fivethirtyeight--2020-01-18--Election Update: The First Post-Debate Polls Are In! And They’re … Pretty Weird.

The first handful of polling since Tuesday night ’ s debate is out .
But it doesn ’ t tell a terribly consistent story .
Pretty much whichever Democrat you ’ re rooting for , you can find some polls to be happy about and others that you ’ d rather ignore .
Here ’ s a quick list of those polls : • SurveyUSA has a new national poll that shows Joe Biden leading with 32 percent of the vote , followed by Bernie Sanders at 21 percent , Elizabeth Warren at 14 percent and both Pete Buttigieg and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared with their previous national poll in November , Biden is up 2 percentage points , Sanders is up 4 , Warren is down 1 , Buttigieg is down 2 , and Bloomberg is up 6 .
• SurveyUSA also published a new California poll , which has Biden leading there at 30 percent , with Sanders and Warren tied for second at 20 percent and Buttgieg in fourth at 8 percent .
Biden and Sanders are both up 2 percentage points since their November California poll , when California senator Kamala Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren has gained 7 points since polling at 13 percent in November .
• While SurveyUSA has seemingly good news for Biden , an Ipsos national poll for Reuters does not .
Instead , it has Sanders ahead nationally at 20 percent , followed by Biden at 19 , Warren at 12 , Bloomberg at 9 , and Buttigieg at 6 .
As compared with the Ipsos/Reuters national poll conducted roughly a week before the debate , Sanders is unchanged , but Biden is down 4 percentage points and Warren is down 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Ipsos poll conducted with FiveThirtyEight , which surveyed a single group of voters both before and after the debate .
It did not include a traditional horse-race question ( i.e.
, “ Who is your first choice ?
” ) so it doesn ’ t figure directly into our polling averages or primary model .
However , it showed strong results for Warren , with her making gains on favorability , perceived electability , and the number of Democrats who said they were considering voting for her .
• Finally , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted partially since the debate , has Sanders ahead there with 23 percent of the vote , followed by Buttigieg at 18 percent , Biden and Warren each at 14 percent , and Amy Klobuchar at 10 percent .
As compared with Emerson ’ s previous poll of New Hampshire , in November , Sanders is actually down 3 points and Buttigieg is down 4 points , while Biden and Warren are unchanged and Klobuchar is up 8 points .
As I said , you can cherry-pick your way to pretty much whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both those SurveyUSA numbers look nice .
Sanders stan ?
You ’ ll probably want to emphasize the Ipsos/Reuters poll .
Warren aficionado ?
The SurveyUSA California poll and the Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight poll look good ; the others , not so much .
But some of these polls are also pretty confusing .
If you ’ re Sanders , for instance , should you be happy that the Emerson poll in New Hampshire still has you leading , or unhappy that it has you having lost a few points ?
Or to abstract the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the trendline within a poll or to the absolute result ?
This question does not have a straightforward answer ( other than that both are important to some degree ) .
Ideally , you should be comparing a poll not only against the most recent survey by the same pollster , but really against all previous surveys by the pollster in that state — and for that matter also in other states — to detect whether it generally shows good results or poor results for your candidate .
And when evaluating trendlines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous polls were conducted .
For example , any poll conducted in October is likely to have shown good results for Warren , since she was at her peak nationally then .
So if a new poll came out today showing Warren having fallen by 2 points in Iowa since October , that might might be comparatively good news for her since you ’ d have anticipated a steeper decline .
If all this sounds like a lot of work … well , it ’ s the work that our polling averages and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scenes .
Usually our model moves in the direction you might expect intuitively , e.g.
, Sanders gained ground both in Iowa and in our overall delegate forecast after a Selzer & Co. poll showed him leading the Iowa caucuses .
In the presence of strong house effects , however , the model might move in surprising directions .
