fivethirtyeight--2020-07-06--Why Counting On A Convention Bounce This Year Is Risky

If President Trump ’ s Tulsa , Okla. , rally in late June or his Independence Day celebration at Mount Rushmore are any indication , he wants a pageantry-filled convention with a big in-person audience when he accepts the Republican nomination in late August .
But the likelihood of that happening may be slim .
The 2020 election is taking place in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis , and it is especially difficult to slow the spread of the coronavirus in large indoor spaces such as an arena , which is the type of space in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s certainly what Trump had envisioned doing this year in Jacksonville , Fla. , although some Republicans think the in-person convention may be canceled .
And on the one hand , Trump ’ s obsession with packing an arena makes some sense .
Party conventions do traditionally boost a candidate ’ s standing in the polls .
Since 1968 , candidates ’ vote share in national polls have increased , on average , by 5 percentage points after conventions .
And considering Trump is currently at 41.5 percent in FiveThirtyEight ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden — a boost in his numbers would be welcome news .
But on the other hand , there ’ s a real question of how much the convention bounce matters anymore .
As you can see in the table above , convention bounces have been getting smaller , which is likely a byproduct of how polarized our politics have become .
There are just fewer swing voters , so it ’ s harder for a candidate to attract support outside of his or her core base of supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter , as once you get past the volatile post-convention period , one party tends to have a lasting lead in the national polls ( though not necessarily the party whose candidate received the biggest post-convention bounce ) .
This year , though , there ’ s a real question about what kind of bounce a virtual convention will produce .
Democrats worry that their mostly virtual event may be unable to replicate the energizing spectacle of a traditional convention .
And although Trump is pushing for a large in-person convention , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the desired effect , either .
The president ’ s Tulsa rally serves as a cautionary tale .
The Trump campaign held it despite calls from public health officials to cancel it or hold it outside because of concerns about exacerbating the spread of the coronavirus in Oklahoma .
Yet only a fraction — 6,200 people — filled the 19,000-seat arena , dashing the campaign ’ s hopes of a full house and prompting it to cancel a speech to supporters in an overflow area .
The rally also resulted in underwhelming news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a half-empty venue , which is not the kind of coverage a candidate in search of a post-convention polling bump wants .
Looking ahead to Jacksonville , it ’ s not hard to imagine similar problems arising .
Florida ’ s coronavirus case load has spiked in recent days , prompting Jacksonville ’ s mayor to implement an indoor mask requirement — a move that is sure to frustrate the president , since he ’ s spoken out against wearing masks at the convention .
We don ’ t know what the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late August , but even if Florida ’ s numbers have improved some , holding a potential “ superspreader ” event probably won ’ t be received very positively .
Just last week , Biden slammed the president for ignoring the crisis , and a sizable in-person crowd might play right into that attack if we find out that some attendees contracted the coronavirus at the convention .
There ’ s also the possibility convention delegates might be particularly high-risk as they tend to be on the older side , and COVID-19 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line : The coveted post-convention polling bounce may not unfold as in previous years .
The Trump campaign might be putting itself between a rock and a hard place .
Smaller-than-expected attendance because of fears around the coronavirus could produce the sort of negative coverage the president saw after the Tulsa rally — pictures of empty seats and excuses for the small crowd , not to mention questions about why the campaign tried to host a big event in the first place .
But if a large crowd materializes , it could still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the convention turns into a dreaded superspreader event .
We don ’ t know how this will play out , but the potential for blowback is high .

If President Trump’s Tulsa, Okla., rally in late June or his Independence Day celebration at Mount Rushmore are any indication, he wants a pageantry-filled convention with a big in-person audience when he accepts the Republican nomination in late August.
But the likelihood of that happening may be slim. The 2020 election is taking place in the midst of an unprecedented public health crisis, and it is especially difficult to slow the spread of the coronavirus in large indoor spaces such as an arena, which is the type of space in which party conventions are usually held. It’s certainly what Trump had envisioned doing this year in Jacksonville, Fla., although some Republicans think the in-person convention may be canceled.
And on the one hand, Trump’s obsession with packing an arena makes some sense. Party conventions do traditionally boost a candidate’s standing in the polls. Since 1968, candidates’ vote share in national polls have increased, on average, by 5 percentage points after conventions. And considering Trump is currently at 41.5 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average — 9.6 points behind presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden — a boost in his numbers would be welcome news.
Convention bounces still count, but they’ve gotten smaller Post-convention bounce in voter preferences in polls, 1968 to 2016 Year Party Dates Nominee Bounce 2016 R July 18-21 Donald Trump +3 2016 D July 25-28 Hillary Clinton +2 2012 R Aug. 27-30 Mitt Romney -1 2012 D Sept. 3-6 Barack Obama +2 2008 D Aug. 25-28 Barack Obama +4 2008 R Sept. 1-4 John McCain +6 2004 D July 26-29 John Kerry -1 2004 R Aug. 30-Sept. 2 George W. Bush +2 2000 R July 31-Aug. 3 George W. Bush +8 2000 D Aug. 14-17 Al Gore +8 1996 R Aug. 12-15 Bob Dole +3 1996 D Aug. 26-29 Bill Clinton +5 1992 D July 13-16 Bill Clinton +16 1992 R Aug. 17-20 George H.W. Bush +5 1988 D July 18-21 Michael Dukakis +7 1988 R Aug. 15-18 George H.W. Bush +6 1984 D July 16-19 Walter Mondale +9 1984 R Aug. 20-23 Ronald Reagan +4 1980 R July 14-17 Ronald Reagan +8 1980 D Aug. 11-14 Jimmy Carter +10 1976 D July 12-15 Jimmy Carter +9 1976 R Aug. 16-19 Gerald Ford +5 1972 D July 10-13 George McGovern 0 1972 R Aug. 21-23 Richard Nixon +7 1968 R Aug. 5-8 Richard Nixon +5 1968 D Aug. 26-29 Hubert Humphrey +2 Average +5 A post-convention bounce is the change in a candidate’s polling average one week before the party’s convention and one week after. Source: The American Presidency Project
But on the other hand, there’s a real question of how much the convention bounce matters anymore. As you can see in the table above, convention bounces have been getting smaller, which is likely a byproduct of how polarized our politics have become. There are just fewer swing voters, so it’s harder for a candidate to attract support outside of his or her core base of supporters. That said, conventions can still matter, as once you get past the volatile post-convention period, one party tends to have a lasting lead in the national polls (though not necessarily the party whose candidate received the biggest post-convention bounce).
This year, though, there’s a real question about what kind of bounce a virtual convention will produce. Democrats worry that their mostly virtual event may be unable to replicate the energizing spectacle of a traditional convention. And although Trump is pushing for a large in-person convention, there’s no guarantee this will have the desired effect, either.
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
The president’s Tulsa rally serves as a cautionary tale. The Trump campaign held it despite calls from public health officials to cancel it or hold it outside because of concerns about exacerbating the spread of the coronavirus in Oklahoma. Yet only a fraction — 6,200 people — filled the 19,000-seat arena, dashing the campaign’s hopes of a full house and prompting it to cancel a speech to supporters in an overflow area. The rally also resulted in underwhelming news coverage featuring images of listless attendees in a half-empty venue, which is not the kind of coverage a candidate in search of a post-convention polling bump wants.
Looking ahead to Jacksonville, it’s not hard to imagine similar problems arising. Florida’s coronavirus case load has spiked in recent days, prompting Jacksonville’s mayor to implement an indoor mask requirement — a move that is sure to frustrate the president, since he’s spoken out against wearing masks at the convention. We don’t know what the state of the health crisis will be in late August, but even if Florida’s numbers have improved some, holding a potential “superspreader” event probably won’t be received very positively. Just last week, Biden slammed the president for ignoring the crisis, and a sizable in-person crowd might play right into that attack if we find out that some attendees contracted the coronavirus at the convention. There’s also the possibility convention delegates might be particularly high-risk as they tend to be on the older side, and COVID-19 is more dangerous for older people.
[Related: How Popular Is President Donald Trump?]
Bottom line: The coveted post-convention polling bounce may not unfold as in previous years. The Trump campaign might be putting itself between a rock and a hard place. Smaller-than-expected attendance because of fears around the coronavirus could produce the sort of negative coverage the president saw after the Tulsa rally — pictures of empty seats and excuses for the small crowd, not to mention questions about why the campaign tried to host a big event in the first place. But if a large crowd materializes, it could still earn Trump negative headlines, especially if the convention turns into a dreaded superspreader event. We don’t know how this will play out, but the potential for blowback is high.
‘(Masks) might wind up helping Trump’s poll numbers’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-06--Voters Who Think The Economy Is The Country’s Biggest Problem Are Pretty Trumpy. That Might Not Help

