fivethirtyeight--2020-04-23--Coronavirus Cases Are Still Growing In Many U.S. States

Last week , I wrote about how New York has successfully bent the coronavirus curve after an extended period of social distancing .
The evidence this week is even stronger .
As of Wednesday , just 27.6 percent of newly reported COVID-19 tests in New York City were positive , still a fairly high rate — but substantially down from a peak of 59.4 percent on March 29 .
Other states are also seeing a decline in new cases — Louisiana , in particular , has seen a highly encouraging turnaround .
Unfortunately , though , New York and Louisiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , there isn ’ t really any norm .
While the situation in many states is improving , in nearly half of all states in the U.S. , there are as many COVID-19 cases as ever , and in some cases , even more .
As I ’ ve written before , the number of new confirmed cases can be a deceptive indicator of how much the coronavirus is spreading unless you also account for how many tests are conducted .
But the stubborn persistence of the novel coronavirus in many parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an artifact of rising testing volume .
In fact , the number of tests has been at a plateau for several weeks in the U.S .
But that isn ’ t necessarily the case in individual states .
So in this article , I ’ ll go through some additional calculations to estimate how the share of positive tests has changed in each state over the past several weeks .
Before I go into more detail , though , you should know that the conclusions would largely be the same with whatever metric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the positive test rate and the number of deaths are all showing progress in some states — but getting worse in plenty of others .
In other words , the United States has not yet turned the corner nationwide .
All 50 states and the District of Columbia now make some effort to report both positive and negative test results .
In theory , that should allow us to calculate the share of tests that are positive and how that has changed over time .
Given that the large majority of infections are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But our analysis of various testing scenarios suggests that the rate of positive tests is usually a truer indicator of the actual , underlying spread of the disease than the raw number of positives .
However , while most states diligently update their data on the number of positive tests , the quality of reporting on negative tests varies .
For instance , while New York publishes detailed reports on the number of positive and negative tests each day , California takes a more casual approach with reporting its negatives .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 160,000 “ new ” negative tests — as compared with just 7,000 negatives on Tuesday .
It is highly unlikely that these new tests were actually conducted on Wednesday .
Instead , California was likely clearing a backlog of tests that had been conducted days — or even weeks — ago .
Having looked at a lot of this data , I know that California isn ’ t the only offender .
So I developed some techniques to smooth erratic reporting on negative tests , which should allow us to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that don ’ t have great data .
( Because this is a story about the coronavirus and not one on methods for handling dodgy data , feel free to skip to the next section if you don ’ t care about the nitty gritty . )
In any event , I ’ ll be brief .
It ’ s basically a three-step process : • First , if a state has days where it skips reporting any testing at all — that is , it doesn ’ t report on the existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — I spread the data evenly over any skipped days once it does report new tests .
For instance , if Alabama doesn ’ t report any data on Sunday , and then reports the existence of 100 new tests on Monday , I assign half of those tests to Sunday and keep half of them on Monday .
• Second , because reporting on negative tests has become more comprehensive over time , I pick a date in each state when its reporting on negative tests first became “ usable.
” Usable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ varies wildly from state to state .
A state ’ s reporting can still be erratic ; that ’ s what the next step is designed to deal with .
But to be usable , a state has to be making some effort at being comprehensive — for instance , by including data both from state-run laboratories and private labs among its negative tests counts .
It ’ s challenging though to pinpoint when a state ’ s data is usable , and something that has to be done by hand .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s negative test data is usable , I apply a polynomial smoother to the negative-test data to iron out daily fluctuations in reporting .
The smoother is set to a pretty conservative setting , as we ’ re mostly interested in getting a sense of the broad directionality of a state ’ s testing regime — that is , whether tests are increasing quickly , increasing slowly , stagnant , or even declining .
Outside of a state ’ s usable window , we use data for states that did have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volume was increasing or decreasing .
For instance , if Utah ’ s data did not become usable until March 20 , but we know that the average state with usable data was doing 50 percent more testing on March 20 than on March 10 , we can use that to extrapolate how much testing Utah may have been doing on March 10 .
Note that — other than the first step — we apply this process only to a state ’ s reporting on negative tests , since reporting on positive tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The main issue with positive test reporting tends to be day-of-week effects : Some states tend to be better about reporting data on weekdays than on weekends .
The simplest workaround for this is simply to look at one full week ’ s worth of data at a time , which is what we ’ ll do in the next section .
Where coronavirus cases are growing and shrinking For each state , I ’ ve estimated the share of COVID-19 tests that produced positive results for the past five weeks — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 25 , April 1 , April 8 , April 15 and April 22 .
All data , subject to the adjustments I described in the previous section , comes from The COVID Tracking Project .
Let ’ s start with the states where things are still getting worse , or at least are not getting better — places where the share of positive tests hit a new high as of April 22 .
Eighteen states and the District of Columbia made this list , which together are home to almost 95 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something about how the situation is turning the corner in the U.S. , that ’ s sort of a fiction .
With so few people traveling , we ’ re really seeing a lot of statewide and local epidemics more than a national one , and some of those epidemics are still getting worse .
The states where cases are growing are somewhat varied , too — about evenly mixed between red states and blue states .
They are mostly concentrated in the Midwest , although a series of Eastern Seaboard states — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delaware — also make the list .
Connecticut is also on the list , which is something of a surprise since the turnaround is clear in neighboring New York .
On a percentage basis , the biggest week-over-week increases have been in Midwestern states , though : specifically Iowa , Ohio , Nebraska and North Dakota .
But these increases aren ’ t necessarily uniformly distributed throughout the general population .
Ohio is having huge problems in its prisons , and meat-processing plants have been centers of outbreaks in states such as Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limitations of social distancing .
It doesn ’ t work for people who can ’ t afford to do it , which means that even in places that seem to be controlling the outbreak , there can still be huge numbers of cases among essential workers .
Next up , states that have — at best — tentatively turned the corner , or where the peak of positive test rates came in the week that ended April 15 .
Other than perhaps Alabama , where the share of positive tests fell from 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week , all of these states have made at best tentative progress and are only a percentage point or two off their peak of positive tests rates .
So in other words , in about half the country — the 18 states in the previous table plus most of the ones in this table and a couple in the next table — new coronavirus cases are still at or near their peak , after accounting for changes in testing volume .
But there are some encouraging stories : There are 20 states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , on April 8 .
If you look at the data in more detail , though , it ’ s actually a bit of a mixed bag .
Nevada , New Jersey , New Hampshire and Wisconsin are only tenuous members of this club ; their rates of positive tests were nearly as high on April 22 as they were on April 8 .
However , the decline in positive test rates has been more robust in New York , Louisiana and Michigan , all of which had very bad outbreaks before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their plans to reopen beaches and businesses , fall somewhere in between , with medium-sized decreases in positive test rates .
Georgia has actually seen a continued increase in its raw number of positive tests , although it is doing more testing , so its share of positive tests has declined somewhat .
There are a number of Southern states on the declining list .
Although the role that weather plays in the spread of COVID-19 is disputed , it ’ s worth noting that late March was fairly warm in states such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a factor in these states .
Finally , there are a few states where the estimated rate of positive tests peaked three weeks ago , in the period ending on April 1 .
Most of these states are in the West — and in the case of Washington and California , states that enacted fairly aggressive social distancing measures earlier because the coronavirus hit them sooner than other parts of the U.S .
Although , it ’ s hard to know exactly what is happening in California given how erratic its reporting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geographically isolated states such as Montana and Maine ( plus Alaska and Hawaii from the previous list ) may have some advantages in containing the spread of COVID-19.
, though .
Namely , they may be rural enough that human interaction is slightly less common .
They ’ re also low-population states that never had terribly bad outbreaks , which may make “ contact tracing ” possible , or the practice of finding and monitoring people exposed to the disease ; this is easier to do when you have a finite number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stands So , what to make of all of this — or at least , what to make of the states where the situation is not improving ?
A week or two ago , we might have said just to give it more time since there ’ s a substantial lag between when people get infected and when their test shows up in the data .
That lag is typically two or three weeks , though .
Since most of the country began implementing social distancing measures in mid-to-late March , we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data by now .
And in fact , we do see those effects of social distancing .
Cases are decreasing in about half the country .
In places where the data suggests COVID-19 cases are still increasing , they tend not to be increasing all that fast — especially when you compare where we are now to the exponential rates of spread we saw initially in New York and Louisiana , which reflected the period before social distancing measures were in place .
Of course , the catch here is the spread would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Additionally , while these social distancing efforts are almost certainly flattening the curve , the somewhat lax American version of social distancing may not be enough to bend the curve all on its own .
In epidemiological terms , bending the curve means getting R — the effective reproduction number — under 1 , so that each person who acquires COVID-19 spreads it to less than one new person .
If R is less than 1 , a disease will begin to die out , but if it ’ s above 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if R is near 1 , the curve will flatten into a long plateau but not turn downward , which may be the case in some states .
We must also consider the role of the essential workforce , since it doesn ’ t get the full benefits of social distancing like some of us do .
If R is 0.6 among white-collar workers who can work from home , but 1.2 among U.S .
Postal Service drivers , 1.7 among factory workers , 3.0 among nurses in hospitals and 4.6 among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spread , but with that spread being concentrated among certain occupations and populations .
Not that there is necessarily a better way around this , but carving out large categories of essential workers can make it hard for a community as whole to get its R below 1 .
Indeed , the states where COVID-19 cases are decreasing often have some other helpful factors in addition to social distancing .
As I mentioned , geographically isolated states seem to be doing better , as do warm-weather states .
Because the outbreaks were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they may be benefiting from some degree of herd immunity ; enough people had COVID-19 there that it may be harder to spread it , assuming that they are immune .
( Immunity is a complicated subject , but it ’ s likely that most people are immune for some period of time . )
.
These factors aren ’ t necessarily enormously important ; warm weather is highly unlikely to be a cure-all , for instance .
But something that ’ s enough to tip R from being just above 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1.15 to 0.85 — will have fairly noticeable effects over the course of a few weeks .
In short , the United States desperately needs to work on techniques in addition to social distancing to fight the spread , including better testing , case-tracking , quarantining of sick individuals , and better sanitation and hygiene .
Social distancing has likely been very helpful to slow the spread and , in many states , even reverse it .
But if it ’ s the only tool we ’ re employing — and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — it may only be enough to allow us to fight the coronavirus to a draw .