Just as polls can have house effects in general elections — Rasmussen Reports polls have a notoriously pro-Trump/pro-Republican lean , for example — certain pollsters in the primaries persistently show better or worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just so happens that all the pollsters who have released polls since the debate have fairly strong house effects .
Emerson College has often shown strong results for Sanders , for instance .
And SurveyUSA — both in its California polls and its national polls — has consistently had some of the best numbers for Biden .
This is good news for Biden in one sense since SurveyUSA is one of our highest-rated pollsters .
But it also means that it isn ’ t necessarily new news when a SurveyUSA poll comes out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result will be in line with our model ’ s expectations .
Conversely , Ipsos has consistently shown some of the worst results for Biden , so it doesn ’ t necessarily move the needle in our model when another Ipsos poll comes out showing Biden doing mediocrely .
To give you a sense of the magnitude that house effects can have , here are the various post-debate polls with and without our model ’ s house effects adjustment : While the SurveyUSA national poll had Biden at 32 percent and Ipsos had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a lot smaller once you account for house effects .
The adjustment brings the SurveyUSA poll down to 28 percent and the Ipsos poll up to around 23 percent , a difference that is well within the polls ’ sampling error given their respective sample sizes .
To be clear , house effects are not the same thing as statistical bias , which can be evaluated only after a state has conducted its voting .
For example , SurveyUSA is implicitly suggesting that Biden is underrated by other pollsters .
If they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls will turn out to have had a pro-Biden bias .
But if Biden ’ s results match what SurveyUSA ’ s polls project , then their polls will have been unbiased and all the other polls will have had an anti-Biden bias .
Obviously , we think you should usually trust the polling average — that ’ s the whole point of averaging or aggregating polls .
But especially in the primaries , where turnout is hard to project , it ’ s also worth paying attention to the differences between polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects ( even to the point of being “ outliers ” ) turn out to be correct .
For all that said , polls with strong house effects , because of the additional complications they present , aren ’ t necessarily ideal for evaluating polling swings following news events such as debates .
So while it ’ s tempting to infer from the polls we have so far that the debate didn ’ t change things very much — no candidate is consistently seeing their numbers surge or crater — we should wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
In the meantime , our topline forecast is largely unchanged .
Biden remains the most likely candidate to win the majority of pledged delegates , with a 41 percent chance , followed by Sanders at 23 percent , Warren at 12 percent and Buttigieg at 9 percent .
There is also a 15 percent chance no one wins a majority , a chance that could increase if Bloomberg , who has now almost caught Buttigieg in our national polling average , continues to rise .

The first handful of polling since Tuesday night’s debate is out. But it doesn’t tell a terribly consistent story. Pretty much whichever Democrat you’re rooting for, you can find some polls to be happy about and others that you’d rather ignore. Here’s a quick list of those polls:
As I said, you can cherry-pick your way to pretty much whatever narrative you like. Biden fan? Both those SurveyUSA numbers look nice. Sanders stan? You’ll probably want to emphasize the Ipsos/Reuters poll. Warren aficionado? The SurveyUSA California poll and the Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight poll look good; the others, not so much.
But some of these polls are also pretty confusing. If you’re Sanders, for instance, should you be happy that the Emerson poll in New Hampshire still has you leading, or unhappy that it has you having lost a few points? Or to abstract the question: Should you pay more attention to the trendline within a poll or to the absolute result?
This question does not have a straightforward answer (other than that both are important to some degree). Ideally, you should be comparing a poll not only against the most recent survey by the same pollster, but really against all previous surveys by the pollster in that state — and for that matter also in other states — to detect whether it generally shows good results or poor results for your candidate. And when evaluating trendlines, you should account for when the previous polls were conducted. For example, any poll conducted in October is likely to have shown good results for Warren, since she was at her peak nationally then. So if a new poll came out today showing Warren having fallen by 2 points in Iowa since October, that might be comparatively good news for her since you would have anticipated a steeper decline.