President Trump could be in trouble .
A lot could still change between now and November , but historically , the strength of the economy is correlated with the electoral strength of the incumbent president , and right now , the economy doesn ’ t look especially good .
Between mid-March and the end of May , more than 38 million Americans applied for unemployment insurance .
And even though the job market has shown some signs of improvement , many Americans are still out of work , and in June more of the people who lost their jobs were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic recovery progresses slowly — or halts and starts backsliding — it ’ s likely to drag down Trump ’ s reelection chances .
At the very least , the downturn takes away what had been perhaps his strongest re-election argument .
Even in more normal election years , many voters still worry about the economy .
The American National Election Studies , which has tracked public opinion since 1948 , has for many years now asked voters what they think is the most important problem facing the country .
And in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have named the economy as their top concern , making it the most frequently cited issue .
In 2008 ( the last time we had a presidential election amid an economic crisis ) , 42 percent of Americans said the economy was the most important political problem .
Since then , the share citing the economy as their top issue has dropped — it was 32 percent in 2012 and just 11 percent in 2016 .
So far in 2020 , polls show that anywhere from 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern .
But let ’ s return to 2020 in a moment .
So what do we know about these voters ?
To be clear , everyone is an economic voter to some extent , according to Michael Lewis-Beck , a professor of political science at the University of Iowa who studies economic voting and comparative politics .
His research has found that the economy frequently ranks as the country ’ s most important problem unless there ’ s a big war going on .
“ It ’ s always at or near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s agenda , ” Lewis-Beck told me .
Many voters factor the state of the national economy into their vote even if it ’ s not the most important issue to them .
But that doesn ’ t mean all voters prioritize the economy equally .
In fact , according to our analysis of ANES data , there are two key traits that tend to correspond with being an economy-minded voter : higher income or a college education .
These voters are also more likely to identify as Republican than as Democratic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hispanic than Black .
First up , as the table below shows , those with household incomes of $ 100,000 or more have consistently said the economy is the most important problem facing the country at higher rates than those in households making less .
In 2008 , for instance , only 36 percent of households making less than $ 50,000 said the economy was the top problem , whereas 51 percent of households making $ 100,000 or more said the same .
In 2016 , when all groups were less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that pattern wasn ’ t as stark , but it was still there .
Next , education .
These differences are less pronounced than differences by income level — education levels produce at most an 11-point gap in the last three presidential election cycles .
But as you can see in the table below , those with at least a bachelor ’ s degree or some college education have consistently been more likely to name the economy as their top concern than those with a high school diploma or less .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
And though the pattern here is a little less consistent here than with either income or education , race and ethnicity also reveal something about which voters care most about the economy .
White and Hispanic voters are consistently more likely to put the economy at the top of their list than Black voters .
And in 2016 , a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic voters than white voters said the economy was their No .
1 issue .
Lewis-Beck has found similar trends in his own research , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single-issue voters on the economy .
There are also meaningful differences between Democrats and Republicans .
Larger shares of Republicans than Democrats have rated the economy as the most important issue facing the U.S. , although as you can see in the table below , partisan differences were never huge and were much less pronounced in 2012 .
Ultimately , what we know is this : The group of voters who prioritize the economy tends to skew wealthier and more educated — and , often , white or Hispanic and Republican .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makeup changes from election to election .
For instance , in 2016 , just 11 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue , and that small group overwhelmingly broke for Trump — 60 percent backed him , while only 32 percent backed Hillary Clinton .
Whereas in 2008 and 2012 , more voters thought the economy was the most pressing issue ( 42 percent and 32 percent , respectively ) , but they broke for the Democratic candidate , Barack Obama — 51 percent to 46 percent in 2008 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 .
So what do we know about these economy-minded voters and which way they may be leaning in 2020 ?
First , it ’ s hard to know exactly how many voters think the economy is the top issue this year , as we don ’ t have a ton of recent polls .
But in three polls from June that asked people about the most important issue affecting their vote , we know that : ( i ) roughly a quarter of Americans are are naming the economy as the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still has an advantage with these voters , leading Joe Biden by varying degrees : • In a Reuters/Ipsos poll , 20 percent of voters chose the economy as the most important problem facing the country , and these voters narrowly backed Trump , 44 percent to 41 percent .
• An Economist/YouGov poll found 22 percent of voters rated “ the economy and jobs ” as the most important issue to them , but this survey had Trump with a 44-point lead over Biden ( 70 percent to 26 percent ) with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Axios/SurveyMonkey poll , Trump had a 27-point lead over Biden ( 56 percent to 29 percent ) among the 33 percent of adults who said that jobs and the economy mattered most to them .
More respondents named the economy than any other issue .
Trump ’ s advantage with this group of voters makes sense , as polls show they are more likely to be white , higher income and Republican-leaning ( just as the ANES survey found in past years ) ; they ’ re also far more likely to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least according to the SurveyMonkey poll .
“ Fully 50 % of Trump voters single out jobs and the economy as the most critical set of issues right now , more than double the proportion of Biden voters so focused on these concerns , ” the pollster wrote of its results .
“ For Trump voters , no other issue reaches into double-digits.
” But it ’ s not clear how much this advantage among economy-minded voters actually helps Trump .
That ’ s because these voters are already likely to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Alan Abramowitz , a professor of political science at Emory University .
“ Voters who prioritize the economy tend to be Republicans , so they ’ re already inclined to support the president , ” said Abramowitz .
The economy might also be a less powerful influence on people ’ s vote choice now than it has been in the past due to increased partisanship and the fact that opinions of Trump are pretty baked in at this point , so the state of the economy might not change many minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re supporting may say more about whether you rate the economy as your top concern rather than the other way around .
Abramowitz was also skeptical that this “ economy-minded ” group of voters will expand into a broader coalition because some voters will consider other issues — like the pandemic — more pressing than the economy this year .
Voters ’ concern about this issue may already be reflected in the fact that health care was either the first or second most popular choice in all three of these recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , current events may increase the salience of issues that weren ’ t on as many voters ’ radar in past elections , such as racism and police brutality .
As Ipsos wrote about their findings , “ Similar to the first two weeks in June , the percentage of respondents who say ‘ other ’ remains higher than average at 17 % .
When asked to specify , racism , police brutality , partisanship and the current administration are common themes being reported.
” In fact , Abramowitz told me , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump could even lose some ground among economy-minded voters .
For instance , voters already disinclined to support Trump likely didn ’ t need an economic downturn to sour on the president — the economy was just one of many factors that shaped their opinion .
Take Trump ’ s overall job approval rating : It continues to hover in the low 40s , and his deficit against Biden in national polls is bigger than ever .
So if the coronavirus pandemic worsens — cases and deaths are rising in some places right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this will hurt Trump ’ s perceived handling of the crisis and drive away some economy-minded voters who were open to voting for him .
Bottom line : It ’ s not clear what role the economy might play in 2020 .
In the last three presidential elections , the economy has been the most commonly named top issue for voters ( although the share of voters saying its the country ’ s biggest problem has changed from cycle to cycle ) .
Historically , white voters and voters with higher incomes or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rank the economy higher than any other issue .
But there ’ s no reason to think the size and makeup of the economy-minded voters group will look like it has in recent general elections .
College-educated white voters have moved dramatically toward Democrats in recent years , and many Americans disapproved of Trump even when the economy was booming .
Which means that while this group looks a lot like Trump ’ s base right now , that could be because non-Trump voters are prioritizing other issues , rather than because Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on the economy .
So it ’ s still possible that Trump wins these voters but loses the general election .
The questions now are : If economic conditions are still bad come November , how much does that actually hurt Trump ?
And , of course , how many voters will prioritize the economy over other issues , like police brutality and systemic racism , the COVID-19 pandemic or other major issues ?