Last week, I wrote about how New York has successfully bent the coronavirus curve after an extended period of social distancing. The evidence this week is even stronger. As of Wednesday, just 27.6 percent of newly reported COVID-19 tests in New York City were positive, still a fairly high rate — but substantially down from a peak of 59.4 percent on March 29. Other states are also seeing a decline in new cases — Louisiana, in particular, has seen a highly encouraging turnaround.
Unfortunately, though, New York and Louisiana aren’t the norm. In fact, there isn’t really any norm. While the situation in many states is improving, in nearly half of all states in the U.S., there are as many COVID-19 cases as ever, and in some cases, even more.
As I’ve written before, the number of new confirmed cases can be a deceptive indicator of how much the coronavirus is spreading unless you also account for how many tests are conducted. But the stubborn persistence of the novel coronavirus in many parts of the country isn’t just an artifact of rising testing volume.
In fact, the number of tests has been at a plateau for several weeks in the U.S. But that isn’t necessarily the case in individual states. So in this article, I’ll go through some additional calculations to estimate how the share of positive tests has changed in each state over the past several weeks. Before I go into more detail, though, you should know that the conclusions would largely be the same with whatever metric I chose. Newly diagnosed cases, the positive test rate and the number of deaths are all showing progress in some states — but getting worse in plenty of others. In other words, the United States has not yet turned the corner nationwide.
How to estimate positive test rates
All 50 states and the District of Columbia now make some effort to report both positive and negative test results. In theory, that should allow us to calculate the share of tests that are positive and how that has changed over time. Given that the large majority of infections are probably undetected, no measure is perfect. But our analysis of various testing scenarios suggests that the rate of positive tests is usually a truer indicator of the actual, underlying spread of the disease than the raw number of positives.
However, while most states diligently update their data on the number of positive tests, the quality of reporting on negative tests varies. For instance, while New York publishes detailed reports on the number of positive and negative tests each day, California takes a more casual approach with reporting its negatives. On Wednesday, for example, California reported more than 160,000 “new” negative tests — as compared with just 7,000 negatives on Tuesday. It is highly unlikely that these new tests were actually conducted on Wednesday. Instead, California was likely clearing a backlog of tests that had been conducted days — or even weeks — ago.
Having looked at a lot of this data, I know that California isn’t the only offender. So I developed some techniques to smooth erratic reporting on negative tests, which should allow us to come up with reasonable estimates even in states that don’t have great data. (Because this is a story about the coronavirus and not one on methods for handling dodgy data, feel free to skip to the next section if you don’t care about the nitty gritty.) In any event, I’ll be brief. It’s basically a three-step process:
First, if a state has days where it skips reporting any testing at all — that is, it doesn’t report on the existence of any new positive or negative tests — I spread the data evenly over any skipped days once it does report new tests. For instance, if Alabama doesn’t report any data on Sunday, and then reports the existence of 100 new tests on Monday, I assign half of those tests to Sunday and keep half of them on Monday.
negative tests — I spread the data evenly over any skipped days once it does report new tests. For instance, if Alabama doesn’t report any data on Sunday, and then reports the existence of 100 new tests on Monday, I assign half of those tests to Sunday and keep half of them on Monday. Second, because reporting on negative tests has become more comprehensive over time, I pick a date in each state when its reporting on negative tests first became “usable.” Usable is a low bar and the date varies wildly from state to state. A state’s reporting can still be erratic; that’s what the next step is designed to deal with. But to be usable, a state has to be making some effort at being comprehensive — for instance, by including data both from state-run laboratories and private labs among its negative tests counts. It’s challenging though to pinpoint when a state’s data is usable, and something that has to be done by hand.
Third, within the window where a state’s negative test data is usable, I apply a polynomial smoother to the negative-test data to iron out daily fluctuations in reporting. The smoother is set to a pretty conservative setting, as we’re mostly interested in getting a sense of the broad directionality of a state’s testing regime — that is, whether tests are increasing quickly, increasing slowly, stagnant, or even declining. Outside of a state’s usable window, we use data for states that did have reliable reporting to estimate how fast test volume was increasing or decreasing. For instance, if Utah’s data did not become usable until March 20, but we know that the average state with usable data was doing 50 percent more testing on March 20 than on March 10, we can use that to extrapolate how much testing Utah may have been doing on March 10.
Note that — other than the first step — we apply this process only to a state’s reporting on negative tests, since reporting on positive tests is usually more timely and reliable. The main issue with positive test reporting tends to be day-of-week effects: Some states tend to be better about reporting data on weekdays than on weekends. The simplest workaround for this is simply to look at one full week’s worth of data at a time, which is what we’ll do in the next section.
Where coronavirus cases are growing and shrinking
For each state, I’ve estimated the share of COVID-19 tests that produced positive results for the past five weeks — that is, for the seven-day periods ending on March 25, April 1, April 8, April 15 and April 22. All data, subject to the adjustments I described in the previous section, comes from The COVID Tracking Project.
Let’s start with the states where things are still getting worse, or at least are not getting better — places where the share of positive tests hit a new high as of April 22.
Where the coronavirus hasn’t yet peaked States where the estimated percentage of positive COVID-19 tests met or tied a new high in the period ending on April 22 Estimated share of positive tests for period ending: State March 25 April 1 April 8 April 15 April 22 Arizona 5% 7% 10% 10% 13% Arkansas 5 5 6 8 9 Colorado 11 20 23 24 25 Connecticut 11 25 35 35 39 D.C. 7 14 24 21 27 Delaware 3 7 16 17 22 Illinois 12 21 24 23 24 Iowa 3 8 10 13 23 Kansas 4 10 13 10 14 Kentucky 4 7 7 13 15 Maryland 4 11 20 24 24 Minnesota 3 4 5 7 10 Mississippi 5 7 7 9 9 Nebraska 2 5 8 9 18 New Mexico 2 3 6 7 7 North Carolina 3 6 9 8 10 North Dakota 1 3 3 3 8 Ohio 4 10 13 13 24 Virginia 6 12 17 19 22 Source: The Covid Tracking Project
Eighteen states and the District of Columbia made this list, which together are home to almost 95 million people. So if you hear something about how the situation is turning the corner in the U.S., that’s sort of a fiction. With so few people traveling, we’re really seeing a lot of statewide and local epidemics more than a national one, and some of those epidemics are still getting worse.
The states where cases are growing are somewhat varied, too — about evenly mixed between red states and blue states. They are mostly concentrated in the Midwest, although a series of Eastern Seaboard states — North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware — also make the list. Connecticut is also on the list, which is something of a surprise since the turnaround is clear in neighboring New York.
