic cable in Virginia and an overwhelming rush of traffic to Florida’s site. Both states extended the deadlines to register to make up for the outages. In Georgia, voter sign-in tablets generate a card that voters then use in conjunction with a touchscreen device. But on the first day of early voting at State Farm Arena, one of the largest voting centers in Atlanta, the cards caused an “invalid” error when inserted into the touchscreens. Eventually, poll workers fixed the problem by rebooting all of the machines. (The answer, even in democracy, is almost always to turn it off and on again.)
On Election Day, any number of glitches could slow things down at a given site, as we’ve seen in years past, including electronic pollbooks crashing, touchscreens registering the wrong vote, or optical scan devices — which are used to tally votes — dropping ballots. While the vast majority of polling sites will likely have no issues, it’s inevitable that some things can go wrong, sometimes causing massive delays that risk voters not being able to cast their ballot.
Election security experts often refer to a tradeoff between security and convenience. Touchscreen machines that record a digital ballot, for example, may be simple, but they are not considered as secure because they do not create a paper trail. In recent years, many jurisdictions have made the switch to more secure systems, such as hand-marked paper ballots, or ballot-marking devices, which use a touchscreen machine to mark a paper ballot that can then be scanned with the paper trail retained.
More Americans will use a paper ballot this year than any time since voting first started to go digital, according to the Brennan Center, which estimates less than 4 percent of voters will cast a ballot on a paperless machine. But while the switch to paper is good from a security standpoint, any new change in technology can lead to mishaps, according to Mark Lindeman, the co-director of Verified Voting, an election security organization.
“It’s pretty common for a certain percentage of machines to fail. It’s also true that when poll workers are unfamiliar with the systems, they sometimes have trouble getting them started in the morning,” Lindeman said, noting that the pandemic has made it difficult to do further pilot tests of new equipment. “We’re really excited about the move to paper but this has not been a terrific year for any kind of technological transition.”
Of particular concern are jurisdictions that have introduced new technology recently, which include several swing states. Georgia replaced all of its direct-reporting machines with ballot-marking devices last year. Voters in six counties used the machines during local elections last fall, and the state used the machines for its primaries, but both of those pilots had some equipment malfunctions, and many Georgians have yet to use the machines. The same is true for Pennsylvania in many regions, including Philadelphia, after a rocky rollout of its new ballot marking devices.
Technical troubles can cause real harm, including disenfranchising voters: if lines are seven hours long and you’re trying to vote on your 20-minute lunch break, there’s a chance you might not vote at all. But it’s also not necessarily evidence of a deliberate attack or an undermined election, despite president Trump’s near-constant portending of election malfeasance.
“I do think because we’re in this environment, ordinary problems that of course we’re going to see in every election get blown out of proportion,” said Lawrence Norden, director of the election reform program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “They’re easy to use for disinformation, [to suggest] that there’s some bigger problem with the system or that the system has been hacked. But these problems are just going to happen when you’ve got 10,000 separate election jurisdictions, all with different technology.”
In other words, one isolated incident does not necessarily indicate an existential crisis. Come to think of it, that’s advice for the next couple of months, in general.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--The Decision Desk Won’t Project The Winner Of A State Until It’s 99.5% Sure

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke speaks with Dan Merkle , executive director of elections @ @ @ @ @ projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race , as well as @ @ @ @ @ projections .

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with Dan Merkle, executive director of elections at ABC News, about projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race, as well as when we might expect those projections.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--The Senate Races Where Democrats Have An Edge In The Polls

Democrats are favored to take back the Senate this year , according to our forecast .
And that ’ s true , regardless of which of the three versions of the forecast you look at .
In fact , the Lite ( polls only ) , Classic ( polls and fundamentals ) , and Deluxe ( polls , fundamentals and expert race ratings ) don ’ t currently show that much difference .
In our Deluxe version of the forecast , which is the default version , Democrats have a 74 in 100 chance of winning a majority , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats have at least a 77 in 100 shot .
This reflects the fact that both the polling and fundamentals contain good news for Democrats .
If we dig deeper into the different versions of our forecast , we can see whether polls show more or less competitive races than the fundamentals and election handicappers ’ ratings suggest .
Here ’ s a look at just how much different versions of our forecast differ in the 19 contests that aren ’ t considered “ safe ” ( meaning that no party has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of winning ) in both the Deluxe and Lite versions of our forecast , based on the Democratic chances of victory in each contest : Topline take away : In these competitive races , Democrats have a greater than 1 in 2 shot in winning in 9 of these races , according to the Deluxe version of our forecast .
And in many of them , Democrats ’ odds might be even higher based on the latest polls .
Georgia ’ s special election is a weird exception , since there are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia ’ s other Senate race plus the contests in Maine and North Carolina show that Democrats have gotten some really good polls recently .
This is notable because all three are Republican-held seats where Democratic victories could be enough to spell a Democratic majority in the Senate — depending on the presidential race — as the GOP currently has a 53 to 47 majority .
Let ’ s start with Georgia ’ s other Senate race ( the one that isn ’ t a special election ) .
This race , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat Jon Ossoff , falls in the “ toss-up ” zone in the Lite edition of our forecast — where neither party has a 60 percent chance or better of winning — while it leans toward the GOP in the Deluxe version .