Voters Who Think The Economy Is The Country’s Biggest Problem Are Pretty Trumpy. That Might Not Help Him Much.
President Trump could be in trouble. A lot could still change between now and November, but historically, the strength of the economy is correlated with the electoral strength of the incumbent president, and right now, the economy doesn’t look especially good.
Between mid-March and the end of May, more than 38 million Americans applied for unemployment insurance. And even though the job market has shown some signs of improvement, many Americans are still out of work, and in June more of the people who lost their jobs were laid off permanently. And if the economic recovery progresses slowly — or halts and starts backsliding — it’s likely to drag down Trump’s reelection chances. At the very least, the downturn takes away what had been perhaps his strongest re-election argument.
[Related: Which Economic Indicators Best Predict Presidential Elections?]
Even in more normal election years, many voters still worry about the economy. The American National Election Studies, which has tracked public opinion since 1948, has for many years now asked voters what they think is the most important problem facing the country. And in the last three presidential election cycles, Americans have named the economy as their top concern, making it the most frequently cited issue. In 2008 (the last time we had a presidential election amid an economic crisis), 42 percent of Americans said the economy was the most important political problem. Since then, the share citing the economy as their top issue has dropped — it was 32 percent in 2012 and just 11 percent in 2016.
So far in 2020, polls show that anywhere from 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 voters rate the economy as their top concern. But let’s return to 2020 in a moment. So what do we know about these voters?
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
To be clear, everyone is an economic voter to some extent, according to Michael Lewis-Beck, a professor of political science at the University of Iowa who studies economic voting and comparative politics. His research has found that the economy frequently ranks as the country’s most important problem unless there’s a big war going on. “It’s always at or near the top of the average voter’s agenda,” Lewis-Beck told me. Many voters factor the state of the national economy into their vote even if it’s not the most important issue to them.
But that doesn’t mean all voters prioritize the economy equally. In fact, according to our analysis of ANES data, there are two key traits that tend to correspond with being an economy-minded voter: higher income or a college education. These voters are also more likely to identify as Republican than as Democratic and are more likely to be white or Hispanic than Black.
[Related: How Popular Is President Donald Trump?]
First up, as the table below shows, those with household incomes of $100,000 or more have consistently said the economy is the most important problem facing the country at higher rates than those in households making less. In 2008, for instance, only 36 percent of households making less than $50,000 said the economy was the top problem, whereas 51 percent of households making $100,000 or more said the same. In 2016, when all groups were less likely to say the economy was their top concern, that pattern wasn’t as stark, but it was still there.
Wealthier voters tend to prioritize the economy Percentage of voters who said the economy was the most important problem facing the country Household Income 2008 2012 2016 $100,000+ 51.1% 37.4% 13.4% $50,000 to $99,999 47.0 35.9 11.3 Less than $50k 35.9 27.7 9.7 Source: American National Election Studies
Next, education. These differences are less pronounced than differences by income level — education levels produce at most an 11-point gap in the last three presidential election cycles. But as you can see in the table below, those with at least a bachelor’s degree or some college education have consistently been more likely to name the economy as their top concern than those with a high school diploma or less. The gap here also narrowed quite a bit in 2016.
More educated voters say the economy is the top problem Percentage of voters who said the economy was the most important problem facing the country Level of education 2008 2012 2016 At least a bachelor’s degree 47.3% 37.2% 12.5% Some college or an associate’s degree 44.0 31.3 11.7 High school graduate or less 36.6 28.0 9.1 Source: American National Election Studies
And though the pattern here is a little less consistent here than with either income or education, race and ethnicity also reveal something about which voters care most about the economy. White and Hispanic voters are consistently more likely to put the economy at the top of their list than Black voters. And in 2016, a slightly higher percentage of Hispanic voters than white voters said the economy was their No. 1 issue. Lewis-Beck has found similar trends in his own research, too, describing Hispanics as close to being single-issue voters on the economy.
More white and Hispanic voters worry about the economy Percentage of voters who said the economy was the most important problem facing the country Race 2008 2012 2016 White 44.1% 32.3% 11.5% Hispanic 43.1 37.6 12.3 Black 31.9 24.2 6.4 Source: American National Election Studies
There are also meaningful differences between Democrats and Republicans. Larger shares of Republicans than Democrats have rated the economy as the most important issue facing the U.S., although as you can see in the table below, partisan differences were never huge and were much less pronounced in 2012.
Republican voters tend to put the economy first Percentage of voters who said the economy was the most important problem facing the country Party 2008 2012 2016 Republicans/lean Republican 45.6% 33.4% 14.5% Pure independents 35.5 29.3 10.8 Democrats/lean Democratic 40.3 31.0 8.0 Pure independents are those who didn’t lean toward either party. Source: American National Election Studies
Ultimately, what we know is this: The group of voters who prioritize the economy tends to skew wealthier and more educated — and, often, white or Hispanic and Republican. But the group’s exact size and makeup changes from election to election. For instance, in 2016, just 11 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, and that small group overwhelmingly broke for Trump — 60 percent backed him, while only 32 percent backed Hillary Clinton. Whereas in 2008 and 2012, more voters thought the economy was the most pressing issue (42 percent and 32 percent, respectively), but they broke for the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama — 51 percent to 46 percent in 2008 and 51 percent to 47 percent in 2012.
So what do we know about these economy-minded voters and which way they may be leaning in 2020?
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
First, it’s hard to know exactly how many voters think the economy is the top issue this year, as we don’t have a ton of recent polls. But in three polls from June that asked people about the most important issue affecting their vote, we know that: (i) roughly a quarter of Americans are are naming the economy as the top issue, and (ii) Trump still has an advantage with these voters, leading Joe Biden by varying degrees:
In a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 20 percent of voters chose the economy as the most important problem facing the country, and these voters narrowly backed Trump, 44 percent to 41 percent.
An Economist/YouGov poll found 22 percent of voters rated “the economy and jobs” as the most important issue to them, but this survey had Trump with a 44-point lead over Biden (70 percent to 26 percent) with this group.
lead over Biden (70 percent to 26 percent) with this group. And in an Axios/SurveyMonkey poll, Trump had a 27-point lead over Biden (56 percent to 29 percent) among the 33 percent of adults who said that jobs and the economy mattered most to them. More respondents named the economy than any other issue.
Trump’s advantage with this group of voters makes sense, as polls show they are more likely to be white, higher income and Republican-leaning (just as the ANES survey found in past years); they’re also far more likely to have voted for Trump in 2016, at least according to the SurveyMonkey poll. “Fully 50% of Trump voters single out jobs and the economy as the most critical set of issues right now, more than double the proportion of Biden voters so focused on these concerns,” the pollster wrote of its results. “For Trump voters, no other issue reaches into double-digits.”
But it’s not clear how much this advantage among economy-minded voters actually helps Trump. That’s because these voters are already likely to be a part of Trump’s base, according to Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University. “Voters who prioritize the economy tend to be Republicans, so they’re already inclined to support the president,” said Abramowitz.
The economy might also be a less powerful influence on people’s vote choice now than it has been in the past due to increased partisanship and the fact that opinions of Trump are pretty baked in at this point, so the state of the economy might not change many minds. All of which means that who you’re supporting may say more about whether you rate the economy as your top concern rather than the other way around.
[Related: Why Counting On A Convention Bounce This Year Is Risky]
Abramowitz was also skeptical that this “economy-minded” group of voters will expand into a broader coalition because some voters will consider other issues — like the pandemic — more pressing than the economy this year. Voters’ concern about this issue may already be reflected in the fact that health care was either the first or second most popular choice in all three of these recent polls.
As we are already seeing, current events may increase the salience of issues that weren’t on as many voters’ radar in past elections, such as racism and police brutality. As Ipsos wrote about their findings, “Similar to the first two weeks in June, the percentage of respondents who say ‘other’ remains higher than average at 17%. When asked to specify, racism, police brutality, partisanship and the current administration are common themes being reported.”
In fact, Abramowitz told me, he thinks there’s a chance that Trump could even lose some ground among economy-minded voters. For instance, voters already disinclined to support Trump likely didn’t need an economic downturn to sour on the president — the economy was just one of many factors that shaped their opinion. Take Trump’s overall job approval rating: It continues to hover in the low 40s, and his deficit against Biden in national polls is bigger than ever. So if the coronavirus pandemic worsens — cases and deaths are rising in some places right now — it’s possible that this will hurt Trump’s perceived handling of the crisis and drive away some economy-minded voters who were open to voting for him.
[Related: The Unemployment Rate Is Falling, But More People Are Losing Their Jobs Permanently]
Bottom line: It’s not clear what role the economy might play in 2020. In the last three presidential elections, the economy has been the most commonly named top issue for voters (although the share of voters saying its the country’s biggest problem has changed from cycle to cycle). Historically, white voters and voters with higher incomes or more education have been more likely to rank the economy higher than any other issue.
But there’s no reason to think the size and makeup of the economy-minded voters group will look like it has in recent general elections. College-educated white voters have moved dramatically toward Democrats in recent years, and many Americans disapproved of Trump even when the economy was booming. Which means that while this group looks a lot like Trump’s base right now, that could be because non-Trump voters are prioritizing other issues, rather than because Trump is gaining supporters among people who are focused on the economy. So it’s still possible that Trump wins these voters but loses the general election. The questions now are: If economic conditions are still bad come November, how much does that actually hurt Trump? And, of course, how many voters will prioritize the economy over other issues, like police brutality and systemic racism, the COVID-19 pandemic or other major issues?
‘(Masks) might wind up helping Trump’s poll numbers’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-06--We’re Hiring A Part-Time Social Media Producer

FiveThirtyEight is hiring a part-time social media producer to join our team .
The ideal candidate is someone who is interested in connecting our wonky , data-driven approach to sports and political journalism with audiences across platforms .
This position , along with the head of social , is FiveThirtyEight ’ s voice across social platforms , including Twitter and Facebook .
This team writes engaging and accessible headlines , creates social posts for FiveThirtyEight ’ s main branded accounts and is responsible for growing FiveThirtyEight ’ s audience while increasing engagement and loyalty .
This position involves working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as audio and video producers , story editors and copy editors to execute strong social campaigns around short- and long-form analyses , videos , podcasts , live coverage and our signature dashboards and forecasts .
This role will require working some evenings .
We ’ re looking for someone with : • Demonstrated experience crafting social copy for a news organization , managing a news organization ’ s social accounts during live events or promoting journalistic work using social media • Experience monitoring analytics tools , such as Chartbeat , to make decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work non-traditional hours during elections , debates and other live news events Interested applicants should send a resume and cover letter to meena.ganesan @ fivethirtyeight.com with “ 538 Social ” in the subject line .