If all this sounds like a lot of work … well, it’s the work that our polling averages and our model are doing for you behind the scenes. Usually our model moves in the direction you might expect intuitively, e.g., Sanders gained ground both in Iowa and in our overall delegate forecast after a Selzer & Co. poll showed him leading the Iowa caucuses.
In the presence of strong house effects, however, the model might move in surprising directions. Just as polls can have house effects in general elections — Rasmussen Reports polls have a notoriously pro-Trump/pro-Republican lean, for example — certain pollsters in the primaries persistently show better or worse results for certain candidates.
And it just so happens that all the pollsters who have released polls since the debate have fairly strong house effects. Emerson College has often shown strong results for Sanders, for instance. And SurveyUSA — both in its California polls and its national polls — has consistently had some of the best numbers for Biden. This is good news for Biden in one sense since SurveyUSA is one of our highest-rated pollsters. But it also means that it isn’t necessarily new news when a SurveyUSA poll comes out showing Biden doing well; such a result will be in line with our model’s expectations. Conversely, Ipsos has consistently shown some of the worst results for Biden, so it doesn’t necessarily move the needle in our model when another Ipsos poll comes out showing Biden doing mediocrely.
To give you a sense of the magnitude that house effects can have, here are the various post-debate polls with and without our model’s house effects adjustment:
House effects can make a big difference Polls since the January debate, with and without FiveThirtyEight’s adjustments for house effects SuRVeyUSA national poll, Jan. 14-16, 2020 Candidate Raw Adjusted Biden 32.0% 28.0% Sanders 21.0 20.1 Warren 14.0 14.7 Bloomberg 9.0 9.0 Buttigieg 9.0 8.5 Ipsos/Reuters national poll, Jan. 15-16, 2020 Candidate Raw Adjusted Sanders 20.0% 20.2% Biden 19.0 22.9 Warren 12.0 16.1 Bloomberg 9.0 8.5 Buttiigeg 6.0 7.4 SURVEYUSA California poll, Jan. 14-16, 2020 Candidate Raw Adjusted Biden 30.0% 26.1% Sanders 20.0 19.1 Warren 20.0 20.8 Buttigieg 8.0 7.5 Bloomberg 6.0 6.0 Emerson College New Hampshire Poll, Jan. 13-16, 2020 Candidate Raw Adjusted Sanders 22.9% 18.0% Buttigieg 17.7 17.7 Biden 14.1 13.4 Warren 13.5 13.4 Klobuchar 10.0 10.3 Yang 6.3 5.0 Only candidates polling at 5 percent or more in each survey are shown. Source: Polls
While the SurveyUSA national poll had Biden at 32 percent and Ipsos had him at 19 percent, the gap is a lot smaller once you account for house effects. The adjustment brings the SurveyUSA poll down to 28 percent and the Ipsos poll up to around 23 percent, a difference that is well within the polls’ sampling error given their respective sample sizes.
To be clear, house effects are not the same thing as statistical bias, which can be evaluated only after a state has conducted its voting. For example, SurveyUSA is implicitly suggesting that Biden is underrated by other pollsters. If they’re wrong about that, SurveyUSA polls will turn out to have had a pro-Biden bias. But if Biden’s results match what SurveyUSA’s polls project, then their polls will have been unbiased and all the other polls will have had an anti-Biden bias. Obviously, we think you should usually trust the polling average — that’s the whole point of averaging or aggregating polls. But especially in the primaries, where turnout is hard to project, it’s also worth paying attention to the differences between polls — and sometimes pollsters with strong house effects (even to the point of being “outliers”) turn out to be correct.
For all that said, polls with strong house effects, because of the additional complications they present, aren’t necessarily ideal for evaluating polling swings following news events such as debates. So while it’s tempting to infer from the polls we have so far that the debate didn’t change things very much — no candidate is consistently seeing their numbers surge or crater — we should wait for a few more polls to confirm that.