That difference comes down to Georgia ’ s traditional Republican lean , which is at odds with some polls that show Ossoff leading Perdue , but it ’ s possible that these polls are picking up on a move away from the fundamentals in Georgia .
According to our adjusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Perdue only leads by 0.7 points .
In Maine and North Carolina , meanwhile , the different versions of the forecast agree that Democrats have an advantage , but in both states the polls point to a much stronger edge .
Take Maine .
If we look just at the polls-version of our forecast , Democrat Sara Gideon ’ s odds jump from around 6 in 10 to about 3 in 4 thanks to Gideon ’ s 6-point lead in our adjusted average of Senate polls .
This could prove important for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ranked-choice voting rules , which reallocate votes based on voters ’ second choice ( or third choice , etc . )
until one candidate has a majority .
The bigger the lead for Gideon , the harder it will be for Sen. Susan Collins to catch up , even if the incumbent is the second-choice candidate for many third-party voters .
( Of course , this assumes no one wins a majority of first-choice votes , which could happen ) .
And in North Carolina , it ’ s a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls : Democrat Cal Cunningham ’ s odds jump from around 3 in 5 to almost 3 in 4 .
He was involved in a sexting scandal in early October , but that doesn ’ t seem to have greatly altered the trajectory of the race .
Some other contests also see meaningful Democratic improvement in the Lite version of our forecast , albeit not as much as in those other three states .
In Arizona , Democrat Mark Kelly has long outpaced appointed Republican Sen. Martha McSally in the polls , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better in the polls version of our forecast , even though the Deluxe version takes into account his incredible fundraising edge .
And in Michigan , the polls give Democratic Sen. Gary Peters a slightly cushier edge against Republican John James , who has managed to run nearly even with Peters in fundraising .
In the GOP-held seats in Alaska and Kansas , the Democratic candidates are pretty clear underdogs , but their chances do tick upward in the polls-only version of the forecast .
But the polls don ’ t give Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Importantly , the Lite version of our forecast points to Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones being even more of a goner than the Deluxe version .
Jones was always going to have a difficult time in a state that President Trump might win by 20 points at the top of the ticket , and his 11-point deficit against Republican Tommy Tuberville in our adjusted average of Senate polls in this race looks like too much to overcome .
A GOP pickup in Alabama will force Democrats to have to pick up a fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to have a shot at the majority , too .
Beyond Alabama , the polls also give Republicans a slightly better shot in two more peripheral races : Minnesota and New Mexico , seats currently held by Democrats .
In Minnesota , Democratic Sen. Tina Smith won a special election in 2018 but is now competing for a full term , and she faces former Rep. Jason Lewis .
Smith has a clear fundraising edge , but she leads by a little less than 8 points in our adjusted polling average of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t view her as quite so sure a bet .
The same is true of Democratic Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico , where he ’ s favored against Republican Mark Ronchetti .
With Democratic Sen. Tom Udall ’ s retirement , the lack of an Democratic incumbent defending the seat should help Republican chances , but even with that , the polls think it ’ s a more competitive race than either the fundamentals or experts .
All in all , though , the polls-only Lite version of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning many critical seats in the battle for Senate control .
And that has an impact not only on their overall chances of winning the Senate , but also on just how big of a majority they might be able to win .
Whereas the Deluxe version gives Democrats an 80 percent chance of winning between 48 to 55 seats , the Lite version gives them an 80 percent chance of capturing 48 to 57 seats .
In other words , if the polls are a better predictor than the fundamentals and experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to win a bigger majority than we might otherwise expect .

Democrats are favored to take back the Senate this year, according to our forecast. And that’s true, regardless of which of the three versions of the forecast you look at.
In fact, the Lite (polls only), Classic (polls and fundamentals), and Deluxe (polls, fundamentals and expert race ratings) don’t currently show that much difference. In our Deluxe version of the forecast, which is the default version, Democrats have a 74 in 100 chance of winning a majority, and in both the Classic and Lite versions, Democrats have at least a 77 in 100 shot.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
This reflects the fact that both the polling and fundamentals contain good news for Democrats. If we dig deeper into the different versions of our forecast, we can see whether polls show more or less competitive races than the fundamentals and election handicappers’ ratings suggest.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Here’s a look at just how much different versions of our forecast differ in the 19 contests that aren’t considered “safe” (meaning that no party has a 95 in 100 chance or better of winning) in both the Deluxe and Lite versions of our forecast, based on the Democratic chances of victory in each contest:
Difference in the Democratic win probability between the Deluxe and Lite versions of FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast, as of Oct. 27 at 4:50 p.m. State Inc. party Deluxe Lite Diff. GA* R 55% 73% +18 ME R 63 77 +14 GA R 32 42 +10 NC R 63 72 +9 MS R 11 20 +9 KS R 25 33 +8 AK R 21 28 +7 AZ* R 78 85 +7 MI D 80 86 +5 KY R 4 8 +4 MT R 32 36 +4 CO R 83 87 +3 LA R 3 6 +3 IA R 56 58 +2 SC R 21 23 +2 TX R 12 13 +2 MN D 93 86 -7 AL D 19 7 -12 NM D 94 82 -12 *Special election. Excludes races that each version of the forecast considers safe for one party (a 95 in 100 chance or better of winning the race).