FiveThirtyEight is hiring a part-time social media producer to join our team. The ideal candidate is someone who is interested in connecting our wonky, data-driven approach to sports and political journalism with audiences across platforms.
This position, along with the head of social, is FiveThirtyEight’s voice across social platforms, including Twitter and Facebook. This team writes engaging and accessible headlines, creates social posts for FiveThirtyEight’s main branded accounts and is responsible for growing FiveThirtyEight’s audience while increasing engagement and loyalty.
This position involves working with writers, graphics editors, as well as audio and video producers, story editors and copy editors to execute strong social campaigns around short- and long-form analyses, videos, podcasts, live coverage and our signature dashboards and forecasts.
This role will require working some evenings.
We’re looking for someone with:
Experience working in a newsroom environment and solid news judgement
Demonstrated experience crafting social copy for a news organization, managing a news organization’s social accounts during live events or promoting journalistic work using social media
Strong writing and editing skills
Experience monitoring analytics tools, such as Chartbeat, to make decisions
A deep interest in data journalism
General knowledge of U.S. politics
Ability to work non-traditional hours during elections, debates and other live news events
Interested applicants should send a resume and cover letter to meena.ganesan@fivethirtyeight.com with “538 Social” in the subject line.


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-07--How Trump Could Improve His Electoral Odds

In this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the team considers various strategies that President Trump and Republicans could @ @ @ @ @ prospects this fall — ranging from a new running mate to a vacancy on the @ @ @ @

In this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team considers various strategies that President Trump and Republicans could use to improve their electoral prospects this fall — ranging from a new running mate to a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-07--Economists Think Congress Could Create An Economic Disaster This Summer

Congress has less than a month to hammer out a deal on the next round of stimulus before expanded unemployment benefits expire .
State and local governments are starting to feel the pinch of budget shortfalls .
And while the U.S. got a piece of ( relatively ) good news in last week ’ s jobs report , which featured an unemployment rate 2.2 percentage points lower in June than it had been in May , the economy has been thrown back into chaos in the meantime , with a number of states pulling back on their reopenings amid spiking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey of economists highlights just how consequential governmental decisions over the next month may be : On average , these economists think that a refusal by Congress to extend unemployment benefits or bail out state and local governments is just as likely to hurt the economy as local economies staying open in spite of COVID-19 spikes — or even closing because of the virus .
In partnership with the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business , FiveThirtyEight asked 31 quantitative macroeconomic economists what they thought about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession and recovery efforts .
The most recent survey was conducted from July 2 through 6 , which means the June jobs report was fresh on respondents ’ minds — but so was the state of the pandemic , along with challenges ahead for lawmakers .
“ There ’ s a distinct risk that between now and November , Congress ’ s ability to continue fiscal support will be very limited by election-year politics , ” said Jonathan Wright , an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University who has been consulting with us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That could be more of a drag on the economy than the local and state shutdowns just because the effect would be so huge.
” With a congressional showdown looming , we asked the experts to estimate the probability that several policy decisions would have the biggest negative impact on U.S. gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2020 .
Among the five options we presented , the single most important to the economists was a decision by state and local governments to reclose their economies because of COVID-19 outbreaks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide funding to state and local governments was close behind .
And the weight given to choices made by the federal government — bailing out local governments , extending unemployment insurance and providing ongoing aid for small businesses — added up to be even more important when taken as a whole : “ [ State and local governments ] are facing severe budget crises and will be laying off workers to balance their budgets , ” said Julie Smith , a professor of economics at Lafayette College .
That , she said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment and financial pain for many households .
Meanwhile , she added , cutting back or ending the federal unemployment extension would cause many people ’ s incomes to decline dramatically , leaving them with much less money to spend — which could make a big dent in GDP .
Perhaps for this reason , there ’ s a lot of uncertainty in the economists ’ fourth-quarter real GDP predictions .
When we last asked the panel for its forecast , it thought that GDP would be growing by 4.1 percent at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvement from the -28.2 percent quarter-over-quarter annualized growth it foresaw for the second quarter of 2020 .
This time around , the panel is calling for less negative growth ( -25.5 percent ) in the second quarter and a very similar fourth-quarter growth rate to last time ( 3.8 percent ) .
But the range around that end-of-year forecast has gotten a lot wider — a sign of just how much things could go wrong .
The gap between our consensus forecast ’ s 10th and 90th percentile predictions for fourth-quarter GDP growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey ; now that gap is 12.8 percentage points , with almost all of the extra uncertainty coming in the form of downside risk .
( The panel ’ s consensus 10th percentile GDP growth forecast has dropped from -2.0 percent to -3.5 percent . )
The economists weren ’ t especially optimistic about the trajectory of the unemployment rate over the course of 2020 , either .
The consensus prediction was that the unemployment rate in December would be 10.1 percent , which is only 1 percentage point lower than the rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the unemployment rate at the height of the Great Recession .
Stephen Cecchetti , a professor of international finance at the Brandeis International Business School , pointed out that workers are increasingly likely to be losing their jobs permanently , rather than temporarily , which will make it harder for them to get back into the labor force .
And he added that it will take time for the economy to adjust to a new reality where working from home is the norm , which could also keep the unemployment rate from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economists who thought that in a worst-case scenario , the unemployment rate could skyrocket again by the end of the year .
“ There are a lot of people who haven ’ t been exposed to the virus , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not hard to imagine new outbreaks in places like New Jersey or Massachusetts that force us to shut down all over again.
” About half of the economists in the survey also thought the country ’ s top earners would end the year with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s personal income .
In order to get a sense of how much the panel thought the COVID-19 recession would increase income inequality , we asked about a new metric created by the Bureau of Economic Analysis , which found that in 2016 , households in the top 10 percent of incomes ( adjusted for household size ) accounted for 37.6 percent of the country ’ s personal income .
Fifty percent of the respondents thought this number would be significantly higher by the end of 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be about the same .
Only one respondent thought it would be lower .
“ My best guess is that this pandemic is going to worsen income inequalities , ” said Sarah Zubairy , a professor of economics at Texas A & M University .
She hypothesized that this was because job loss has been concentrated among lower-wage workers who can ’ t do their jobs remotely , and who may find themselves ricocheting in and out of the labor force if states have to abruptly pull back their reopening plans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been knocked off course by the virus — and the subsequent leadership response — our survey panel overwhelmingly believes ( with 90 percent agreement ) that China will beat both America and the European Union on the road back to pre-crisis real GDP levels .
In retrospect , according to Wright , this was kind of a “ no-brainer ” because China ’ s economic growth so far has been quite swift , and it has tools to enact sweeping fiscal stimulus that aren ’ t available to less centrally controlled economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But some of this might also be based on the Chinese government ’ s reputation for — how should we put this ?
— releasing overly favorable public data .
“ When all is said and done , if they don ’ t like the actual data they can fudge the numbers , ” Wright said .
“ Put those three things together , and there ’ s almost no way they can ’ t be the first back.
” Wright also pointed to another ominous result in the survey : 19 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real U.S. GDP growth rate would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent per year .
To be sure , the vast majority ( 77 percent ) of economists thought the 10-year average growth rate would be reduced by less , although only one person thought it would go up .
But the responses were still alarming , Wright said , because they indicated a serious degree of pessimism about the speed with which the economy will not just return to where it was at the end of 2019 , but also catch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the COVID-19 pandemic hadn ’ t happened .
However , Allan Timmermann , professor of finance and economics at the University of California , San Diego — who has also been consulting with us on the survey — was encouraged that the majority of respondents didn ’ t expect more long-term damage to growth .
“ This is still a large impact in terms of its cumulative effect on the economy , ” he wrote in an email .
“ But it does suggest that most respondents think the economy will bounce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leading us to a ‘ lost decade ’ scenario ( as we have seen in Japan ) with growth slowing down by an even larger amount.
” Overall , though , the latest survey responses paint a picture of America ’ s still-precarious road back to economic health .
So much depends on the course of COVID-19 itself and how much the virus forces local economies to shut down again to slow its spread .
But a lot is also riding on important policy decisions around the virus , which are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been surprised so far by the pace of the rebound , ” Wright said .
“ But that hasn ’ t made them less worried about the weeks or months ahead .
”