In the meantime, our topline forecast is largely unchanged. Biden remains the most likely candidate to win the majority of pledged delegates, with a 41 percent chance, followed by Sanders at 23 percent, Warren at 12 percent and Buttigieg at 9 percent. There is also a 15 percent chance that no one wins a majority, a chance that could increase if Bloomberg, who has now almost caught Buttigieg in our national polling average, continues to rise.
Do Parties Or Voters Choose Presidential Nominees?


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-20--Politics Podcast: The Electoral Cases For — And Against — The Four Leading Democrats

In this recording of a live show , the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew debates the electoral cases of the four @ @ @ @ @ primary .
The team also discusses the concept of electability and whether voters are biased @ @ @ @ @ for president .
Plus , Galen , Nate , Clare and Micah play a round @ @ @ @ @ Think.
” You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button @ @ @ @ @ or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform @ @ @ @ @ to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and @ @ @ @ @ discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a @ @ @ @ @ for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , @ @ @ @ @ comments .

In this recording of a live show, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew debates the electoral cases of the four leading candidates in the Democratic primary. The team also discusses the concept of electability and whether voters are biased against voting for a woman for president. Plus, Galen, Nate, Clare and Micah play a round of “Guess What Americans Think.”
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--2020-01-21--What Will We Learn From Trump’s Impeachment Trial?

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump is finally kicking off this week .
And while the trial itself is a momentous political event , the whole process feels a bit like having peeked at the last few pages of a book : We don ’ t know exactly how the plot will unfold , but we already know where it will end .
As at this point , there ’ s no sign that there are anywhere near 67 senators willing to vote to remove Trump from office .
But despite the final vote being something of a foregone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of genuinely open questions that the trial might resolve .
The answers to these questions might not be enough to break the country out of the partisan logjam that ’ s surrounded the impeachment process for months , but they could at the very least inject some uncertainty into a process that has come to feel quite inevitable .
( And there ’ s always the chance , however small , for a truly shocking development . )
Here are some of the major questions we ’ ll be following closely as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s defense look like ?
The impeachment process has been in motion for more than three months , but we still haven ’ t heard a formal defense from Trump ’ s legal team , outlining their case for why his conduct doesn ’ t merit impeachment and removal .
It ’ s not because Trump was boxed out of the impeachment inquiry in the House either .
They just refused to participate .
That means that the arguments we heard in favor of Trump during the House impeachment hearings were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not his lawyers .
And while their defenses of the president have been vigorous , they ’ ve also been scattershot .
For instance , at various moments over the past few months , Republicans have argued , among other things , that the testimony presented was “ secondhand ” or “ hearsay ” ; that Trump was just concerned about a ( debunked ) theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election ; that Ukraine said there was no pressure so there couldn ’ t be a quid pro quo ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in foreign policy ; that the whistleblower was politically biased against the president ; that Trump ’ s rights were denied throughout the process ; and that Democrats have been looking for an excuse to impeach Trump since the day he took office .
These arguments don ’ t add up to a coherent whole — in some cases , they directly contradict each other — but Republicans didn ’ t really need to offer a logically cohesive case in order to sow confusion during the hearings about Democrats ’ claims .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal team is expected to offer a more conventional defense , which will be presented at the trial by White House lawyer Pat Cipollone , and Jay Sekulow , who has been Trump ’ s personal lawyer since 2017 .
Several other attorneys were also added to the team in the past few days , including Ken Starr , the Whitewater independent counsel whose investigation led to Clinton ’ s impeachment , and the perennially TV-ready Alan Dershowitz , a constitutional lawyer and emeritus professor at Harvard Law School .
And we got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers ’ strategy in legal filings released over the past few days , where Trump ’ s team argued that the impeachment vote was a “ brazenly political act ” that punished the president for simply performing his duties as chief executive .