Topline take away: In these competitive races, Democrats have a greater than 1 in 2 shot in winning in 9 of these races, according to the Deluxe version of our forecast. And in many of them, Democrats’ odds might be even higher based on the latest polls. Georgia’s special election is a weird exception, since there are more than two major-party candidates running, but Georgia’s other Senate race plus the contests in Maine and North Carolina show that Democrats have gotten some really good polls recently. This is notable because all three are Republican-held seats where Democratic victories could be enough to spell a Democratic majority in the Senate — depending on the presidential race — as the GOP currently has a 53 to 47 majority.
Let’s start with Georgia’s other Senate race (the one that isn’t a special election). This race, which pits incumbent Republican Sen. David Perdue against Democrat Jon Ossoff, falls in the “toss-up” zone in the Lite edition of our forecast — where neither party has a 60 percent chance or better of winning — while it leans toward the GOP in the Deluxe version. That difference comes down to Georgia’s traditional Republican lean, which is at odds with some polls that show Ossoff leading Perdue, but it’s possible that these polls are picking up on a move away from the fundamentals in Georgia. According to our adjusted average of Senate polls in this race, Perdue only leads by 0.7 points.
In Maine and North Carolina, meanwhile, the different versions of the forecast agree that Democrats have an advantage, but in both states the polls point to a much stronger edge. Take Maine. If we look just at the polls-version of our forecast, Democrat Sara Gideon’s odds jump from around 6 in 10 to about 3 in 4 thanks to Gideon’s 6-point lead in our adjusted average of Senate polls. This could prove important for Gideon, too, because of Maine’s ranked-choice voting rules, which reallocate votes based on voters’ second choice (or third choice, etc.) until one candidate has a majority. The bigger the lead for Gideon, the harder it will be for Sen. Susan Collins to catch up, even if the incumbent is the second-choice candidate for many third-party voters. (Of course, this assumes no one wins a majority of first-choice votes, which could happen). And in North Carolina, it’s a similar story if we look at just the polls: Democrat Cal Cunningham’s odds jump from around 3 in 5 to almost 3 in 4. He was involved in a sexting scandal in early October, but that doesn’t seem to have greatly altered the trajectory of the race.
Some other contests also see meaningful Democratic improvement in the Lite version of our forecast, albeit not as much as in those other three states. In Arizona, Democrat Mark Kelly has long outpaced appointed Republican Sen. Martha McSally in the polls, and as such, his chances get only better in the polls version of our forecast, even though the Deluxe version takes into account his incredible fundraising edge. And in Michigan, the polls give Democratic Sen. Gary Peters a slightly cushier edge against Republican John James, who has managed to run nearly even with Peters in fundraising. In the GOP-held seats in Alaska and Kansas, the Democratic candidates are pretty clear underdogs, but their chances do tick upward in the polls-only version of the forecast.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
But the polls don’t give Democrats a better shot at winning everywhere. Importantly, the Lite version of our forecast points to Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones being even more of a goner than the Deluxe version. Jones was always going to have a difficult time in a state that President Trump might win by 20 points at the top of the ticket, and his 11-point deficit against Republican Tommy Tuberville in our adjusted average of Senate polls in this race looks like too much to overcome. A GOP pickup in Alabama will force Democrats to have to pick up a fourth seat the GOP currently holds if they want to have a shot at the majority, too.
Beyond Alabama, the polls also give Republicans a slightly better shot in two more peripheral races: Minnesota and New Mexico, seats currently held by Democrats. In Minnesota, Democratic Sen. Tina Smith won a special election in 2018 but is now competing for a full term, and she faces former Rep. Jason Lewis. Smith has a clear fundraising edge, but she leads by a little less than 8 points in our adjusted polling average of the race, so the Lite version doesn’t view her as quite so sure a bet. The same is true of Democratic Rep. Ben Ray Luján in New Mexico, where he’s favored against Republican Mark Ronchetti. With Democratic Sen. Tom Udall’s retirement, the lack of an Democratic incumbent defending the seat should help Republican chances, but even with that, the polls think it’s a more competitive race than either the fundamentals or experts.
All in all, though, the polls-only Lite version of the forecast gives Democrats a better shot at winning many critical seats in the battle for Senate control. And that has an impact not only on their overall chances of winning the Senate, but also on just how big of a majority they might be able to win. Whereas the Deluxe version gives Democrats an 80 percent chance of winning between 48 to 55 seats, the Lite version gives them an 80 percent chance of capturing 48 to 57 seats. In other words, if the polls are a better predictor than the fundamentals and experts this year, Democrats may be able to win a bigger majority than we might otherwise expect.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--Politics Podcast: How The Media Projects The Winner Of An Election

As we head toward Election Day , one of the big questions this year is not just who will win , but when we will know who the winner is .
States have changed their voting rules in response to the coronavirus pandemic , and more people are voting by mail than ever before .
Counting all those mail ballots will be a new task for many states , and that could take time .
Unlike in past elections — when we expected to know the results by the end of election night — Americans are being cautioned that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results this year .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke speaks with the executive director of elections at ABC News , Dan Merkle , who oversees the network ’ s Decision Desk .
Merkle explains how ABC News will go about projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race , as well as when we might be able to expect those projections .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded 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 .

As we head toward Election Day, one of the big questions this year is not just who will win, but when we will know who the winner is. States have changed their voting rules in response to the coronavirus pandemic, and more people are voting by mail than ever before. Counting all those mail ballots will be a new task for many states, and that could take time.
Unlike in past elections — when we expected to know the results by the end of election night — Americans are being cautioned that it could take days or longer to get results this year.