On a percentage basis, the biggest week-over-week increases have been in Midwestern states, though: specifically Iowa, Ohio, Nebraska and North Dakota. But these increases aren’t necessarily uniformly distributed throughout the general population. Ohio is having huge problems in its prisons, and meat-processing plants have been centers of outbreaks in states such as Iowa. These outbreaks go to show the limitations of social distancing. It doesn’t work for people who can’t afford to do it, which means that even in places that seem to be controlling the outbreak, there can still be huge numbers of cases among essential workers.
Next up, states that have — at best — tentatively turned the corner, or where the peak of positive test rates came in the week that ended April 15.
Where the coronavirus might be peaking States where the estimated percentage of positive COVID-19 tests peaked in the period ending on April 15 Estimated share of positive tests for period ending: State March 25 April 1 April 8 April 15 April 22 Alabama 6% 12% 12% 12% 8% Massachusetts 7 20 24 30 29 Missouri 3 8 12 12 11 Pennsylvania 5 15 25 25 24 Rhode Island 6 11 11 17 16 South Dakota 2 4 10 24 21 Source: The Covid Tracking Project
Other than perhaps Alabama, where the share of positive tests fell from 12 percent a week ago to 8 percent this week, all of these states have made at best tentative progress and are only a percentage point or two off their peak of positive tests rates.
So in other words, in about half the country — the 18 states in the previous table plus most of the ones in this table and a couple in the next table — new coronavirus cases are still at or near their peak, after accounting for changes in testing volume.
But there are some encouraging stories: There are 20 states where positive test rates peaked two weeks ago, on April 8.
Where the coronavirus may be past its peak States where the estimated percentage of positive COVID-19 tests peaked in the period ending on April 8 Estimated share of positive tests for period ending: State March 25 April 1 April 8 April 15 April 22 Alaska 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% Florida 4 10 13 10 8 Georgia 13 25 27 21 21 Hawaii 2 2 4 2 1 Idaho 3 12 15 7 10 Indiana 9 20 22 17 18 Louisiana 7 15 27 14 9 Michigan 22 24 29 28 22 Nevada 5 14 14 13 13 New Hampshire 4 11 13 12 12 New Jersey 19 46 55 53 54 New York 31 43 45 42 31 Oklahoma 2 6 7 6 4 Oregon 4 6 6 5 4 South Carolina 8 13 15 13 12 Texas 4 9 12 11 9 Utah 3 5 6 4 4 Vermont 7 8 9 5 2 West Virginia 2 4 5 4 3 Wisconsin 7 9 11 9 10 Source: The Covid Tracking Project
If you look at the data in more detail, though, it’s actually a bit of a mixed bag. Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Wisconsin are only tenuous members of this club; their rates of positive tests were nearly as high on April 22 as they were on April 8.
However, the decline in positive test rates has been more robust in New York, Louisiana and Michigan, all of which had very bad outbreaks before.
Florida and Georgia, controversial for their plans to reopen beaches and businesses, fall somewhere in between, with medium-sized decreases in positive test rates. Georgia has actually seen a continued increase in its raw number of positive tests, although it is doing more testing, so its share of positive tests has declined somewhat.
There are a number of Southern states on the declining list. Although the role that weather plays in the spread of COVID-19 is disputed, it’s worth noting that late March was fairly warm in states such as Louisiana, which could have been a factor in these states.
Finally, there are a few states where the estimated rate of positive tests peaked three weeks ago, in the period ending on April 1.
Where the coronavirus may have peaked three weeks ago States where the estimated percentage of positive COVID-19 tests peaked in the period ending on April 1 Estimated share of positive tests for period ending: State March 25 April 1 April 8 April 15 April 22 California 10% 13% 12% 6% 7% Maine 5 10 6 6 3 Montana 3 7 5 3 2 Tennessee 4 9 7 6 6 Washington 9 13 11 5 6 Wyoming 3 6 5 4 2 Source: The Covid Tracking Project
Most of these states are in the West — and in the case of Washington and California, states that enacted fairly aggressive social distancing measures earlier because the coronavirus hit them sooner than other parts of the U.S. Although, it’s hard to know exactly what is happening in California given how erratic its reporting on negative tests has been.
Remote, geographically isolated states such as Montana and Maine (plus Alaska and Hawaii from the previous list) may have some advantages in containing the spread of COVID-19., though. Namely, they may be rural enough that human interaction is slightly less common. They’re also low-population states that never had terribly bad outbreaks, which may make “contact tracing” possible, or the practice of finding and monitoring people exposed to the disease; this is easier to do when you have a finite number of cases.
Where the fight against COVID-19 stands
So, what to make of all of this — or at least, what to make of the states where the situation is not improving?
A week or two ago, we might have said just to give it more time since there’s a substantial lag between when people get infected and when their test shows up in the data. That lag is typically two or three weeks, though. Since most of the country began implementing social distancing measures in mid-to-late March, we should see the effects of it in the data by now.
And in fact, we do see those effects of social distancing. Cases are decreasing in about half the country. In places where the data suggests COVID-19 cases are still increasing, they tend not to be increasing all that fast — especially when you compare where we are now to the exponential rates of spread we saw initially in New York and Louisiana, which reflected the period before social distancing measures were in place. Of course, the catch here is the spread would likely accelerate again if restrictions were lifted.
Additionally, while these social distancing efforts are almost certainly flattening the curve, the somewhat lax American version of social distancing may not be enough to bend the curve all on its own. In epidemiological terms, bending the curve means getting R — the effective reproduction number — under 1, so that each person who acquires COVID-19 spreads it to less than one new person. If R is less than 1, a disease will begin to die out , but if it’s above 1, the disease will keep spreading. And if R is near 1, the curve will flatten into a long plateau but not turn downward, which may be the case in some states.
We must also consider the role of the essential workforce, since it doesn’t get the full benefits of social distancing like some of us do. If R is 0.6 among white-collar workers who can work from home, but 1.2 among U.S. Postal Service drivers, 1.7 among factory workers, 3.0 among nurses in hospitals and 4.6 among prison guards, the disease may continue to spread, but with that spread being concentrated among certain occupations and populations. Not that there is necessarily a better way around this, but carving out large categories of essential workers can make it hard for a community as whole to get its R below 1.
Indeed, the states where COVID-19 cases are decreasing often have some other helpful factors in addition to social distancing. As I mentioned, geographically isolated states seem to be doing better, as do warm-weather states. Because the outbreaks were so bad in New York and Louisiana, they may be benefiting from some degree of herd immunity; enough people had COVID-19 there that it may be harder to spread it, assuming that they are immune. (Immunity is a complicated subject, but it’s likely that most people are immune for some period of time.) . These factors aren’t necessarily enormously important; warm weather is highly unlikely to be a cure-all, for instance. But something that’s enough to tip R from being just above 1 to just below 1 — say, from 1.15 to 0.85 — will have fairly noticeable effects over the course of a few weeks.
In short, the United States desperately needs to work on techniques in addition to social distancing to fight the spread, including better testing, case-tracking, quarantining of sick individuals, and better sanitation and hygiene. Social distancing has likely been very helpful to slow the spread and, in many states, even reverse it. But if it’s the only tool we’re employing — and it’s a costly tool to wield — it may only be enough to allow us to fight the coronavirus to a draw.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-23--How One Modeler Is Trying To Forecast The Toll Of COVID-19