Those documents also hinted at a multi-pronged defense that echoes some of the arguments already previewed by Trump and his allies : First , that Trump ’ s behavior was “ entirely appropriate ” and didn ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense and second , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegitimate and unfair .
The filings also suggested that the defense is likely to be aggressive and concede no wrongdoing by Trump rather than simply arguing that his conduct doesn ’ t meet the standard for impeachment .
The upcoming election could also play a role as well , since Trump ’ s legal team also accused Democrats of using impeachment to “ interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away.
” However it plays out , their arguments will be televised and Trump himself is sure to be watching closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preside over the trial ?
Another potential wildcard is Chief Justice John Roberts , who will cross the street between the Supreme Court and the Capitol each afternoon to preside over the trial .
It ’ s possible his role will be mostly ceremonial , especially if President Clinton ’ s impeachment trial is any indication .
( At its close , Chief Justice William Rehnquist famously said , borrowing a line from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera , “ I did nothing in particular and did it very well.
” ) But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t actually all that clearly defined , and some legal commentators have argued that he could have significant influence over the proceedings if he chooses .
In the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson , for instance , Chief Justice Salmon Chase cast two tie-breaking votes .
Roberts could theoretically do the same if the senators are deadlocked over an issue like whether to call additional witnesses .
Although there are some limits — Roberts ’ s decisions can , for example , be overridden by a majority of senators .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other reasons , too .
For one , the impeachment trial isn ’ t the only Trump-related case on Roberts ’ s docket this year .
In a few months , the Supreme Court will consider a high-profile separation-of-powers dispute over whether House Democrats can obtain the president ’ s financial records .
Secondly , Roberts ’ s relationship with Trump hasn ’ t exactly been smooth .
While Trump was running for president , he called Roberts a “ disaster ” and a “ nightmare for conservatives.
” And in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a judge who ruled to restrict his asylum policy as an “ Obama judge , ” saying , “ We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges , Bush judges or Clinton judges.
” Roberts , who is known for his concern about the court ’ s institutional reputation , may not want to do anything too splashy during the trial to avoid creating the impression of partisanship .
But it will be instructive , all the same , to see how he navigates the treacherous waters of an impeachment trial — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disputes over witnesses and evidence .
Will any new evidence emerge ?
Of course , one of the biggest unanswered questions as the trial begins is whether the senators will agree to call witnesses or subpoena documents or if new evidence will emerge in other ways .
In the previous two presidential impeachment trials , witnesses did testify .
Democrats have been pushing for the Senate to call several Trump aides who haven ’ t yet shared what they know about the president ’ s conduct on Ukraine , including former national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would comply with a subpoena to testify . )
Only four Republicans would need to break ranks in order to make this happen .
That doesn ’ t seem especially likely at this point , even though three Republican senators have already said they ’ re open to voting to call witnesses .
But a fight over witnesses could also end up giving Democrats more than they bargained for , since some Republicans have been arguing for what they ’ re calling “ witness reciprocity ” — in other words , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton , the Republicans will haul in Hunter Biden .
New evidence could also trickle out in other ways , though , and indeed , it already is .
Last week , House impeachment investigators released new information obtained from Lev Parnas , an associate of Rudy Giuliani who ’ s currently under criminal indictment .
The documents , which include text messages and voicemails , provide a detailed portrait of Parnas ’ s involvement with the Ukraine pressure campaign and inject a new layer of uncertainty into the impeachment trial as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s still a significant amount of information that we don ’ t know about Trump ’ s conduct when it comes to Ukraine .
At this point , as you can read in my colleague Perry Bacon Jr. ’ s article published today , we think the impeachment process in the Senate will play out largely as it did in the House : along party lines .
But it ’ s also dangerous to assume that the trial will unfold exactly as we expect .
There are still plenty of open questions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next few weeks — and continue to shape the narrative on impeachment — even if we ’ re pretty confident about how this story will end .