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with the executive director of elections at ABC News, Dan Merkle, who oversees the network’s Decision Desk. Merkle explains how ABC News will go about projecting the winner of individual states and the overall presidential race, as well as when we might be able to expect those projections.
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 is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--Technical Difficulties On Election Day Won’t Mean Democracy Is Over


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--The Cases Where Amy Coney Barrett’s Presence On The Supreme Court Could Make A Difference Immediatel

The Cases Where Amy Coney Barrett’s Presence On The Supreme Court Could Make A Difference Immediately

It ’ s official : Amy Coney Barrett will be the country ’ s next Supreme Court justice .
She was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote margin , and will be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House tonight — just in time for Election Day .
Barrett ’ s ascension to the court was incredibly swift — her confirmation hearings started less than a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , and this is the closest to an election a Supreme Court confirmation vote has been held .
Notably , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerged relatively unscathed from her confirmation hearings .
This is quite a feat considering both the partisan nature of the hearings and the looming questions over whether the rush to confirm her jeopardizes the court ’ s legitimacy .
Barrett ’ s confirmation is incredibly consequential , too , as she will likely shift the center of gravity away from Chief Justice John Roberts and toward the right edge of the court ’ s conservative wing , which could potentially result in rulings that are significantly outside the mainstream of public opinion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ long to see how Barrett rules , either .
She faces a slew of hot-button cases right off the bat , including a dispute over religious liberty exemptions , a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and several cases involving controversial Trump administration policies — not to mention any election-related fights that make their way to the court in the next few weeks , plus the fact that Mississippi recently asked the Supreme Court to consider its 15-week abortion ban , which directly challenges Roe v. Wade .
Why Barrett is poised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve written before , it ’ s hard to know exactly how a nominee to the Supreme Court will rule until they ’ re actually sworn in and begin weighing in on cases .
But we do have data on Barrett ’ s three years as a judge on the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , and as you can see in the chart below , she was very conservative .
We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month , and we found whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together , she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench .
And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues .
Those findings underscore the idea that Barrett is likely to be a reliable conservative vote on the court .
And her confirmation is even more significant because she ’ s replacing one of the court ’ s stalwart liberals .
If Barrett ends up being ideologically similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently the second-most conservative justice on the Supreme Court , her replacement of Ginsburg could be one of the biggest ideological swings in modern court history .
In this scenario , Justice Brett Kavanaugh would replace Roberts as the court ’ s new median justice , which could lead to a significant rightward turn on the court , as Roberts is often the lone conservative justice to side with the liberals .
He has cast several recent pivotal votes with the liberals , too , including a dispute in which the justices deadlocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court decision that allowed state officials to count ballots that arrive up to three days late .
With Barrett on the court , though , Roberts would lose that “ swing justice ” role .
In the short term , that means election-related cases could have very different outcomes — even including a new iteration of the Pennsylvania case , which Republican officials recently brought back to the court .
And in the long term , conservative legal advocates may respond by bringing even more ambitious cases , questioning long-held precedents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Barrett — and the court The idea of confirming anyone to replace Ginsburg before the election was quite unpopular only a few weeks ago .
While it ’ s true that most Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pretty partisan these days , around the time Barrett was named as the nominee , a majority of Americans said they wanted the winner of the election to choose the next justice .
And polling by the Economist in mid-October also found that Barrett was the most unpopular nominee in Supreme Court history .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warmed to the idea of Barrett joining the court before Election Day .
According to tracking polls by Morning Consult , support for confirming Barrett rose from 37 percent when she was nominated to 51 percent after the hearings were over and a Gallup poll conducted during Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings found a similar result .
Notably , according to that Gallup poll , this was substantially higher than the share who wanted the Senate to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 ( 41 percent ) , and is even slightly higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have received on average ( 48 percent ) .
To be sure , this isn ’ t universal support for Barrett ’ s confirmation .
Partisan opinion on her confirmation is really divided — according to Gallup , only 15 percent of Democrats wanted the Senate to vote to confirm her , for instance .
A deep partisan divide in support isn ’ t a good sign for the court in general either , as it can reinforce perceptions that the court is itself a partisan institution .
But Barrett could have emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which is why the level of support she does enjoy is pretty notable , especially when you consider most Americans agreed that she ’ d push the court to the right ( 54 percent in that Morning Consult poll ) .
Barrett will be faced with highly controversial cases immediately Barrett could be immediately faced with tough decisions , too , including voting on the fate of ballot deadlines in several states .
There are a number of important or even precedent-altering cases at stake , too , and considering that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedents with slim 5-4 majorities than any other court in modern history , that trend could further accelerate with Barrett on the court .
The day after the election , for instance , the justices will hear a case in which they ’ re being asked to reconsider a 30-year-old religious liberty precedent .
In that case , the justices will consider whether that precedent makes it too hard for religious people to sue for exemptions .
The majority opinion in that precedent-setting case , Employment Division v. Smith , was actually written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but four of the current conservative justices have already signaled they may be willing to strike it down .
Barrett could overrule it , and make it much easier for nondiscrimination provisions to be challenged by religious litigants .
And a week after the election , a case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will come before the court , in which the justices could declare the entire law invalid .