Congress has less than a month to hammer out a deal on the next round of stimulus before expanded unemployment benefits expire. State and local governments are starting to feel the pinch of budget shortfalls. And while the U.S. got a piece of (relatively) good news in last week’s jobs report, which featured an unemployment rate 2.2 percentage points lower in June than it had been in May, the economy has been thrown back into chaos in the meantime, with a number of states pulling back on their reopenings amid spiking COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations.
Our newest survey of economists highlights just how consequential governmental decisions over the next month may be: On average, these economists think that a refusal by Congress to extend unemployment benefits or bail out state and local governments is just as likely to hurt the economy as local economies staying open in spite of COVID-19 spikes — or even closing because of the virus.
In partnership with the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, FiveThirtyEight asked 31 quantitative macroeconomic economists what they thought about a variety of subjects around the coronavirus recession and recovery efforts. The most recent survey was conducted from July 2 through 6, which means the June jobs report was fresh on respondents’ minds — but so was the state of the pandemic, along with challenges ahead for lawmakers.
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
“There’s a distinct risk that between now and November, Congress’s ability to continue fiscal support will be very limited by election-year politics,” said Jonathan Wright, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University who has been consulting with us on the design of the survey. “That could be more of a drag on the economy than the local and state shutdowns just because the effect would be so huge.”
With a congressional showdown looming, we asked the experts to estimate the probability that several policy decisions would have the biggest negative impact on U.S. gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2020. Among the five options we presented, the single most important to the economists was a decision by state and local governments to reclose their economies because of COVID-19 outbreaks. But a decision by Congress not to provide funding to state and local governments was close behind. And the weight given to choices made by the federal government — bailing out local governments, extending unemployment insurance and providing ongoing aid for small businesses — added up to be even more important when taken as a whole:
What are the biggest economic risk factors by year’s end? Average probabilities that each scenario would have the largest negative impact on U.S. GDP in the fourth quarter, according to economists Local or state response options Avg. Probability Decision to reverse local economic openings due to COVID-19 spikes 26% Decision to keep local economies open despite COVID-19 spikes 17 Total 43 Federal response options Not providing funding for state and local governments* 23% Ending/reducing expansion of unemployment benefits 20 Ending/cutting back on aid to small businesses 14 Total 57 * Funding to address budget shortfalls associated with COVID-19. The survey of 31 economists was conducted July 2-6. Source: FIVETHIRTYEIGHT/IGM COVID-19 ECONOMIC SURVEY
“[State and local governments] are facing severe budget crises and will be laying off workers to balance their budgets,” said Julie Smith, a professor of economics at Lafayette College. That, she said, could lead to longer periods of high unemployment and financial pain for many households. Meanwhile, she added, cutting back or ending the federal unemployment extension would cause many people’s incomes to decline dramatically, leaving them with much less money to spend — which could make a big dent in GDP.
Perhaps for this reason, there’s a lot of uncertainty in the economists’ fourth-quarter real GDP predictions. When we last asked the panel for its forecast, it thought that GDP would be growing by 4.1 percent at the end of the year, a big improvement from the -28.2 percent quarter-over-quarter annualized growth it foresaw for the second quarter of 2020. This time around, the panel is calling for less negative growth (-25.5 percent) in the second quarter and a very similar fourth-quarter growth rate to last time (3.8 percent). But the range around that end-of-year forecast has gotten a lot wider — a sign of just how much things could go wrong. The gap between our consensus forecast’s 10th and 90th percentile predictions for fourth-quarter GDP growth was 10.9 percentage points in the last survey; now that gap is 12.8 percentage points, with almost all of the extra uncertainty coming in the form of downside risk. (The panel’s consensus 10th percentile GDP growth forecast has dropped from -2.0 percent to -3.5 percent.)
[Related: Voters Who Think The Economy Is The Country’s Biggest Problem Are Pretty Trumpy. That Might Not Help Him Much.]
The economists weren’t especially optimistic about the trajectory of the unemployment rate over the course of 2020, either. The consensus prediction was that the unemployment rate in December would be 10.1 percent, which is only 1 percentage point lower than the rate in June — and is still comparable to the unemployment rate at the height of the Great Recession. Stephen Cecchetti, a professor of international finance at the Brandeis International Business School, pointed out that workers are increasingly likely to be losing their jobs permanently, rather than temporarily, which will make it harder for them to get back into the labor force. And he added that it will take time for the economy to adjust to a new reality where working from home is the norm, which could also keep the unemployment rate from falling quickly. Cecchetti was also among the economists who thought that in a worst-case scenario, the unemployment rate could skyrocket again by the end of the year.
“There are a lot of people who haven’t been exposed to the virus,” he said. “It’s not hard to imagine new outbreaks in places like New Jersey or Massachusetts that force us to shut down all over again.”
About half of the economists in the survey also thought the country’s top earners would end the year with an even greater share of the nation’s personal income. In order to get a sense of how much the panel thought the COVID-19 recession would increase income inequality, we asked about a new metric created by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which found that in 2016, households in the top 10 percent of incomes (adjusted for household size) accounted for 37.6 percent of the country’s personal income. Fifty percent of the respondents thought this number would be significantly higher by the end of 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, while 47 percent thought it would be about the same. Only one respondent thought it would be lower.
“My best guess is that this pandemic is going to worsen income inequalities,” said Sarah Zubairy, a professor of economics at Texas A&M University. She hypothesized that this was because job loss has been concentrated among lower-wage workers who can’t do their jobs remotely, and who may find themselves ricocheting in and out of the labor force if states have to abruptly pull back their reopening plans.
[Related: The Economy Is A Mess. So Why Isn’t The Stock Market?]
And in another sign that the U.S. has been knocked off course by the virus — and the subsequent leadership response — our survey panel overwhelmingly believes (with 90 percent agreement) that China will beat both America and the European Union on the road back to pre-crisis real GDP levels. In retrospect, according to Wright, this was kind of a “no-brainer” because China’s economic growth so far has been quite swift, and it has tools to enact sweeping fiscal stimulus that aren’t available to less centrally controlled economies like the U.S. or the E.U. But some of this might also be based on the Chinese government’s reputation for — how should we put this? — releasing overly favorable public data. “When all is said and done, if they don’t like the actual data they can fudge the numbers,” Wright said. “Put those three things together, and there’s almost no way they can’t be the first back.”
Wright also pointed to another ominous result in the survey: 19 percent of respondents thought that the 10-year average real U.S. GDP growth rate would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent per year. To be sure, the vast majority (77 percent) of economists thought the 10-year average growth rate would be reduced by less, although only one person thought it would go up. But the responses were still alarming, Wright said, because they indicated a serious degree of pessimism about the speed with which the economy will not just return to where it was at the end of 2019, but also catch up with where it would have been if the COVID-19 pandemic hadn’t happened.
[Related: In 2008, Everyone Thought The Recession Was Bad. But in 2020, Many Americans’ Views Depend On Their Party.]
However, Allan Timmermann, professor of finance and economics at the University of California, San Diego — who has also been consulting with us on the survey — was encouraged that the majority of respondents didn’t expect more long-term damage to growth. “This is still a large impact in terms of its cumulative effect on the economy,” he wrote in an email. “But it does suggest that most respondents think the economy will bounce back in due course — as opposed to leading us to a ‘lost decade’ scenario (as we have seen in Japan) with growth slowing down by an even larger amount.”
Overall, though, the latest survey responses paint a picture of America’s still-precarious road back to economic health. So much depends on the course of COVID-19 itself and how much the virus forces local economies to shut down again to slow its spread. But a lot is also riding on important policy decisions around the virus, which are still being debated. “I think economists have been surprised so far by the pace of the rebound,” Wright said. “But that hasn’t made them less worried about the weeks or months ahead.”
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-07--Politics Podcast: How Republicans Could Boost Their Chances In November

FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling averages currently show President Trump trailing former Vice President Joe Biden by nearly 10 percentage points @ @ @ @ @ swing state .
In the current environment , Democrats would have a number of paths @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew considers @ @ @ @ @ Republicans could use to try to turn their fall electoral prospects around .
FiveThirtyEight Politics @ @ @ @ @ Improve His Electoral Odds You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play @ @ @ @ @ player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite @ @ @ @ @ are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes @ @ @ @ @ new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
@ @ @ @ @ or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by @ @ @ @ @ in the comments .

FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages currently show President Trump trailing former Vice President Joe Biden by nearly 10 percentage points nationally and behind in every swing state. In the current environment, Democrats would have a number of paths to winning a majority in the Senate. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew considers strategies that the president and Republicans could use to try to turn their fall electoral prospects around.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Trump Could Improve His Electoral Odds
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-08--Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History