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke and Nate Silver speak with Dr. Chris Murray , @ @ @ @ @ Health Metrics and Evaluation ’ s COVID-19 projections .

How One Modeler Is Trying To Forecast The Toll Of COVID-19
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke and Nate Silver speak with Dr. Chris Murray, who created the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation’s COVID-19 projections.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-23--Do Most Republicans Agree With People Protesting Stay-At-Home Orders?

Rank-and-file Republicans voters are still generally supportive of social distancing and other measures to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus , even after conservative protesters in several states , some conservatives elites and President Trump have denounced virus-related restrictions .
Polls over the past month found that Republicans were less supportive of such measures than Democrats , but they were still in favor overall .
For most of that period , though , there wasn ’ t really a vocal movement arguing against social distancing .
That changed toward the end of last week , particularly with the protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of media coverage .
In the wake of the protests and Trump ’ s support of them , I had expected conservative and Republican voters to become more opposed to social distancing since voters often take cues from party leaders and elites .
But they haven ’ t so far .
A plurality of rank-and-file Republicans don ’ t agree with the protesters .
Forty-seven percent of Republicans oppose the protesters who are criticizing social distancing , compared with 36 percent who support them , according to a Yahoo/YouGov survey conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were more supportive of the governor of their state or more supportive of the protesters in terms of stay-at-home orders , 62 percent of Republicans said they supported their governor more , compared with 26 percent who aligned with the protesters , per polling conducted Saturday through Monday by the left-leaning survey research firm Navigator Research .
To date at least , the protesters do not represent a majority view in the Republican Party , let alone the country as a whole .
You can also see this when you look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , protests aside .
For instance … In a HuffPost/YouGov survey conducted Friday through Sunday , only 25 percent of Republicans said there were too many coronavirus-related restrictions in the area where they live , while 52 percent said there were “ about the right number ” of restrictions .
For comparison , just 6 percent of Democrats said there were too many restrictions , 60 percent said the current number of restrictions was appropriate , and 29 percent said there were not enough restrictions .
Similarly , the Navigator Research polling found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we are currently doing the right thing when it comes to social distancing , ” compared with 24 percent who favor more aggressive social distancing and just 21 percent who want fewer restrictions .
When asked about shelter-in-place orders , only 32 percent of Republicans thought “ the cure is worse than the disease , ” according to the Yahoo/YouGov survey .
This compares with 68 percent who think that implementing those orders is the only way to stop the spread of the virus .
And finally , a Monmouth University poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Sunday found that at least 80 percent of Republicans in the state support limiting restaurants to take-out and delivery orders only , banning large gatherings and closing gyms , libraries , child care centers and schools amid the virus outbreak .
In short , survey research has consistently shown that most Republicans support social distancing right now .
However … Republicans are more divided over how long social distancing should last and its potential effect on the economy .
When asked in the HuffPost/YouGov survey whether they were more concerned that states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not quickly enough , 46 percent of Republicans said too quickly compared with 42 percent who said not quickly enough .
Per the Navigator poll , Republicans are also about equally divided between two camps : those most worried that coronavirus restrictions will last too long “ and cause unnecessary damage to the economy and Americans ’ livelihoods ” ( 40 percent ) and those most worried that “ social distancing will end too soon and prolong the epidemic ” ( 45 percent ) .
Similarly , according to the Yahoo/YouGov survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. should “ reopen ” when “ public health officials are fully able to test and trace new cases and outbreaks , ” while 49 percent favor reopening “ as soon as possible to prevent further economic damage.
” So when the issue is put explicitly into an economic context and people are asked to project into the future , GOP support for the current restrictions drops — but only to a point where the issue divides the party pretty evenly .
All this could change .
It ’ s worth noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trending toward disapproving of social distancing , perhaps motivated by party elites .
An Ipsos-Reuters survey conducted April 15-21 found that 55 percent of Republicans supported stay-at-home orders compared with 45 percent who said those orders should be lifted to get the economy going again .
But the share of Republicans who want the orders lifted has increased substantially from the previous Ipsos-Reuters poll , conducted March 30-31 , when only 24 percent of Republicans favored lifting them .
We could , in other words , see Republican views aligning more closely with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backing the protests .
Why , then , aren ’ t those voters already taking cues from them ?
The simplest ( and probably best ) explanation is that rank-and-file Republicans support social distancing on its merits — in this case taking the view of public health experts over voices they usually align with politically .
But it ’ s also worth noting that ending social distancing and other measures intended to stop the spread of COVID-19 is a position that conservative elites are not unified around .
For example , Sen. Lindsey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has expressed wariness about lifting coronavirus-related restrictions too soon .
Even the White House has been sending mixed messages .
Trump has been sympathetic toward the anti-social-distancing protesters , but he has not made a full-throated case against coronavirus-related restrictions .
( In fact , on Wednesday night , Trump criticized Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp for not keeping some restrictions in place , surprising some , including the governor and his staff . )
And Trump has allowed figures in his administration , most notably Anthony Fauci , the director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diseases , to continue to strongly advocate for social distancing measures .
So even if Republican voters were taking cues from conservative leaders , those cues aren ’ t pointing all in one direction — at least right now .
That said , Trump and the GOP activists wary of social distancing likely created the impression of deep conservative discontent with aggressive measures to stop the spread of the coronavirus .
And that impression — and the party ’ s loyalty to Trump and business owners — may spur more conservative politicians to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least advocate for doing so .
The states that are already moving most quickly to end virus-related restrictions — over the objections of some local officials — are mostly Republican-led .
Attorney General William Barr is hinting at filing lawsuits against states with restrictions that he views as too strict .
So rank-and-file Republicans haven ’ t yet been moved en masse to oppose social distancing — but anti-social-distancing conservatives may be getting what they want even if most Republicans don ’ t support those goals .
And GOP voters may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if cues from party elites start to point more universally in that direction .

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

Rank-and-file Republican voters are still generally supportive of social distancing and other measures to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus, even after conservative protesters in several states, some conservatives elites and President Trump have denounced virus-related restrictions.
Polls over the past month found that Republicans were less supportive of such measures than Democrats, but they were still in favor overall. For most of that period, though, there wasn’t really a vocal movement arguing against social distancing. That changed toward the end of last week, particularly with the protests, which were fairly small but got a lot of media coverage. In the wake of the protests and Trump’s support of them, I had expected conservative and Republican voters to become more opposed to social distancing since voters often take cues from party leaders and elites.
But they haven’t so far.
A plurality of rank-and-file Republicans don’t agree with the protesters.
Forty-seven percent of Republicans oppose the protesters who are criticizing social distancing, compared with 36 percent who support them, according to a Yahoo/YouGov survey conducted Friday through Sunday. When asked whether they were more supportive of the governor of their state or more supportive of the protesters in terms of stay-at-home orders, 62 percent of Republicans said they supported their governor more, compared with 26 percent who aligned with the protesters, per polling conducted Saturday through Monday by the left-leaning survey research firm Navigator Research. To date at least, the protesters do not represent a majority view in the Republican Party, let alone the country as a whole. You can also see this when you look at polling data on the issues under debate, protests aside. For instance …
Republicans still favor social distancing.
In a HuffPost/YouGov survey conducted Friday through Sunday, only 25 percent of Republicans said there were too many coronavirus-related restrictions in the area where they live, while 52 percent said there were “about the right number” of restrictions. For comparison, just 6 percent of Democrats said there were too many restrictions, 60 percent said the current number of restrictions was appropriate, and 29 percent said there were not enough restrictions.
Similarly, the Navigator Research polling found that 51 percent of Republicans agreed that “we are currently doing the right thing when it comes to social distancing,” compared with 24 percent who favor more aggressive social distancing and just 21 percent who want fewer restrictions.
When asked about shelter-in-place orders, only 32 percent of Republicans thought “the cure is worse than the disease,” according to the Yahoo/YouGov survey. This compares with 68 percent who think that implementing those orders is the only way to stop the spread of the virus.
And finally, a Monmouth University poll of New Jersey residents conducted last Thursday through Sunday found that at least 80 percent of Republicans in the state support limiting restaurants to take-out and delivery orders only, banning large gatherings and closing gyms, libraries, child care centers and schools amid the virus outbreak.
In short, survey research has consistently shown that most Republicans support social distancing right now. However …
Republicans are more divided over how long social distancing should last and its potential effect on the economy.
When asked in the HuffPost/YouGov survey whether they were more concerned that states would lift the stay-at-home orders too quickly or not quickly enough, 46 percent of Republicans said too quickly compared with 42 percent who said not quickly enough.
Per the Navigator poll, Republicans are also about equally divided between two camps: those most worried that coronavirus restrictions will last too long “and cause unnecessary damage to the economy and Americans’ livelihoods” (40 percent) and those most worried that “social distancing will end too soon and prolong the epidemic” (45 percent). Similarly, according to the Yahoo/YouGov survey, 51 percent of Republicans think the U.S. should “reopen” when “public health officials are fully able to test and trace new cases and outbreaks,” while 49 percent favor reopening “as soon as possible to prevent further economic damage.”
So when the issue is put explicitly into an economic context and people are asked to project into the future, GOP support for the current restrictions drops — but only to a point where the issue divides the party pretty evenly.
All this could change.
It’s worth noting that at least one survey suggests Republicans are trending toward disapproving of social distancing, perhaps motivated by party elites. An Ipsos-Reuters survey conducted April 15-21 found that 55 percent of Republicans supported stay-at-home orders compared with 45 percent who said those orders should be lifted to get the economy going again. But the share of Republicans who want the orders lifted has increased substantially from the previous Ipsos-Reuters poll, conducted March 30-31, when only 24 percent of Republicans favored lifting them.
We could, in other words, see Republican views aligning more closely with those of Trump and the conservative voices backing the protests. Why, then, aren’t those voters already taking cues from them? The simplest (and probably best) explanation is that rank-and-file Republicans support social distancing on its merits — in this case taking the view of public health experts over voices they usually align with politically. But it’s also worth noting that ending social distancing and other measures intended to stop the spread of COVID-19 is a position that conservative elites are not unified around. For example, Sen. Lindsey Graham, normally a stalwart Trump ally, has expressed wariness about lifting coronavirus-related restrictions too soon.
Even the White House has been sending mixed messages. Trump has been sympathetic toward the anti-social-distancing protesters, but he has not made a full-throated case against coronavirus-related restrictions. (In fact, on Wednesday night, Trump criticized Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp for not keeping some restrictions in place, surprising some, including the governor and his staff.) And Trump has allowed figures in his administration, most notably Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to continue to strongly advocate for social distancing measures.
So even if Republican voters were taking cues from conservative leaders, those cues aren’t pointing all in one direction — at least right now.
That said, Trump and the GOP activists wary of social distancing likely created the impression of deep conservative discontent with aggressive measures to stop the spread of the coronavirus. And that impression — and the party’s loyalty to Trump and business owners — may spur more conservative politicians to take steps to end social distancing, or at least advocate for doing so. The states that are already moving most quickly to end virus-related restrictions — over the objections of some local officials — are mostly Republican-led. Attorney General William Barr is hinting at filing lawsuits against states with restrictions that he views as too strict. So rank-and-file Republicans haven’t yet been moved en masse to oppose social distancing — but anti-social-distancing conservatives may be getting what they want even if most Republicans don’t support those goals. And GOP voters may move more firmly against social distancing measures if cues from party elites start to point more universally in that direction.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Forecasting the toll of COVID-19


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-24--The Coronavirus Means The 2020 Primary Season Will End Later Than Ever