Another important signal will be whether Barrett ’ s presence on the court gives conservatives a fourth vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15-week abortion ban , which the state attorney general described as an “ ideal vehicle ” for “ clarifying ” how the court ’ s precedents on abortion should be interpreted .
There are also several important Trump administration policies on the docket a little later this term — including the administration ’ s attempt to exclude undocumented citizens from the census count used for redistricting , and whether Trump unconstitutionally commandeered Congress ’ s power when he diverted Defense Department funds to expand the border wall with Mexico .
Given that several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies — including an attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census — split 5-4 , with Roberts casting a deciding vote with the liberals against the Trump administration , Barrett ’ s presence on the court could make a decision in favor of Trump more likely .
Barrett made it through her confirmation hearings mostly without controversy , but we ’ ll see whether that lasts .
It won ’ t take long to get a sense for just how far the Supreme Court ’ s conservatives are willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisive majority for the first time in decades .

It’s official: Amy Coney Barrett will be the country’s next Supreme Court justice. She was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote margin, and will be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House tonight — just in time for Election Day.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Barrett’s ascension to the court was incredibly swift — her confirmation hearings started less than a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and this is the closest to an election a Supreme Court confirmation vote has been held. Notably, though, despite this accelerated timeline, Barrett emerged relatively unscathed from her confirmation hearings. This is quite a feat considering both the partisan nature of the hearings and the looming questions over whether the rush to confirm her jeopardizes the court’s legitimacy.
Could any surprises still affect the race for president?
Barrett’s confirmation is incredibly consequential, too, as she will likely shift the center of gravity away from Chief Justice John Roberts and toward the right edge of the court’s conservative wing, which could potentially result in rulings that are significantly outside the mainstream of public opinion.
We won’t have to wait long to see how Barrett rules, either. She faces a slew of hot-button cases right off the bat, including a dispute over religious liberty exemptions, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and several cases involving controversial Trump administration policies — not to mention any election-related fights that make their way to the court in the next few weeks, plus the fact that Mississippi recently asked the Supreme Court to consider its 15-week abortion ban, which directly challenges Roe v. Wade.
Why Barrett is poised to remake the Supreme Court
As we’ve written before, it’s hard to know exactly how a nominee to the Supreme Court will rule until they’re actually sworn in and begin weighing in on cases. But we do have data on Barrett’s three years as a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and as you can see in the chart below, she was very conservative.
We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month, and we found whether it was in regular opinions or in special en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together, she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench. And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues.
Those findings underscore the idea that Barrett is likely to be a reliable conservative vote on the court. And her confirmation is even more significant because she’s replacing one of the court’s stalwart liberals. If Barrett ends up being ideologically similar to Justice Samuel Alito, who is currently the second-most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, her replacement of Ginsburg could be one of the biggest ideological swings in modern court history.
In this scenario, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would replace Roberts as the court’s new median justice, which could lead to a significant rightward turn on the court, as Roberts is often the lone conservative justice to side with the liberals. He has cast several recent pivotal votes with the liberals, too, including a dispute in which the justices deadlocked 4-4 on whether to halt a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed state officials to count ballots that arrive up to three days late. With Barrett on the court, though, Roberts would lose that “swing justice” role.
In the short term, that means election-related cases could have very different outcomes — even including a new iteration of the Pennsylvania case, which Republican officials recently brought back to the court. And in the long term, conservative legal advocates may respond by bringing even more ambitious cases, questioning long-held precedents.
The hearings could have gone much worse for Barrett — and the court
The idea of confirming anyone to replace Ginsburg before the election was quite unpopular only a few weeks ago. While it’s true that most Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pretty partisan these days, around the time Barrett was named as the nominee, a majority of Americans said they wanted the winner of the election to choose the next justice. And polling by the Economist in mid-October also found that Barrett was the most unpopular nominee in Supreme Court history.
Now, though, Americans may actually have warmed to the idea of Barrett joining the court before Election Day. According to tracking polls by Morning Consult, support for confirming Barrett rose from 37 percent when she was nominated to 51 percent after the hearings were over and a Gallup poll conducted during Barrett’s confirmation hearings found a similar result. Notably, according to that Gallup poll, this was substantially higher than the share who wanted the Senate to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 (41 percent), and is even slightly higher than the support previous nominees since 1987 have received on average (48 percent).
Barrett’s confirmation wasn’t that divisive Share of Americans who said they were or were not in favor of the Senate confirming each Supreme Court nominee Nominee In favor Not in favor No opinion Amy Coney Barrett 51% 46% 3% Brett Kavanaugh 41 37 22 Neil Gorsuch 45 32 23 Merrick Garland 52 29 19 Elena Kagan 46 32 22 Sonia Sotomayor 54 28 19 Samuel Alito 50 25 25 Harriet Miers 44 36 20 John Roberts 59 22 19 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 53 14 33 Clarence Thomas 52 17 31 Robert Bork 31 25 44 Average for previous nominees 48 27 25 Data was not available for Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Douglas Ginsburg. Source: Gallup
To be sure, this isn’t universal support for Barrett’s confirmation. Partisan opinion on her confirmation is really divided — according to Gallup, only 15 percent of Democrats wanted the Senate to vote to confirm her, for instance. A deep partisan divide in support isn’t a good sign for the court in general either, as it can reinforce perceptions that the court is itself a partisan institution. But Barrett could have emerged a lot less popular from her hearing — which is why the level of support she does enjoy is pretty notable, especially when you consider most Americans agreed that she’d push the court to the right (54 percent in that Morning Consult poll).