This data , hand-collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center , excludes any monuments found on or within battlefields , museums , cemeteries or other places that are largely historical in nature .
Monuments with differing dedication dates or sponsors are listed as separate entries in the data — including those that are located in close proximity to , or on the same plot as , another monument .
In recent weeks President Trump has railed against tearing down statues across the country — and has been particularly dogged in his defense of Confederate monuments .
But his argument that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s past is misleading .
An overwhelming majority of Confederate memorials weren ’ t erected in the years directly following the Civil War .
Instead , most were put up decades later .
Nor were they built just to commemorate fallen generals and soldiers ; they were installed as symbols of white supremacy during periods of U.S. history when Black Americans ’ civil rights were aggressively under attack .
In total , at least 830 such monuments were constructed across the U.S , according to the Southern Poverty Law Center , which maintains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbols .
The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s , soon after Southern states enacted a number of sweeping laws to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society .
During this period , more than 400 monuments were built as part of an organized strategy to reshape Civil War history .
And this effort was largely spearheaded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy , who sponsored hundreds of statues , predominantly in the South in the early 20th century — and as recently as 2011 .
“ The UDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Karen Cox , a historian , University of North Carolina at Charlotte professor and author of numerous articles and books on Southern history and culture , including “ Dixie ’ s Daughters : The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture.
” “ Their goal , in all the work that they did , was to prepare future generations of white Southerners to respect and defend the principles of the Confederacy.
” It wasn ’ t just Confederate monuments , either .
They also rejected any school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of the Civil War ; they praised the Ku Klux Klan and gave speeches that distorted the cruelty of American slavery and defended slave owners .
From around 1920 to the early 1940s , there was a second wave of statue building .
Jane Dailey , professor of American history at the University of Chicago , said this period of construction coincided with more Black Americans ’ fighting for civil rights and pushing back against widespread lynchings in the South .
“ You have Black soldiers who have just fought for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fought to make the world safe for democracy , coming back to an America that 's determined to lynch them , ” said Dailey .
“ [ T ] hose were very clearly white supremacist monuments and are designed to intimidate , not just memorialize.
” And a significant portion of those monuments were erected on courthouse grounds .
According to Lecia Brooks of the Southern Poverty Law Center , placing these memorials on courthouse property , especially in the 1950s and ’ 60s , was meant to remind Black Americans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their fight for civil rights and equal protection under the law .
Black Americans have long understood the symbolism of those monuments .
“ I know what this statue means , ” said Brooks .
“ It 's a reminder to stay in my place.
” Not just statues were erected during this period , either .
Following the landmark Brown versus Board of Education decision in 1954 , which said maintaining racially segregated schools was unconstitutional , there was an uptick in the number of colleges and schools named after Confederate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970 , at least 45 were named after Confederates .
“ As soon as you get the federal government supporting Black students in schools , ” said Brooks — including talk of busing and integrating segregated schools — then you had the reassertion of white supremacy , this time in the form of school names .
“ ‘ OK , we 're going to name this school so , again , you can be reminded , ’ ” she said .
But now the movement to memorialize the Confederacy has finally faced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statues have been either removed or relocated since 2015 .
That year , nine Black churchgoers were killed in Charleston , South Carolina , by an avowed white supremacist obsessed with Confederate symbology , sparking a public outcry to remove statues that celebrate the Confederacy .
In total , at least eight statues were removed in 2015 and 2016 , and 36 more were removed in 2017 , the year a rally to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville , Virginia , turned violent .
Already , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 in response to the police killing of George Floyd , which led to protests worldwide .
However , this is still only a fraction of the more than 700 Confederate statues still standing in the U.S .
Taking down these monuments is difficult , and their removal is often met with arguments that by doing so we are hiding from — or even changing — history , with some insisting that these statues simply celebrate Southern heritage .
But a deeper understanding of their historical context paints a very different picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white supremacy and intimidate Black people , not just to pay homage to Southern pride .
And , slowly but surely , as more monuments come down , this understanding seems to be gaining traction .
“ Now , the narrative has changed to telling history , ” said Brooks .
“ Who have we left out of history ?
What history aren ’ t we telling through the veneration of Confederate leaders ?
”

Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History
Confederate monuments by year dedicated
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
This data, hand-collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center, excludes any monuments found on or within battlefields, museums, cemeteries or other places that are largely historical in nature. Monuments with differing dedication dates or sponsors are listed as separate entries in the data — including those that are located in close proximity to, or on the same plot as, another monument. In recent weeks President Trump has railed against tearing down statues across the country — and has been particularly dogged in his defense of Confederate monuments. But his argument that they are benign symbols of America’s past is misleading. An overwhelming majority of Confederate memorials weren’t erected in the years directly following the Civil War. Instead, most were put up decades later. Nor were they built just to commemorate fallen generals and soldiers; they were installed as symbols of white supremacy during periods of U.S. history when Black Americans’ civil rights were aggressively under attack. In total, at least 830 such monuments were constructed across the U.S, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which maintains a comprehensive database of Confederate monuments and symbols. The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s, soon after Southern states enacted a number of sweeping laws to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society. During this period, more than 400 monuments were built as part of an organized strategy to reshape Civil War history. And this effort was largely spearheaded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who sponsored hundreds of statues, predominantly in the South in the early 20th century — and as recently as 2011.
Monuments sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
“The UDC was very focused on the future,” said Karen Cox, a historian, University of North Carolina at Charlotte professor and author of numerous articles and books on Southern history and culture, including “Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture.” “Their goal, in all the work that they did, was to prepare future generations of white Southerners to respect and defend the principles of the Confederacy.” It wasn’t just Confederate monuments, either. They also rejected any school textbook that said slavery was the central cause of the Civil War; they praised the Ku Klux Klan and gave speeches that distorted the cruelty of American slavery and defended slave owners. From around 1920 to the early 1940s, there was a second wave of statue building. Jane Dailey, professor of American history at the University of Chicago, said this period of construction coincided with more Black Americans’ fighting for civil rights and pushing back against widespread lynchings in the South. “You have Black soldiers who have just fought for their country [in World War I] and fought to make the world safe for democracy, coming back to an America that's determined to lynch them,” said Dailey. “[T]hose were very clearly white supremacist monuments and are designed to intimidate, not just memorialize.” And a significant portion of those monuments were erected on courthouse grounds. According to Lecia Brooks of the Southern Poverty Law Center, placing these memorials on courthouse property, especially in the 1950s and ’60s, was meant to remind Black Americans of the struggle and subjugation they would face in their fight for civil rights and equal protection under the law.
Monuments built on courthouse grounds
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
Black Americans have long understood the symbolism of those monuments. “I know what this statue means,” said Brooks. “It's a reminder to stay in my place.” Not just statues were erected during this period, either. Following the landmark Brown versus Board of Education decision in 1954, which said maintaining racially segregated schools was unconstitutional, there was an uptick in the number of colleges and schools named after Confederate soldiers and generals: From 1954 to 1970, at least 45 were named after Confederates.
Schools and colleges named after Confederates
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
“As soon as you get the federal government supporting Black students in schools,” said Brooks — including talk of busing and integrating segregated schools — then you had the reassertion of white supremacy, this time in the form of school names. “‘OK, we're going to name this school so, again, you can be reminded,’” she said. But now the movement to memorialize the Confederacy has finally faced a period of reckoning — more than 80 statues have been either removed or relocated since 2015. That year, nine Black churchgoers were killed in Charleston, South Carolina, by an avowed white supremacist obsessed with Confederate symbology, sparking a public outcry to remove statues that celebrate the Confederacy. In total, at least eight statues were removed in 2015 and 2016, and 36 more were removed in 2017, the year a rally to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent. Already, at least another 26 have been taken down in 2020 in response to the police killing of George Floyd, which led to protests worldwide.
Monuments still standing versus those removed or relocated
Monuments removed or relocated
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
However, this is still only a fraction of the more than 700 Confederate statues still standing in the U.S. Taking down these monuments is difficult, and their removal is often met with arguments that by doing so we are hiding from — or even changing — history, with some insisting that these statues simply celebrate Southern heritage. But a deeper understanding of their historical context paints a very different picture — these statues were meant to promote white supremacy and intimidate Black people, not just to pay homage to Southern pride. And, slowly but surely, as more monuments come down, this understanding seems to be gaining traction. “Now, the narrative has changed to telling history,” said Brooks. “Who have we left out of history? What history aren’t we telling through the veneration of Confederate leaders?”


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-08--2020 Could Be The New Year Of The Woman … For The GOP