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president , but the 2020 primary season is only getting longer — because the public-health threat posed by the new coronavirus keeps delaying primary elections .
A grand total of 17 presidential primaries have now been postponed on account of the pandemic .
Since our last dispatch on this topic , four more states have been added to the ranks : Pennsylvania , New York , West Virginia and New Jersey .
In addition , five places that had already postponed their primaries rescheduled a second time : Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Connecticut .
All these moves have left us with a presidential primary calendar that is extremely backloaded .
Since March 17 — the last big competitive primary day and the first that really ran up against the coronavirus scare — only three states have wrapped up their presidential primaries .
By contrast , nine contests are now slated for June 2 , which has become a sort of unexpected mini Super Tuesday .
And five primaries are now taking place after June 9 , which was originally the last day for states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given the circumstances , it wouldn ’ t be surprising if the Democratic National Committee decides to go easy on them , but some of these primaries are really late .
Connecticut ’ s , for example , is now scheduled for Aug. 11 , which is just a week before the Democratic National Convention ( which was itself rescheduled ) .
And according to presidential primaries expert and FiveThirtyEight contributor Josh Putnam , that would be the latest contest ever in the modern era of presidential primaries .
On the one hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether these elections even need to still happen .
Sen. Bernie Sanders has suspended his campaign , and Biden is for all intents and purposes the Democratic nominee .
But one reason the primaries are still needed is delegates — Biden technically isn ’ t the nominee until a majority of delegates vote to make him one at the Democratic convention , and primaries decide who those delegates will be .
That said , some states , such as Connecticut and New York , do allow presidential primaries to be canceled if there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to Putnam , if everyone except Biden withdraws from those primaries , he would simply get all their delegates .
However , the actual elections would still have to go on because … Another reason is that the presidential race isn ’ t the only thing on many states ’ primary ballots .
Indeed , the coronavirus has also forced 15 states to postpone their down-ballot primary or runoff elections as well , many of which were happening the same day as the presidential primary .
The most recent states to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Idaho , plus four states that hold their presidential and down-ballot primaries concurrently ( Pennsylvania , West Virginia , New Jersey and Georgia ) .
As for the primaries that are still happening in the next several weeks , most are taking a different form .
In general , states are moving away from in-person voting and embracing mail voting , but the coronavirus has revealed just how many versions of a “ predominantly mail election ” there can be .
For example , the Maryland and Montana primaries on June 2 have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional ” sense — i.e.
, all registered voters will be mailed a ballot , but in-person voting options will still be available for those who need them .
Reportedly , New York plans to do the same , but so far the only change made to its June 23 primary is that voters can use the coronavirus as an excuse to request an absentee ballot .
Meanwhile , in Kansas ’ s presidential primary and Utah ’ s down-ballot primary , voters were already being mailed a ballot by default , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least 11 other jurisdictions are stopping short of mailing voters a ballot , but are mailing them an absentee-ballot application .
Of these , Idaho is not offering any in-person voting options , and many counties in North Dakota are closing in-person voting sites as well .
The District of Columbia and Rhode Island aren ’ t eliminating in-person voting , but they are consolidating voting sites , and at least some counties in Iowa will also have reduced polling places .
Connecticut , Georgia , Nebraska , New Mexico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least for now — slated to operate polling places as usual .
Perhaps the most novel setup is in Ohio , the very next primary on the calendar ( voting there ends on Tuesday ) .
The election will be conducted almost entirely by mail , but the state isn ’ t doing much to assist voters — all they will receive is a postcard with instructions on how to request an absentee ballot .
Nor will most voters have the option to vote in person ; only voters with disabilities or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a voting center on April 28 .
No other state has done so little to help voters get their hands on a ballot , so it will be interesting to see what turnout is like in Ohio compared with other states conducting elections under the same conditions .

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, but the 2020 primary season is only getting longer — because the public-health threat posed by the new coronavirus keeps delaying primary elections. A grand total of 17 presidential primaries have now been postponed on account of the pandemic.
Since our last dispatch on this topic, four more states have been added to the ranks: Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and New Jersey. In addition, five places that had already postponed their primaries rescheduled a second time: Ohio, Puerto Rico, Georgia, Louisiana and Connecticut. All these moves have left us with a presidential primary calendar that is extremely backloaded.
Since March 17 — the last big competitive primary day and the first that really ran up against the coronavirus scare — only three states have wrapped up their presidential primaries. By contrast, nine contests are now slated for June 2, which has become a sort of unexpected mini Super Tuesday. And five primaries are now taking place after June 9, which was originally the last day for states to hold their primaries without penalty.
Given the circumstances, it wouldn’t be surprising if the Democratic National Committee decides to go easy on them, but some of these primaries are really late. Connecticut’s, for example, is now scheduled for Aug. 11, which is just a week before the Democratic National Convention (which was itself rescheduled). And according to presidential primaries expert and FiveThirtyEight contributor Josh Putnam, that would be the latest contest ever in the modern era of presidential primaries.
On the one hand, it’s fair to wonder whether these elections even need to still happen. Sen. Bernie Sanders has suspended his campaign, and Biden is for all intents and purposes the Democratic nominee. But one reason the primaries are still needed is delegates — Biden technically isn’t the nominee until a majority of delegates vote to make him one at the Democratic convention, and primaries decide who those delegates will be. That said, some states, such as Connecticut and New York, do allow presidential primaries to be canceled if there is only one candidate on the ballot. According to Putnam, if everyone except Biden withdraws from those primaries, he would simply get all their delegates. However, the actual elections would still have to go on because …
Another reason is that the presidential race isn’t the only thing on many states’ primary ballots. Indeed, the coronavirus has also forced 15 states to postpone their down-ballot primary or runoff elections as well, many of which were happening the same day as the presidential primary. The most recent states to do so are Virginia, Maine and Idaho, plus four states that hold their presidential and down-ballot primaries concurrently (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Jersey and Georgia).
As for the primaries that are still happening in the next several weeks, most are taking a different form. In general, states are moving away from in-person voting and embracing mail voting, but the coronavirus has revealed just how many versions of a “predominantly mail election” there can be. For example, the Maryland and Montana primaries on June 2 have switched to vote-by-mail elections in the “traditional” sense — i.e., all registered voters will be mailed a ballot, but in-person voting options will still be available for those who need them. Reportedly, New York plans to do the same, but so far the only change made to its June 23 primary is that voters can use the coronavirus as an excuse to request an absentee ballot. Meanwhile, in Kansas’s presidential primary and Utah’s down-ballot primary, voters were already being mailed a ballot by default, but normal polling places will now be closed.
At least 11 other jurisdictions are stopping short of mailing voters a ballot, but are mailing them an absentee-ballot application. Of these, Idaho is not offering any in-person voting options, and many counties in North Dakota are closing in-person voting sites as well. The District of Columbia and Rhode Island aren’t eliminating in-person voting, but they are consolidating voting sites, and at least some counties in Iowa will also have reduced polling places. Connecticut, Georgia, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota and West Virginia are — at least for now — slated to operate polling places as usual.
Perhaps the most novel setup is in Ohio, the very next primary on the calendar (voting there ends on Tuesday). The election will be conducted almost entirely by mail, but the state isn’t doing much to assist voters — all they will receive is a postcard with instructions on how to request an absentee ballot. Nor will most voters have the option to vote in person; only voters with disabilities or without mailing addresses will be allowed at a voting center on April 28. No other state has done so little to help voters get their hands on a ballot, so it will be interesting to see what turnout is like in Ohio compared with other states conducting elections under the same conditions.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-24--Americans Are Largely Unimpressed With Trump’s Handling Of The Coronavirus Pandemic