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
Barrett will be faced with highly controversial cases immediately
Barrett could be immediately faced with tough decisions, too, including voting on the fate of ballot deadlines in several states. There are a number of important or even precedent-altering cases at stake, too, and considering that the Roberts court has already been overturning more precedents with slim 5-4 majorities than any other court in modern history, that trend could further accelerate with Barrett on the court.
The day after the election, for instance, the justices will hear a case in which they’re being asked to reconsider a 30-year-old religious liberty precedent. In that case, the justices will consider whether that precedent makes it too hard for religious people to sue for exemptions. The majority opinion in that precedent-setting case, Employment Division v. Smith, was actually written by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, but four of the current conservative justices have already signaled they may be willing to strike it down. Barrett could overrule it, and make it much easier for nondiscrimination provisions to be challenged by religious litigants.
And a week after the election, a case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will come before the court, in which the justices could declare the entire law invalid. Another important signal will be whether Barrett’s presence on the court gives conservatives a fourth vote to hear a case involving Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which the state attorney general described as an “ideal vehicle” for “clarifying” how the court’s precedents on abortion should be interpreted. There are also several important Trump administration policies on the docket a little later this term — including the administration’s attempt to exclude undocumented citizens from the census count used for redistricting, and whether Trump unconstitutionally commandeered Congress’s power when he diverted Defense Department funds to expand the border wall with Mexico. Given that several recent Supreme Court decisions on Trump administration policies — including an attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census — split 5-4, with Roberts casting a deciding vote with the liberals against the Trump administration, Barrett’s presence on the court could make a decision in favor of Trump more likely.
Barrett made it through her confirmation hearings mostly without controversy, but we’ll see whether that lasts. It won’t take long to get a sense for just how far the Supreme Court’s conservatives are willing to go now that they hold a decisive majority for the first time in decades.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-26--Trump Hasn’t Gained Ground Since The Debate, And He’s Running Out Of Time

One question we posed after the last presidential debate was , Will the presidential race tighten ?
Since its peak on Oct. 19 , Joe Biden ’ s lead over President Trump in national polls has narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points , while Biden ’ s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points .
Although , as you can see in the chart below , Biden ’ s odds have been relatively stable .
So what gives ?
Is the race tightening ?
And , if it is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national polling average ?
Well , two things .
First , we ’ re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast , so we ’ re pricing that in a little in our model .
And second , the forecast is mostly based on state polls , which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we ’ ve seen nationally .
( Remember , if used properly , state polls give you a more accurate projection of the national popular vote than national polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relies on them so heavily ! )
But let ’ s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely ( or mostly ) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening .
Overall , we have six national surveys and eight battleground-state polls , and on average , these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate .
In fact , the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden .
Gravis Marketing , for instance , last tested Michigan , Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds Biden in better shape in all three states , including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin .
Meanwhile , Ipsos and The New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania , Texas and Wisconsin .
Most national polls also showed little to no change .
International Business Daily/TIPP ’ s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining , but it has recently found his lead back up in the high single digits .
There may have been a bit of tightening before the debate , but at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate .
In fact , only two polls found clear , negative shifts for Biden , and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president ’ s chances in a positive light .
First , a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness , a conservative media think tank , gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania , which marks a 6-point swing in margin from its previous poll in mid-October .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discount that this might be the case , but the ideological leanings of the pollster ’ s sponsor do give us pause .
Similarly , a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point , a 4-point shift from its last survey .
But Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect , or put another way , it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates compared with other polling firms .
We choose to be very inclusive when it comes to our forecast , so we toss almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , on the whole , these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening , especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt ( which we ’ d recommend ) .

One question we posed after the last presidential debate was, Will the presidential race tighten?
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Since its peak on Oct. 19, Joe Biden’s lead over President Trump in national polls has narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points, while Biden’s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points. Although, as you can see in the chart below, Biden’s odds have been relatively stable.
So what gives? Is the race tightening? And, if it is, why is our forecast different from our national polling average?
Well, two things. First, we’re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast, so we’re pricing that in a little in our model. And second, the forecast is mostly based on state polls, which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we’ve seen nationally. (Remember, if used properly, state polls give you a more accurate projection of the national popular vote than national polls do, which is why our forecast relies on them so heavily!)
Polling 101: Should You Trust The Polls In 2020? | FiveThirtyEight
But let’s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening. Overall, we have six national surveys and eight battleground-state polls, and on average, these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate.
Not much has changed since the debate State and national polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change MI Gravis Marketing +13 +9 +4 PA Gravis Marketing +7 +3 +4 PA InsiderAdvantage -3 +3 -6 PA Reuters/Ipsos +5 +4 +1 TX NYT Upshot/Siena -4 -3 -1 TX Data for Progress +1 +1 0 WI Gravis Marketing +11 +8 +3 WI Reuters/Ipsos +9 +8 +1 US IBD/TIPP +7 +5 +2 US Morning Consult +9 +9 0 US Rasmussen Reports -1 +3 -4 US RMG Research +7 +8 -1 US SurveyMonkey +6 +6 0 US Yahoo News/YouGov +12 +11 +1 Average 0 Source: Polls
In fact, the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden. Gravis Marketing, for instance, last tested Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in July, but now finds Biden in better shape in all three states, including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Ipsos and The New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Most national polls also showed little to no change. International Business Daily/TIPP’s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining, but it has recently found his lead back up in the high single digits.