More women ran for office in 2018 than ever before , which led to a record number of women in Congress .
Overall , the share of House and Senate seats held by women increased by 4 percentage points , from 20 to 24 percent — adding more women to the ranks than in any other election cycle since 1992 .
However , these gains were primarily driven by Democratic women , who ran in large numbers : Almost three-quarters of the women who ran for Congress in 2018 were Democrats .
But 2020 looks different .
More Democratic women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women — and more Democratic women are running than in 2018 — but as the chart below shows , the share of all female candidates who are Republican has grown substantially , up from about a quarter in 2018 to 39 percent .
So what explains this sudden uptick in Republican women running ?
And are GOP women following Democrats ’ 2018 playbook or writing their own ?
More importantly , will this lead to more female representation in Congress ?
( Remember , despite the strides made in 2018 , the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far from equal . )
The number of Republican women ’ s candidacies has lagged behind Democrats for many years now .
But as you can see in the chart above , Republican women have had a breakout year before .
In 2010 , as the tea party movement reached peak popularity , the number of Republican women running for Congress was double what it had been in the previous midterm year — 151 women ran in 2010 compared to just 77 in 2006 .
According to Washington College political science professor Melissa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women , ” so many Republican women gained power in the party in 2010 — both electorally and as internal leaders — that some called it the “ Year of the GOP Woman.
” And in her research , Deckman found that many women who ran for office that year were active in the tea party , capitalizing on the movement ’ s momentum .
But as the tea party movement began losing steam in 2012 and 2014 ( or at least started morphing into something different ) , the number of Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a political moment , in other words , isn ’ t necessarily enough to change the overall picture .
It ’ s true that Democratic women had their own political moment in 2018 , fueled at least in part by anger at President Trump ’ s election in 2016 .
But Democratic women also tend to be better positioned to run for office than Republican women , who are often more absent from traditional political pipelines , like state legislatures .
Plus , historically speaking , there have simply been more organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks willing to finance Democratic women ’ s campaigns than there are groups that do the same for Republican women .
Finally , it doesn ’ t hurt that the vast majority of Democratic voters agree that there are too few women in political office , whereas just 33 percent of Republicans think so .
Having one party fostering a more encouraging environment for women who want to run can help explain why so many more Democratic women are seeking office .
What we ’ re seeing in 2020 , though , might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .
Like Democrats , they ’ re motivated by anger — except it ’ s not toward Trump , said Deckman , but toward the women ’ s movement his election sparked .
Deckman told me that in her earlier interviews with tea party women , she found that many resented the progressive women ’ s movement , and she thinks that resentment might be motivating GOP women now .
“ [ M ] any GOP women felt that those women in those movements do not speak for them , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s March and the # MeToo movement as events that may have sparked more GOP women to run , telling me that some Republicans may be running to “ put out a counternarrative of what women ’ s interests actually entail.
” Republican women are also being encouraged to run this election cycle by members of their party .
The GOP hasn ’ t historically invested in organizations that recruit and train women to run for office , but there has been a marked shift in the level of this investment since 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Elevate-PAC are attempting to mimic the success of women ’ s groups on the left , like Emily ’ s List .
They are still well behind these groups financially , but Danielle Thomsen , a University of California , Irvine political science professor , told me the importance of these organizations goes beyond just financial support ; they also offer symbolic support , which can go a long way in a party where support for women candidates has long been lacking .
Additionally , with Democrats taking back the House in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Republicans to run in open primaries ; plus , a wave of retirements in safe Republican districts may have enticed more women to throw their hat into the ring , as a primary victory in those areas nearly guarantees a win in November .
Of course , the wave of Republican women running still have to win their primary and general election contests before they can take office .
And according to research by Thomsen , this might be difficult .
She found that Republican women are less likely to win their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women because they frequently face a much more difficult electoral environment than Democratic women , including , for instance , more competitive primaries .
And so far in 2020 , a greater share of Democratic women have won their primaries than Republican women .
But compared to 2018 , because more Republican women are running , more Republican women are winning House primary races , so they are making some progress this year .
In fact , GOP women make up 21 percent of their party ’ s nominees now compared to just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Center for American Women in Politics .
But it might still be difficult for Republican women to translate their primary wins into November victories , as some research finds that Republican women are still less likely to win in the general election compared to Republican men .
One possible factor is that historically , Republican women have tended to be more politically moderate than Republican men , according to research by Thomsen , which has hurt them as voters have become increasingly ideological .
That said , Thomsen told me that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now are just as conservative as the Republican men , ” and she thinks this may be a permanent shift .
Given this development , Thomsen told me she thinks the Republican women running in 2020 may fare just as well as their male counterparts .
Losing an election is not necessarily the end of the road for a candidate , though .
Many women who lose their races rebound and run again .
For instance , according to a working paper by Thomsen , women who lost a race for a House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to rebound than men who lost .
And this year , a number of women who lost in 2018 are running again .
According to data from the Center for American Women in Politics , 93 women ( 64 Democrats and 29 Republicans ) are likely to run for office again after losing a bid for Congress or a statewide office two years ago .
It ’ s not clear what this all means for 2020 , but at this point , more Republican women are running , and they stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress .
Even for those who lose their races , this could be a turning point .
As Thomsen told me , running is half the battle .
“ People who already ran have donors and volunteers , ” said Thomsen .
“ Plus , [ if the race was close ] they almost won — which is no small feat !
A lot of campaign groundwork is already laid.
” That could pay huge dividends for Republican women in 2020 , helping them turn a newfound political moment into longer-term progress @ @ @ @

More women ran for office in 2018 than ever before, which led to a record number of women in Congress. Overall, the share of House and Senate seats held by women increased by 4 percentage points, from 20 to 24 percent — adding more women to the ranks than in any other election cycle since 1992.
However, these gains were primarily driven by Democratic women, who ran in large numbers: Almost three-quarters of the women who ran for Congress in 2018 were Democrats. But 2020 looks different. More Democratic women are still running for office than Republican women — and more Democratic women are running than in 2018 — but as the chart below shows, the share of all female candidates who are Republican has grown substantially, up from about a quarter in 2018 to 39 percent.
So what explains this sudden uptick in Republican women running? And are GOP women following Democrats’ 2018 playbook or writing their own? More importantly, will this lead to more female representation in Congress? (Remember, despite the strides made in 2018, the numbers of men and women in Congress are far from equal.)
The number of Republican women’s candidacies has lagged behind Democrats for many years now. But as you can see in the chart above, Republican women have had a breakout year before. In 2010, as the tea party movement reached peak popularity, the number of Republican women running for Congress was double what it had been in the previous midterm year — 151 women ran in 2010 compared to just 77 in 2006.
[Related: More Women Are Holding Political Office — But Not Everywhere]
According to Washington College political science professor Melissa Deckman, author of “Tea Party Women,” so many Republican women gained power in the party in 2010 — both electorally and as internal leaders — that some called it the “Year of the GOP Woman.” And in her research, Deckman found that many women who ran for office that year were active in the tea party, capitalizing on the movement’s momentum. But as the tea party movement began losing steam in 2012 and 2014 (or at least started morphing into something different), the number of Republican women running also dropped off. Capitalizing on a political moment, in other words, isn’t necessarily enough to change the overall picture.
It’s true that Democratic women had their own political moment in 2018, fueled at least in part by anger at President Trump’s election in 2016. But Democratic women also tend to be better positioned to run for office than Republican women, who are often more absent from traditional political pipelines, like state legislatures. Plus, historically speaking, there have simply been more organizations geared toward recruiting Democratic women and elite networks willing to finance Democratic women’s campaigns than there are groups that do the same for Republican women. Finally, it doesn’t hurt that the vast majority of Democratic voters agree that there are too few women in political office, whereas just 33 percent of Republicans think so. Having one party fostering a more encouraging environment for women who want to run can help explain why so many more Democratic women are seeking office.
[Related: When Women Run]
What we’re seeing in 2020, though, might mark a new political moment for Republican women. Like Democrats, they’re motivated by anger — except it’s not toward Trump, said Deckman, but toward the women’s movement his election sparked. Deckman told me that in her earlier interviews with tea party women, she found that many resented the progressive women’s movement, and she thinks that resentment might be motivating GOP women now. “[M]any GOP women felt that those women in those movements do not speak for them,” said Deckman, citing both the Women’s March and the #MeToo movement as events that may have sparked more GOP women to run, telling me that some Republicans may be running to “put out a counternarrative of what women’s interests actually entail.”
Republican women are also being encouraged to run this election cycle by members of their party. The GOP hasn’t historically invested in organizations that recruit and train women to run for office, but there has been a marked shift in the level of this investment since 2018. New organizations like Winning for Women and Elevate-PAC are attempting to mimic the success of women’s groups on the left, like Emily’s List. They are still well behind these groups financially, but Danielle Thomsen, a University of California, Irvine political science professor, told me the importance of these organizations goes beyond just financial support; they also offer symbolic support, which can go a long way in a party where support for women candidates has long been lacking.
Additionally, with Democrats taking back the House in 2018, there are just more opportunities for Republicans to run in open primaries; plus, a wave of retirements in safe Republican districts may have enticed more women to throw their hat into the ring, as a primary victory in those areas nearly guarantees a win in November.
Of course, the wave of Republican women running still have to win their primary and general election contests before they can take office. And according to research by Thomsen, this might be difficult. She found that Republican women are less likely to win their party’s primary compared to Democratic women because they frequently face a much more difficult electoral environment than Democratic women, including, for instance, more competitive primaries. And so far in 2020, a greater share of Democratic women have won their primaries than Republican women. But compared to 2018, because more Republican women are running, more Republican women are winning House primary races, so they are making some progress this year. In fact, GOP women make up 21 percent of their party’s nominees now compared to just 13 percent in 2018, according to the Center for American Women in Politics.
[Related: An Updating Estimate Of The Congressional Generic Ballot]
But it might still be difficult for Republican women to translate their primary wins into November victories, as some research finds that Republican women are still less likely to win in the general election compared to Republican men. One possible factor is that historically, Republican women have tended to be more politically moderate than Republican men, according to research by Thomsen, which has hurt them as voters have become increasingly ideological. That said, Thomsen told me that “the Republican women running for Congress right now are just as conservative as the Republican men,” and she thinks this may be a permanent shift. Given this development, Thomsen told me she thinks the Republican women running in 2020 may fare just as well as their male counterparts.
Losing an election is not necessarily the end of the road for a candidate, though. Many women who lose their races rebound and run again. For instance, according to a working paper by Thomsen, women who lost a race for a House seat from 1980 to 2014 were no less likely to rebound than men who lost. And this year, a number of women who lost in 2018 are running again. According to data from the Center for American Women in Politics, 93 women (64 Democrats and 29 Republicans) are likely to run for office again after losing a bid for Congress or a statewide office two years ago.
It’s not clear what this all means for 2020, but at this point, more Republican women are running, and they stand a real chance of increasing their numbers in Congress. Even for those who lose their races, this could be a turning point. As Thomsen told me, running is half the battle. “People who already ran have donors and volunteers,” said Thomsen. “Plus, [if the race was close] they almost won — which is no small feat! A lot of campaign groundwork is already laid.” That could pay huge dividends for Republican women in 2020, helping them turn a newfound political moment into longer-term progress for the GOP.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Trump Could Improve His Electoral Odds