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
The coronavirus continues to affect daily life , keeping many Americans at home and away from work , restaurants and other businesses .
Naturally , pollsters are very focused on how Americans are responding to all of this , so here ’ s a look at the latest surveys .
First , in perhaps troubling news for President Trump , since last week there ’ s been a slight uptick in the number of Americans who disapprove of how he ’ s handling the crisis , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the recent polls asking how Trump is managing the crisis , Yahoo News/YouGov found that 49 percent disapproved of his response while 45 percent approved .
But it also found that 65 percent of Americans thought Trump could have reduced the virus ’ s impact “ a lot ” or “ somewhat ” had he acted sooner .
Morning Consult ’ s latest survey also gave Trump mixed reviews — 48 percent approved and 46 percent disapproved of how he ’ s handling the pandemic .
The poll also found that just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government was doing “ too much ” in response to the coronavirus , while 45 percent said it wasn ’ t doing enough and 40 percent said it was doing “ the right amount.
” And finally , a CBS News poll also found Trump ’ s ratings slightly underwater , with 52 percent saying he was doing a bad job handling the outbreak versus 48 percent who said he was doing a good job .
Additionally , 57 percent said the country ’ s dealings with the health crisis were “ going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battleground states also gave Trump mediocre marks for his handling of COVID-19 .
In Florida , Quinnipiac University showed that 51 percent disapproved of his response compared with 46 percent who approved , and a Pennsylvania survey by Fox News found similar numbers , 51 percent disapproved and 44 percent approved .
Two Michigan polls gave Trump almost identical marks there , too : Glengariff Group found 50 percent disapproved and 44 percent approved while Fox News found 50 percent disapproved and 45 percent approved .
And in Arizona , OH Predictive Insights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of the crisis while 46 percent approved .
On the other hand , state and local governments have received high marks for their decision-making regarding the coronavirus .
Morning Consult ’ s poll found that 73 percent of Americans approved of how their state governments are handling the crisis compared to just 21 percent who disapproved , and 75 percent approved of their local government ’ s response .
And Civis found that 80 percent or more supported policies enacted by state governments to slow the spread of the coronavirus , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on dining in restaurants .
But there ’ s real concern about a resurgence of COVID-19 cases .
The Yahoo News/YouGov survey found that 71 percent of Americans are more concerned about lifting restrictions too quickly than too slowly , and an identical share said they want public officials to be capable of mass testing before lifting restrictions on normal activities .
Similarly , 63 percent told CBS News they are more worried about reopening too fast and causing the outbreak to worsen than reopening too slowly and hurting the economy .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans are largely content with staying at home to limit the outbreak : Reuters/Ipsos found that 72 percent said people should stay at home until health officials say it ’ s safe , while an AP-NORC survey suggested that most are fine with the restrictions in their area — 61 percent said they were about right and 26 percent said they didn ’ t go far enough .
The country also seems ready for such policies to remain in effect for a while longer , as Elucd ’ s tracker found that 65 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two more months .
However , one major concern with the stay-at-home orders and business closures continues to be the huge economic fallout from the coronavirus , especially now that more than 26 million Americans have lost their jobs .
Overall , 87 percent of Americans are very or somewhat worried about the coronavirus ’ s effect on the economy , according to our tracker , which is largely unchanged from last week .
In a Pew Research Center survey , 43 percent of Americans said that they or someone in their household @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay cut because of the pandemic .
The survey found lower-income adults were particularly hard hit : Only 23 percent said they had enough money to cover their expenses for three months if they lost their job or became sick .
Forty-eight percent of middle-income earners and 75 percent of high-income individuals said the same .
There was also a racial disparity : 53 percent of white respondents said they had enough to last three months compared to 27 percent of black respondents and 29 percent of Latino respondents .
And as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ’ s stimulus checks may be insufficient for many Americans — 74 percent said either they had already spent the money or it would only last them four weeks or less .
Americans remain more anxious about the economy than their health , but large numbers also continue to worry about personally catching the virus or someone close to them getting infected .
About 7 in 10 Americans are somewhat or very worried about this , according to our tracker , which is a slight decrease from about 10 days ago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same .
• With the coronavirus threat hanging over the November general election , an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found that 58 percent of Americans were in favor of changing election laws to allow all voters to cast ballots by mail , while another 9 percent opposed a permanent change but said they backed voting by mail if it was allowed just for this November ’ s election .
Twenty-nine percent opposed changing laws to allow everyone to vote by mail under any circumstance .
There was an ample partisan gap , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of expanding vote-by-mail in 2020 , compared to just 44 percent of Republicans ( 69 percent of independents also supported increased access ) .
• Forty-one percent of Democrats said in a recent Pew Research Center survey that they were bothered by the fact that a white man in his 70s will be their presidential nominee , while 59 percent said it didn ’ t bother them .
The survey found no difference in how men and women responded , but it did find a difference in responses across race , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were bothered by this , compared with 30 percent and 28 percent of Latino and black Democrats , respectively .
That may come as a surprise , given the diversity of the Democratic base , but perhaps it ’ s not totally unexpected , given how far to the left white liberals have moved on issues of race and discrimination in recent years .
• A new survey from Morning Consult found that former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s favorability among Democratic primary voters went up after he received endorsements from former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — two former primary foes .
His overall favorability among Democratic primary voters ticked up to 78 percent for the week ending on April 19 , 2 points higher than it was the week before .
Notably , his favorability shot up among younger Democrats , including a 5-point increase among 18-to-29 year olds and a 3-point increase among 30-to-44 year olds .
• A number of governors have gotten rave reviews for managing their states during the ongoing crisis , but New Hampshire Gov .
Chris Sununu may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the University of New Hampshire found that 89 percent of New Hampshirites approve of how he ’ s handling the coronavirus situation .
• Half of Americans said they found staying at home at least somewhat stressful , according to a HuffPost/YouGov survey that looked at how people are coping with remaining indoors .
But 67 percent of people who described themselves as generally “ anxious ” said they were stressed out , compared to just 39 percent of people who said they were by nature more “ calm.
” • With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gallup found that there ’ s been a rise in the use of services , like food delivery , curbside pickup and virtual doctor visits .
For example , 14 percent of respondents said they ’ d used a grocery delivery service more often during the coronavirus situation than they used to compared to 8 percent who said so in late March , and 28 percent said they ’ d used curbside pickup more often versus just 16 percent late last month .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job Trump is doing as president , while 52.6 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -9.2 points ) .
At this time last week , 44.2 percent approved and 51.7 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -7.5 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 43.7 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.6 percent , for a net approval rating of -7.9 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 7.6 percentage points ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 7.8 points ( 48.6 percent to 40.8 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 7.4 points ( 48.8 percent to 41.4 percent ) .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
The coronavirus continues to affect daily life, keeping many Americans at home and away from work, restaurants and other businesses. Naturally, pollsters are very focused on how Americans are responding to all of this, so here’s a look at the latest surveys.
First, in perhaps troubling news for President Trump, since last week there’s been a slight uptick in the number of Americans who disapprove of how he’s handling the crisis, according to FiveThirtyEight’s tracker of coronavirus polling.
In one of the recent polls asking how Trump is managing the crisis, Yahoo News/YouGov found that 49 percent disapproved of his response while 45 percent approved. But it also found that 65 percent of Americans thought Trump could have reduced the virus’s impact “a lot” or “somewhat” had he acted sooner. Morning Consult’s latest survey also gave Trump mixed reviews — 48 percent approved and 46 percent disapproved of how he’s handling the pandemic. The poll also found that just 7 percent of Americans felt the federal government was doing “too much” in response to the coronavirus, while 45 percent said it wasn’t doing enough and 40 percent said it was doing “the right amount.” And finally, a CBS News poll also found Trump’s ratings slightly underwater, with 52 percent saying he was doing a bad job handling the outbreak versus 48 percent who said he was doing a good job. Additionally, 57 percent said the country’s dealings with the health crisis were “going badly.”
Five new polls in four battleground states also gave Trump mediocre marks for his handling of COVID-19. In Florida, Quinnipiac University showed that 51 percent disapproved of his response compared with 46 percent who approved, and a Pennsylvania survey by Fox News found similar numbers, 51 percent disapproved and 44 percent approved. Two Michigan polls gave Trump almost identical marks there, too: Glengariff Group found 50 percent disapproved and 44 percent approved while Fox News found 50 percent disapproved and 45 percent approved. And in Arizona, OH Predictive Insights found that 50 percent disapproved of his handling of the crisis while 46 percent approved.
On the other hand, state and local governments have received high marks for their decision-making regarding the coronavirus. Morning Consult’s poll found that 73 percent of Americans approved of how their state governments are handling the crisis compared to just 21 percent who disapproved, and 75 percent approved of their local government’s response. And Civis found that 80 percent or more supported policies enacted by state governments to slow the spread of the coronavirus, like orders to shelter in place and restrictions on dining in restaurants.
But there’s real concern about a resurgence of COVID-19 cases. The Yahoo News/YouGov survey found that 71 percent of Americans are more concerned about lifting restrictions too quickly than too slowly, and an identical share said they want public officials to be capable of mass testing before lifting restrictions on normal activities. Similarly, 63 percent told CBS News they are more worried about reopening too fast and causing the outbreak to worsen than reopening too slowly and hurting the economy. Those results align with other surveys that found Americans are largely content with staying at home to limit the outbreak: Reuters/Ipsos found that 72 percent said people should stay at home until health officials say it’s safe, while an AP-NORC survey suggested that most are fine with the restrictions in their area — 61 percent said they were about right and 26 percent said they didn’t go far enough. The country also seems ready for such policies to remain in effect for a while longer, as Elucd’s tracker found that 65 percent expect disruptions to last at least two more months.
However, one major concern with the stay-at-home orders and business closures continues to be the huge economic fallout from the coronavirus, especially now that more than 26 million Americans have lost their jobs. Overall, 87 percent of Americans are very or somewhat worried about the coronavirus’s effect on the economy, according to our tracker, which is largely unchanged from last week.
In a Pew Research Center survey, 43 percent of Americans said that they or someone in their household had lost a job or taken a pay cut because of the pandemic. The survey found lower-income adults were particularly hard hit: Only 23 percent said they had enough money to cover their expenses for three months if they lost their job or became sick. Forty-eight percent of middle-income earners and 75 percent of high-income individuals said the same. There was also a racial disparity: 53 percent of white respondents said they had enough to last three months compared to 27 percent of black respondents and 29 percent of Latino respondents. And as a Money/Morning Consult survey found, the federal government’s stimulus checks may be insufficient for many Americans — 74 percent said either they had already spent the money or it would only last them four weeks or less.
Americans remain more anxious about the economy than their health, but large numbers also continue to worry about personally catching the virus or someone close to them getting infected. About 7 in 10 Americans are somewhat or very worried about this, according to our tracker, which is a slight decrease from about 10 days ago, when 3 in 4 Americans said the same.
Other polling bites
With the coronavirus threat hanging over the November general election, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found that 58 percent of Americans were in favor of changing election laws to allow all voters to cast ballots by mail, while another 9 percent opposed a permanent change but said they backed voting by mail if it was allowed just for this November’s election. Twenty-nine percent opposed changing laws to allow everyone to vote by mail under any circumstance. There was an ample partisan gap, as 88 percent of Democrats backed some version of expanding vote-by-mail in 2020, compared to just 44 percent of Republicans (69 percent of independents also supported increased access).
Forty-one percent of Democrats said in a recent Pew Research Center survey that they were bothered by the fact that a white man in his 70s will be their presidential nominee, while 59 percent said it didn’t bother them. The survey found no difference in how men and women responded, but it did find a difference in responses across race, as 49 percent of white Democrats said they were bothered by this, compared with 30 percent and 28 percent of Latino and black Democrats, respectively. That may come as a surprise, given the diversity of the Democratic base, but perhaps it’s not totally unexpected, given how far to the left white liberals have moved on issues of race and discrimination in recent years.
A new survey from Morning Consult found that former Vice President Joe Biden’s favorability among Democratic primary voters went up after he received endorsements from former President Barack Obama and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — two former primary foes. His overall favorability among Democratic primary voters ticked up to 78 percent for the week ending on April 19, 2 points higher than it was the week before. Notably, his favorability shot up among younger Democrats, including a 5-point increase among 18-to-29 year olds and a 3-point increase among 30-to-44 year olds.
A number of governors have gotten rave reviews for managing their states during the ongoing crisis, but New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu may have topped them all. A survey from the University of New Hampshire found that 89 percent of New Hampshirites approve of how he’s handling the coronavirus situation.
Half of Americans said they found staying at home at least somewhat stressful, according to a HuffPost/YouGov survey that looked at how people are coping with remaining indoors. But 67 percent of people who described themselves as generally “anxious” said they were stressed out, compared to just 39 percent of people who said they were by nature more “calm.”
With so many people trying to social distance, Gallup found that there’s been a rise in the use of services, like food delivery, curbside pickup and virtual doctor visits. For example, 14 percent of respondents said they’d used a grocery delivery service more often during the coronavirus situation than they used to compared to 8 percent who said so in late March, and 28 percent said they’d used curbside pickup more often versus just 16 percent late last month.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.4 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.6 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -9.2 points). At this time last week, 44.2 percent approved and 51.7 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -7.5 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 43.7 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.6 percent, for a net approval rating of -7.9 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.6 percentage points (48.1 percent to 40.5 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.8 points (48.6 percent to 40.8 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.4 points (48.8 percent to 41.4 percent).