There may have been a bit of tightening before the debate, but at this point, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate. In fact, only two polls found clear, negative shifts for Biden, and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president’s chances in a positive light.
First, a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness, a conservative media think tank, gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania, which marks a 6-point swing in margin from its previous poll in mid-October. We, of course, can’t discount that this might be the case, but the ideological leanings of the pollster’s sponsor do give us pause. Similarly, a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point, a 4-point shift from its last survey. But Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect, or put another way, it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates compared with other polling firms.
We choose to be very inclusive when it comes to our forecast, so we toss almost everything into the polling kitchen sink. But, on the whole, these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening, especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt (which we’d recommend).
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-28--Fear Of Voter Intimidation Is Its Own Voter Intimidation

In 1981 , the Republican National Committee sent hundreds of armed , off-duty police officers to the polls in the state of New Jersey .
Dressed in official-looking “ National Ballot Security Task Force ” armbands , they demanded voter registration cards from people waiting in line in heavily Black and Hispanic districts , turning some voters away and intimidating others into not voting at all .
As my colleague Clare Malone has written , the whole thing was illegal .
After a lawsuit , it led to a 37-year-long ban preventing the RNC from organizing poll watching efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the ban in place .
It is also a presidential election where the incumbent has cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the election , toyed repeatedly with the idea of not giving up office and recruited thousands of poll watchers .
It is also a presidential election where far-right militias and other supporters of the president have discussed showing up , armed , at polling sites .
But despite that tension , neither experts in election law nor experts in militia and armed radical groups believe we are likely to see a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly four decades ago .
Why ?
Partly , it ’ s because laws heavily restrict what poll watchers can do and how they can do it .
And partly , experts told me , it ’ s because the actual job of poll watching is unlikely to appeal to the groups and individuals whose presence would be most dangerous .
None of the experts I spoke to thought it was a good idea to dismiss the risk of armed or threatening poll disruptors out of hand .
But they did want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public were realistic about the concern .
“ I ’ m not sure it would be accurate to say I ’ m not worried .
It ’ s my job to worry about everything , ” said Myrna Pérez , director of the Brennan Center ’ s Voting Rights and Elections Program .
“ But in terms of assessing risk and the probability of it being more than a bunch of isolated incidences , there ’ s reason to believe this is lower on the concern list.
” That ’ s true , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tight and heavily enforced array of laws protecting polling places on election day .
While poll watchers are legal — and , in some states , can challenge individual voters ’ eligibility at the polls on the basis of things like residency or citizenship — the job isn ’ t just a free-for-all for whoever happens to decide to show up .
There are lots of laws around how poll watchers must be registered and trained , and who can and can ’ t be one .
Depending on the state , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to voters .
There can only be so many at any polling location .
And when those rules are violated , there is generally swift follow-up by the judiciary , poll workers and , if necessary , police .
For example , in 2008 , challengers in Michigan and Indiana tried to use foreclosure and eviction notices to create a list of voters who might be voting in the wrong district .
That practice was quickly ruled illegal before it was enacted because it discriminated against low-income voters .
Of course , enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem .
Enlisting officers as part of a partisan poll watching campaign isn ’ t limited to the distant past .
In 2008 , for example , on-duty officers in Michigan showed up at polling places to scan voter lines for people with outstanding warrants , something the Brennan Center categorizes as voter intimidation .
Police-based voter intimidation has a long enough history that there are a number of states that expressly forbid law enforcement from being at polling places at all , unless they ’ re there to vote themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year where voters may want protection at the polls , but where officers may not know the best way to deescalate or ( as in a recent case in Florida ) may be friends with the people doing the intimidation .
“ From my research , I ’ ve observed that these men react negatively to the perception that they ’ re there to cause a problem , ” said Amy Cooter , a sociologist at Vanderbilt University who does ethnographic interviews on militias and related groups .
Her research suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the social and political fabric makes them less likely to cause a problem .
But she also acknowledged that that information wasn ’ t particularly helpful to voters who found the presence of armed people at a polling site intimidating .
“ I ’ m glad I ’ m not law enforcement trying to come up with a perfect answer , ” she said .
But , laws aside , there ’ s reason to think groups that have shown up to protests in many cities this summer won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , experts told me .
“ There ’ s a long long history of threats being not something that is ever followed through on , ” said Lawrence Rosenthal , chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies .
One of the main impediments individual citizens or armed groups like the Proud Boys policing the polls is , ironically , also one of the main impediments to voting itself — simply having the time outside work and family commitments , Cooter said .
Cooter described her sources expressing heightened concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to previous years , and a desire to combat the perceived risk of fraud .
But , for most of them , she told me , there ’ s not a sense that they really have the ability to do anything about it , personally .
The ones who have volunteered as poll watchers in the past , she said , did so in ways that followed the rules .
There ’ s also the simple matter that , for those people interested in breaking the rules , a polling place wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , Rosenthal said .
There ’ s no marching , he pointed out .
There ’ s no good opportunity for confrontation with left-wing counterparts , real or imagined .
It ’ s mostly just a lot of standing around outside at a distance , if you aren ’ t an official poll watcher .
Rosenthal thinks it ’ s unlikely that that scenario would attract any serious , organized response .