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-09--Biden’s Polling Lead Is Big — And Steady

The race between President Trump and Joe Biden is verging on a landslide .
That ’ s not a word we use lightly .
Over the past month , Biden ’ s lead over Trump has been both incredibly stable and unusually large .
Amidst Trump ’ s unpopular handling of the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd , Biden ’ s lead has hovered within a tight band of 8.9 to 9.6 percentage points since mid-June , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s national polling average .
This is a sizable enough lead that Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Take what CNN analyst and FiveThirtyEight alum Harry Enten found earlier this month when he looked back at presidential elections where an incumbent was running since 1940 .
He calculated , on average , a 7-point difference between the final national popular vote margin and the polls conducted four months out .
That might sound like a lot of movement — and it is — but the problem for Trump is even if the polls swung toward him by 7 points , he would still trail Biden by about 2 to 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found , 4.5 points , would leave Trump in even worse shape .
Of course , if the polls did swing 7 points in Trump ’ s favor , leaving him only 2 to 3 points behind Biden nationally , Trump could still win — after all , he won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by about 2 points .
But this isn ’ t an easy reelection path , particularly if Biden ’ s lead holds .
New national surveys mostly confirmed Biden ’ s sizable lead .
This week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points , 49 percent to 40 percent , and last week a survey from Research Co. found the same .
Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research , a pollster Trump often cites in support of his presidency , this week found Biden up 10 points , 50 percent to 40 percent .
But not every recent poll has been quite so bullish for Biden — a new poll from Reuters/Ipsos found Biden up 6 points , while a survey last week by Yahoo News/YouGov put him up by just 5 points , 45 percent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from The Hill/HarrisX found Biden up by just 4 points .
Additionally , Trump got a few favorable polls in Florida and Pennsylvania .
In surveys conducted just before the Fourth of July , Trafalgar Group found Trump tied with Biden in Florida and trailing Biden by just 5 points in Pennsylvania .
That might not sound like particularly good news for Trump in Pennsylvania , but considering Biden ’ s average lead there is more than 7 points , anything that shows that lead waning is a win for Trump .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican pollster with a slight bias toward the GOP isn ’ t great news for Trump , as in many ways these polls offer his best-case scenario , and that scenario still isn ’ t very good .
It has Trump either barely breaking even ( Florida ) or still underwater ( Pennsylvania ) .
Elsewhere , state-level polls didn ’ t offer Trump much of a silver lining .
Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling found Biden up by 17 points in Colorado , which Trump lost by 5 points in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which Trump lost by just 3 points last time .
The pollster has a slight Democratic bias , but Biden ’ s lead in these polls are sizable enough to suggest that Trump will have a difficult time competing in these states .
In fact , although the battleground states skew slightly more Republican than the nation as a whole — as you can see in the table below — Biden continues to lead in nearly every one of them , including places like Georgia , which The Cook Political Report just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Biden won all the states that the election handicapper rates as solidly or slightly Democratic , it would now give him more than 270 electoral votes because of his advantage in these key states .
As always , there ’ s still time for the electoral environment to shift in Trump ’ s direction and narrow his polling deficit .
The national party conventions and Biden ’ s vice presidential pick are big events that could still change the race , and there ’ s always the possibility that some unexpected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But unfortunately for the president , recent polls have shown simply more of the same — he ’ s treading on thin electoral ice .

The race between President Trump and Joe Biden is verging on a landslide. That’s not a word we use lightly.
Over the past month, Biden’s lead over Trump has been both incredibly stable and unusually large. Amidst Trump’s unpopular handling of the protests that followed the police killing of George Floyd, Biden’s lead has hovered within a tight band of 8.9 to 9.6 percentage points since mid-June, according to FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average.
This is a sizable enough lead that Trump’s reelection chances are in a precarious position. Take what CNN analyst and FiveThirtyEight alum Harry Enten found earlier this month when he looked back at presidential elections where an incumbent was running since 1940. He calculated, on average, a 7-point difference between the final national popular vote margin and the polls conducted four months out. That might sound like a lot of movement — and it is — but the problem for Trump is even if the polls swung toward him by 7 points, he would still trail Biden by about 2 to 3 points nationally. The median difference Enten found, 4.5 points, would leave Trump in even worse shape.
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
Of course, if the polls did swing 7 points in Trump’s favor, leaving him only 2 to 3 points behind Biden nationally, Trump could still win — after all, he won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by about 2 points. But this isn’t an easy reelection path, particularly if Biden’s lead holds.
New national surveys mostly confirmed Biden’s sizable lead. This week, The Economist/YouGov found Biden up 9 points, 49 percent to 40 percent, and last week a survey from Research Co. found the same. Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research, a pollster Trump often cites in support of his presidency, this week found Biden up 10 points, 50 percent to 40 percent. But not every recent poll has been quite so bullish for Biden — a new poll from Reuters/Ipsos found Biden up 6 points, while a survey last week by Yahoo News/YouGov put him up by just 5 points, 45 percent to 40 percent. Plus, a survey from The Hill/HarrisX found Biden up by just 4 points.
[Related: How Popular Is President Donald Trump?]
Additionally, Trump got a few favorable polls in Florida and Pennsylvania. In surveys conducted just before the Fourth of July, Trafalgar Group found Trump tied with Biden in Florida and trailing Biden by just 5 points in Pennsylvania. That might not sound like particularly good news for Trump in Pennsylvania, but considering Biden’s average lead there is more than 7 points, anything that shows that lead waning is a win for Trump. However, the fact that Trafalgar is a Republican pollster with a slight bias toward the GOP isn’t great news for Trump, as in many ways these polls offer his best-case scenario, and that scenario still isn’t very good. It has Trump either barely breaking even (Florida) or still underwater (Pennsylvania).
Elsewhere, state-level polls didn’t offer Trump much of a silver lining. Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling found Biden up by 17 points in Colorado, which Trump lost by 5 points in 2016, and ahead by 11 points in Maine, which Trump lost by just 3 points last time. The pollster has a slight Democratic bias, but Biden’s lead in these polls are sizable enough to suggest that Trump will have a difficult time competing in these states.
[Related: Our Pollster Ratings]
In fact, although the battleground states skew slightly more Republican than the nation as a whole — as you can see in the table below — Biden continues to lead in nearly every one of them, including places like Georgia, which The Cook Political Report just moved into its “toss-up” category. If Biden won all the states that the election handicapper rates as solidly or slightly Democratic, it would now give him more than 270 electoral votes because of his advantage in these key states.
Biden continues to lead in national and battleground polls FiveThirtyEight polling averages as of 5:15 p.m. Eastern on July 8, 2020 State Biden Trump Biden Margin Lean Relative to Nation Colorado 55.1% 37.8% +17.4 D+7.8 New Mexico 54.3 40.4 +13.9 D+4.3 Maine 53.4 40.8 +12.5 D+2.9 Virginia 50.8 39.5 +11.2 D+1.7 Minnesota 54.3 43.7 +10.6 D+1.0 Michigan 50.0 40.3 +9.7 D+0.1 National 50.7 41.1 +9.6 EVEN Nevada 48.5 39.8 +8.7 R+0.9 New Hampshire 50.1 41.8 +8.3 R+1.3 Wisconsin 49.5 41.4 +8.1 R+1.5 Pennsylvania 49.6 42.0 +7.5 R+2.0 Florida 48.8 42.6 +6.3 R+3.3 North Carolina 47.8 44.6 +3.2 R+6.4 Arizona 47.3 44.2 +3.1 R+6.5 Ohio 48.1 45.5 +2.6 R+7.0 Georgia 47.6 45.8 +1.7 R+7.9 Iowa 45.7 45.7 +0.0 R+9.6 Texas 46.0 47.3 -1.3 R+10.9 “Lean relative to nation” is how much more pro-Biden or pro-Trump a state’s polling average is than the national polling average.
As always, there’s still time for the electoral environment to shift in Trump’s direction and narrow his polling deficit. The national party conventions and Biden’s vice presidential pick are big events that could still change the race, and there’s always the possibility that some unexpected news will break between now and November. But unfortunately for the president, recent polls have shown simply more of the same — he’s treading on thin electoral ice.
‘(Masks) might wind up helping Trump’s poll numbers’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-09--Politics Podcast: Conservatives Didn’t Get The SCOTUS They Wanted This Term

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up a lengthy and consequential term on Thursday with a ruling that rejected President Trump @ @ @ @ @ immunity .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Galen @ @ @ @ @ that ruling and look back at other key decisions throughout the term .
They also @ @ @ @ @ ’ s role on the court and ask whether justices are influenced by public opinion @ @ @ @ @ the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or @ @ @ @ @ , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to @ @ @ @ @ listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover @ @ @ @ @ a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for @ @ @ @ @ polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments @

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up a lengthy and consequential term on Thursday with a ruling that rejected President Trump’s claims to legal immunity. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Galen Druke unpack the implications of that ruling and look back at other key decisions throughout the term. They also consider Chief Justice John Roberts’s role on the court and ask whether justices are influenced by public opinion.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.