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-24--Should We Sacrifice Our Data Privacy To Fight The Coronavirus?

Senior writer Neil Paine looks into how personal data is being used to fight COVID-19 and explores when such measures @ @ @ @

Should We Sacrifice Our Data Privacy To Fight The Coronavirus?
Senior writer Neil Paine looks into how personal data is being used to fight COVID-19 and explores when such measures become too invasive.
Read more from Neil Paine.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-24--Sanders Could Lose A Third Of His Delegates, Making For A Messy Convention

Primary season began back on Feb. 3 in Iowa with a competitive , multicandidate race for the Democratic presidential nomination , and some reasonable chance that the process would end with tense delegate counting at the national convention in Milwaukee .
However , after a string of primary losses in March and April , Sen. Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign and former Vice President Joe Biden is now the presumptive Democratic nominee .
But that doesn ’ t mean that delegate counting is over .
There are still 24 delayed and reconfigured contests with a combined 1,555 delegates at stake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,293 delegates and is very likely to exceed the 1,991 pledged delegates necessary to clinch the nomination .
But just how many delegates Sanders can rack up matters , because that will impact the concessions he and his campaign can win from Biden and the Democratic National Committee .
Any leverage Sanders has in that back and forth with Biden and the DNC hinges on three main factors .
And two could work against the Vermont senator in any talks with the Biden team .
First , Sanders stands to lose a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to the DNC ’ s 2020 delegate selection rules , any candidate who is no longer running loses the statewide delegates they have won and those delegates are then reallocated to candidates still in the race .
( That has not necessarily been how the DNC has interpreted this rule previously , but it is how the DNC has signaled that it will use it in 2020 . )
Second , if Sanders fails to clear the 25 percent delegate threshold required to secure representatives on convention committees , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the official DNC platform .
I ’ ve written previously for FiveThirtyEight about delegate reallocation and what that looked like after the race became a one-on-one contest between Biden and Sanders ( a bit of a wash , with Biden picking up 23 statewide delegates and Sanders 25 from the early and Super Tuesday states ) .
But now that Sanders has suspended his campaign , the delegates he won prior to dropping out will be reallocated , meaning he could lose more than a third of his delegates — 365 statewide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without those statewide delegates , it would be nearly impossible for Sanders to clear the 25 percent delegate threshold needed to secure a spot on convention committees .
Why does a seat at the table on these committees matter ?
Well , the answer circles back to the concessions that Sanders , his campaign and his supporters would like to extract from the DNC and Biden .
Making up 25 percent or more of the delegates on the various convention committees means that the Sanders contingent at the convention would have a seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have 20 percent of all pledged delegates , but 25 percent is within his reach should he continue to clear the 15 percent threshold to qualify for delegates in the remaining contests .
And if Alaska is any indication , then Sanders will be in decent shape to get there .
Biden took eight delegates in the Last Frontier to Sanders ’ s seven .
But that effort takes a hit if the Vermont senator loses more than a third of the delegates he has won to date .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledged delegates .
Here ’ s the thing , though : The delegate math may not actually matter all that much .
The Biden campaign seems keen to avoid the mistakes of 2016 .
They have already moved toward Sanders ’ s position on a number of issues , like expanding Medicare and student loan forgiveness programs , and have even floated letting Sanders keep his statewide delegates , rather than have them reallocated to Biden .
Party unity — or at least the appearance of it — is at a premium for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
It ’ s this third factor that Sanders ’ s leverage hinges on , and arguably , it ’ s the one that could work best to his advantage .
It is still a delicate dance for Sanders , though , as the rules as they currently stand could cost him .
Treated like the other candidates who won delegates but then withdrew , Sanders would lose a seat at the table , so the next move is Biden ’ s .

Primary season began back on Feb. 3 in Iowa with a competitive, multicandidate race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and some reasonable chance that the process would end with tense delegate counting at the national convention in Milwaukee. However, after a string of primary losses in March and April, Sen. Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign and former Vice President Joe Biden is now the presumptive Democratic nominee.
But that doesn’t mean that delegate counting is over. There are still 24 delayed and reconfigured contests with a combined 1,555 delegates at stake. Sure, Biden has already amassed 1,293 delegates and is very likely to exceed the 1,991 pledged delegates necessary to clinch the nomination. But just how many delegates Sanders can rack up matters, because that will impact the concessions he and his campaign can win from Biden and the Democratic National Committee.
Any leverage Sanders has in that back and forth with Biden and the DNC hinges on three main factors. And two could work against the Vermont senator in any talks with the Biden team.
First, Sanders stands to lose a significant number of delegates headed into the convention. According to the DNC’s 2020 delegate selection rules, any candidate who is no longer running loses the statewide delegates they have won and those delegates are then reallocated to candidates still in the race. (That has not necessarily been how the DNC has interpreted this rule previously, but it is how the DNC has signaled that it will use it in 2020.) Second, if Sanders fails to clear the 25 percent delegate threshold required to secure representatives on convention committees, it’ll be harder to integrate his policies into the official DNC platform.
I’ve written previously for FiveThirtyEight about delegate reallocation and what that looked like after the race became a one-on-one contest between Biden and Sanders (a bit of a wash, with Biden picking up 23 statewide delegates and Sanders 25 from the early and Super Tuesday states). But now that Sanders has suspended his campaign, the delegates he won prior to dropping out will be reallocated, meaning he could lose more than a third of his delegates — 365 statewide delegates in total.
Sanders could lose more than a third of his delegates Number of statewide delegates allocated to Sanders, by contest Contest Delegates Iowa 9 New Hampshire 8 Nevada 9 South Carolina 5 Alabama 3 Arkansas 3 California 81 Colorado 13 Democrats Abroad 9 Maine 3 Massachusetts 14 Minnesota 11 North Carolina 14 Oklahoma 5 Tennessee 8 Texas 37 Utah 7 Vermont 3 Virginia 10 Idaho 3 Michigan 18 Mississippi 2 Missouri 8 North Dakota 3 Washington 15 Arizona 10 Florida 21 Illinois 21 Alaska 3 Wisconsin 9 Total 365 Sanders’s statewide delegate total includes those delegates originally allocated to him plus those reallocated to him after other candidates dropped out. Three contests were excluded: American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Wyoming. In American Samoa, Sanders did not win any delegates. In the Northern Mariana Islands, delegates cannot be reallocated, so the four Sanders delegates will go to the convention uncommitted. And in Wyoming, there are no rules for how the reallocation process would work.
That matters because without those statewide delegates, it would be nearly impossible for Sanders to clear the 25 percent delegate threshold needed to secure a spot on convention committees.
Why does a seat at the table on these committees matter? Well, the answer circles back to the concessions that Sanders, his campaign and his supporters would like to extract from the DNC and Biden. Making up 25 percent or more of the delegates on the various convention committees means that the Sanders contingent at the convention would have a seat at the table.
Sanders still doesn’t have 20 percent of all pledged delegates, but 25 percent is within his reach should he continue to clear the 15 percent threshold to qualify for delegates in the remaining contests. And if Alaska is any indication, then Sanders will be in decent shape to get there. Biden took eight delegates in the Last Frontier to Sanders’s seven. But that effort takes a hit if the Vermont senator loses more than a third of the delegates he has won to date. That would leave Sanders with just 12 percent of pledged delegates.
Here’s the thing, though: The delegate math may not actually matter all that much. The Biden campaign seems keen to avoid the mistakes of 2016. They have already moved toward Sanders’s position on a number of issues, like expanding Medicare and student loan forgiveness programs, and have even floated letting Sanders keep his statewide delegates, rather than have them reallocated to Biden.
Party unity — or at least the appearance of it — is at a premium for Democrats, and the Sanders campaign knows this. It’s this third factor that Sanders’s leverage hinges on, and arguably, it’s the one that could work best to his advantage.
It is still a delicate dance for Sanders, though, as the rules as they currently stand could cost him. Treated like the other candidates who won delegates but then withdrew, Sanders would lose a seat at the table, so the next move is Biden’s.