None of this precludes lone wolf scenarios — where one or two troublemakers show up intent on intimidation .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote is contested , is anyone ’ s guess .
But the experts I spoke to wanted to make it clear that violence and real physical threats were unlikely on Election Day itself .
The bigger risk , right they told me , is that fear of voter intimidation could lead to , well , voter intimidation .
“ There ’ s a danger in overplaying this risk and making it seem more dangerous than it actually is , ” Cooter said .
“ In a way that could have a suppressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent hundreds of armed, off-duty police officers to the polls in the state of New Jersey. Dressed in official-looking “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, they demanded voter registration cards from people waiting in line in heavily Black and Hispanic districts, turning some voters away and intimidating others into not voting at all.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
As my colleague Clare Malone has written, the whole thing was illegal. After a lawsuit, it led to a 37-year-long ban preventing the RNC from organizing poll watching efforts. This will be the first presidential election without the ban in place. It is also a presidential election where the incumbent has cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the election, toyed repeatedly with the idea of not giving up office and recruited thousands of poll watchers. It is also a presidential election where far-right militias and other supporters of the president have discussed showing up, armed, at polling sites.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
But despite that tension, neither experts in election law nor experts in militia and armed radical groups believe we are likely to see a repeat of what happened in New Jersey nearly four decades ago. Why? Partly, it’s because laws heavily restrict what poll watchers can do and how they can do it. And partly, experts told me, it’s because the actual job of poll watching is unlikely to appeal to the groups and individuals whose presence would be most dangerous.
None of the experts I spoke to thought it was a good idea to dismiss the risk of armed or threatening poll disruptors out of hand. But they did want to make sure that the media and the public were realistic about the concern.
“I’m not sure it would be accurate to say I’m not worried. It’s my job to worry about everything,” said Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program. “But in terms of assessing risk and the probability of it being more than a bunch of isolated incidences, there’s reason to believe this is lower on the concern list.”
That’s true, from her perspective, because of the tight and heavily enforced array of laws protecting polling places on election day. While poll watchers are legal — and, in some states, can challenge individual voters’ eligibility at the polls on the basis of things like residency or citizenship — the job isn’t just a free-for-all for whoever happens to decide to show up. There are lots of laws around how poll watchers must be registered and trained, and who can and can’t be one. Depending on the state, they might not be able to even talk to voters. There can only be so many at any polling location. And when those rules are violated, there is generally swift follow-up by the judiciary, poll workers and, if necessary, police. For example, in 2008, challengers in Michigan and Indiana tried to use foreclosure and eviction notices to create a list of voters who might be voting in the wrong district. That practice was quickly ruled illegal before it was enacted because it discriminated against low-income voters.
Of course, enforcement gets tricky when police become part of the problem. Enlisting officers as part of a partisan poll watching campaign isn’t limited to the distant past. In 2008, for example, on-duty officers in Michigan showed up at polling places to scan voter lines for people with outstanding warrants, something the Brennan Center categorizes as voter intimidation. Police-based voter intimidation has a long enough history that there are a number of states that expressly forbid law enforcement from being at polling places at all, unless they’re there to vote themselves. This history creates a tricky situation in a year where voters may want protection at the polls, but where officers may not know the best way to deescalate or (as in a recent case in Florida) may be friends with the people doing the intimidation.
“From my research, I’ve observed that these men react negatively to the perception that they’re there to cause a problem,” said Amy Cooter, a sociologist at Vanderbilt University who does ethnographic interviews on militias and related groups. Her research suggests that framing armed people outside the polls as part of the social and political fabric makes them less likely to cause a problem. But she also acknowledged that that information wasn’t particularly helpful to voters who found the presence of armed people at a polling site intimidating.
“I’m glad I’m not law enforcement trying to come up with a perfect answer,” she said.
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
But, laws aside, there’s reason to think groups that have shown up to protests in many cities this summer won’t be making a leap to polling places, experts told me. “There’s a long long history of threats being not something that is ever followed through on,” said Lawrence Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies.
One of the main impediments individual citizens or armed groups like the Proud Boys policing the polls is, ironically, also one of the main impediments to voting itself — simply having the time outside work and family commitments, Cooter said.
Cooter described her sources expressing heightened concern about the integrity of elections, compared to previous years, and a desire to combat the perceived risk of fraud. But, for most of them, she told me, there’s not a sense that they really have the ability to do anything about it, personally. The ones who have volunteered as poll watchers in the past, she said, did so in ways that followed the rules.
There’s also the simple matter that, for those people interested in breaking the rules, a polling place wouldn’t offer a very interesting or rewarding experience, Rosenthal said. There’s no marching, he pointed out. There’s no good opportunity for confrontation with left-wing counterparts, real or imagined. It’s mostly just a lot of standing around outside at a distance, if you aren’t an official poll watcher. Rosenthal thinks it’s unlikely that that scenario would attract any serious, organized response.
None of this precludes lone wolf scenarios — where one or two troublemakers show up intent on intimidation. And what happens after the election, if the vote is contested, is anyone’s guess. But the experts I spoke to wanted to make it clear that violence and real physical threats were unlikely on Election Day itself. The bigger risk, right they told me, is that fear of voter intimidation could lead to, well, voter intimidation.
“There’s a danger in overplaying this risk and making it seem more dangerous than it actually is,” Cooter said. “In a way that could have a suppressive effect on desire to go vote.”