fivethirtyeight--2020-04-27--You Can Pay Attention To Those Trump vs. Biden Polls. But Be Cautious.

We are now about six months from the general election , and while the national party conventions won ’ t make it official until August , President Trump will face former Vice President Joe Biden in November ( barring something very unexpected happening ) .
So the question we ’ re left with now is : When should you start paying attention to the general election polls ?
We at FiveThirtyEight have cautioned you not to take early general election polls too seriously , but the answer for when you should tune in isn ’ t exactly straightforward either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate over just how meaningful early general election polls are .
MIT researcher Alexander Agadjanian and The Economist data journalist G. Elliott Morris argue that early polls in recent cycles have been closer to the final outcome than polls from previous cycles and should therefore be taken seriously .
But political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien maintain that while early general election polls might be more accurate now , they ’ re still not as accurate as those conducted closer to Election Day , and that distinction matters as even small shifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal to the final outcome in our era of highly competitive elections .
So to better understand just how meaningful early general election polling is we did our own analysis , collecting all the national surveys we could find from 1980 to 2016 , spanning from 200 days before the presidential election to the day before .
We then created a rolling , seven-day polling average of the margin between the Democratic and Republican nominees as that allowed us to calculate just how far off the polls were from the final Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And what we found is , well … each side in this debate has a point .
A satisfying answer , we know .
On the one hand , the margin in early general elections polls has been closer to the final national popular vote margin in recent cycles since at least 2004 — you can see this quite clearly in the chart below .
There just isn ’ t as much movement in the polling margin in recent elections .
But even when early polls have been closer to the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been large enough to swing an election from one party to the other .
What ’ s more , the direction of the polling error has been inconsistent — sometimes polls tend to be Republican-leaning ; at other times , Democratic-leaning .
This error is substantial enough that it makes it hard to predict the final election result , even if the early polls aren ’ t that far off .
Take the last three presidential elections .
In 2016 , the polls about six months from the general election were about 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular vote margin ( 2.1 points ) , on average , so while they weren ’ t far off , the size of the error was about the same as the final margin in what was a very close race .
But in 2008 and 2012 , the early polls missed in a Republican direction : In 2008 , Barack Obama won by 7.3 points , but then the average six months out was about 6 points more Republican than the final outcome .
Similarly , in 2012 , Obama won by 3.9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on average , 2 points more Republican compared to the final margin .
The difference at the margins , in other words , can still be very meaningful .
Consider the 2016 election .
Trump lost the popular vote by 2 points but still won the presidency because our elections are determined by the Electoral College , not the national popular vote .
It ’ s harder to imagine this being the case , though , had Trump lost the popular vote by 4 points , which was Clinton ’ s average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why did Clinton ’ s edge change from 4 points in the early surveys to 2 points in the final result ?
Well , for a variety of reasons .
Polls are snapshots in time , while campaigns are dynamic events .
And although some moments are somewhat predictable in their impact — such as the convention bounce — many others aren ’ t .
This seems particularly important right now because we don ’ t know how the coronavirus pandemic will affect the standing of the two major-party nominees .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Clinton may have lost in 2016 in part because of the Comey Letter , which came out less than two weeks before the election .
All of this is to say it ’ s difficult to know how 2020 will shape up .
Some pollsters have adjusted their methodologies after 2016 — such as weighting samples by educational attainment — and the 2020 race will happen under a different set of circumstances , so it ’ s not a given that polls will lean Democratic as they did four years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now is that the 2020 race should be pretty competitive .
As the campaign develops over the next few months , the electorate ’ s preferences could shift in small but meaningful ways that could ultimately be consequential .
So look at the early polls — you know you ’ re going to anyway — but know that they are subject to change .

We are now about six months from the general election, and while the national party conventions won’t make it official until August, President Trump will face former Vice President Joe Biden in November (barring something very unexpected happening). So the question we’re left with now is: When should you start paying attention to the general election polls?
We at FiveThirtyEight have cautioned you not to take early general election polls too seriously, but the answer for when you should tune in isn’t exactly straightforward either. There’s actually a pretty big debate over just how meaningful early general election polls are. MIT researcher Alexander Agadjanian and The Economist data journalist G. Elliott Morris argue that early polls in recent cycles have been closer to the final outcome than polls from previous cycles and should therefore be taken seriously. But political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien maintain that while early general election polls might be more accurate now, they’re still not as accurate as those conducted closer to Election Day, and that distinction matters as even small shifts in the polls can matter a great deal to the final outcome in our era of highly competitive elections.
So to better understand just how meaningful early general election polling is we did our own analysis, collecting all the national surveys we could find from 1980 to 2016, spanning from 200 days before the presidential election to the day before. We then created a rolling, seven-day polling average of the margin between the Democratic and Republican nominees as that allowed us to calculate just how far off the polls were from the final Election Day vote share margin on any given day. And what we found is, well … each side in this debate has a point. A satisfying answer, we know.
On the one hand, the margin in early general elections polls has been closer to the final national popular vote margin in recent cycles since at least 2004 — you can see this quite clearly in the chart below.
There just isn’t as much movement in the polling margin in recent elections. But even when early polls have been closer to the final outcome, the error has still often been large enough to swing an election from one party to the other. What’s more, the direction of the polling error has been inconsistent — sometimes polls tend to be Republican-leaning; at other times, Democratic-leaning. This error is substantial enough that it makes it hard to predict the final election result, even if the early polls aren’t that far off.
Take the last three presidential elections. In 2016, the polls about six months from the general election were about 2 points more Democratic than the final national popular vote margin (2.1 points), on average, so while they weren’t far off, the size of the error was about the same as the final margin in what was a very close race. But in 2008 and 2012, the early polls missed in a Republican direction: In 2008, Barack Obama won by 7.3 points, but then the average six months out was about 6 points more Republican than the final outcome. Similarly, in 2012, Obama won by 3.9 points, but the early polls were, on average, 2 points more Republican compared to the final margin.
The difference at the margins, in other words, can still be very meaningful. Consider the 2016 election. Trump lost the popular vote by 2 points but still won the presidency because our elections are determined by the Electoral College, not the national popular vote. It’s harder to imagine this being the case, though, had Trump lost the popular vote by 4 points, which was Clinton’s average lead between 150 and 200 days out.
Why did Clinton’s edge change from 4 points in the early surveys to 2 points in the final result? Well, for a variety of reasons. Polls are snapshots in time, while campaigns are dynamic events. And although some moments are somewhat predictable in their impact — such as the convention bounce — many others aren’t. This seems particularly important right now because we don’t know how the coronavirus pandemic will affect the standing of the two major-party nominees. And unexpected events can’t be discounted: Clinton may have lost in 2016 in part because of the Comey Letter, which came out less than two weeks before the election.
All of this is to say it’s difficult to know how 2020 will shape up. Some pollsters have adjusted their methodologies after 2016 — such as weighting samples by educational attainment — and the 2020 race will happen under a different set of circumstances, so it’s not a given that polls will lean Democratic as they did four years ago. But what the polls can tell us right now is that the 2020 race should be pretty competitive. As the campaign develops over the next few months, the electorate’s preferences could shift in small but meaningful ways that could ultimately be consequential. So look at the early polls — you know you’re going to anyway — but know that they are subject to change.
Should we sacrifice our data privacy to fight the coronavirus?