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump is finally kicking off this week. And while the trial itself is a momentous political event, the whole process feels a bit like having peeked at the last few pages of a book: We don’t know exactly how the plot will unfold, but we already know where it will end. As at this point, there’s no sign that there are anywhere near 67 senators willing to vote to remove Trump from office.
How the televised hearings have moved public opinion on impeachment
But despite the final vote being something of a foregone conclusion, there are still a number of genuinely open questions that the trial might resolve. The answers to these questions might not be enough to break the country out of the partisan logjam that’s surrounded the impeachment process for months, but they could at the very least inject some uncertainty into a process that has come to feel quite inevitable. (And there’s always the chance, however small, for a truly shocking development.) Here are some of the major questions we’ll be following closely as the impeachment trial gets started:
What will Trump’s defense look like?
The impeachment process has been in motion for more than three months, but we still haven’t heard a formal defense from Trump’s legal team, outlining their case for why his conduct doesn’t merit impeachment and removal. It’s not because Trump was boxed out of the impeachment inquiry in the House either. They just refused to participate.
That means that the arguments we heard in favor of Trump during the House impeachment hearings were presented by his Republican allies in Congress, not his lawyers. And while their defenses of the president have been vigorous, they’ve also been scattershot.
For instance, at various moments over the past few months, Republicans have argued, among other things, that the testimony presented was “secondhand” or “hearsay”; that Trump was just concerned about a (debunked) theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election; that Ukraine said there was no pressure so there couldn’t be a quid pro quo; that quid pro quos happen all the time in foreign policy; that the whistleblower was politically biased against the president; that Trump’s rights were denied throughout the process; and that Democrats have been looking for an excuse to impeach Trump since the day he took office. These arguments don’t add up to a coherent whole — in some cases, they directly contradict each other — but Republicans didn’t really need to offer a logically cohesive case in order to sow confusion during the hearings about Democrats’ claims.
Now, though, Trump’s legal team is expected to offer a more conventional defense, which will be presented at the trial by White House lawyer Pat Cipollone, and Jay Sekulow, who has been Trump’s personal lawyer since 2017. Several other attorneys were also added to the team in the past few days, including Ken Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel whose investigation led to Clinton’s impeachment, and the perennially TV-ready Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer and emeritus professor at Harvard Law School.
And we got a preview of the president’s lawyers’ strategy in legal filings released over the past few days, where Trump’s team argued that the impeachment vote was a “brazenly political act” that punished the president for simply performing his duties as chief executive. Those documents also hinted at a multi-pronged defense that echoes some of the arguments already previewed by Trump and his allies: First, that Trump’s behavior was “entirely appropriate” and didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense and second, that the process pursued by the Democrats was illegitimate and unfair. The filings also suggested that the defense is likely to be aggressive and concede no wrongdoing by Trump rather than simply arguing that his conduct doesn’t meet the standard for impeachment. The upcoming election could also play a role as well, since Trump’s legal team also accused Democrats of using impeachment to “interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away.” However it plays out, their arguments will be televised and Trump himself is sure to be watching closely.
How will Chief Justice John Roberts preside over the trial?
Another potential wildcard is Chief Justice John Roberts, who will cross the street between the Supreme Court and the Capitol each afternoon to preside over the trial. It’s possible his role will be mostly ceremonial, especially if President Clinton’s impeachment trial is any indication. (At its close, Chief Justice William Rehnquist famously said, borrowing a line from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, “I did nothing in particular and did it very well.”)
But the chief justice’s power isn’t actually all that clearly defined, and some legal commentators have argued that he could have significant influence over the proceedings if he chooses. In the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, for instance, Chief Justice Salmon Chase cast two tie-breaking votes. Roberts could theoretically do the same if the senators are deadlocked over an issue like whether to call additional witnesses. Although there are some limits — Roberts’s decisions can, for example, be overridden by a majority of senators.
The chief justice will be closely watched for other reasons, too. For one, the impeachment trial isn’t the only Trump-related case on Roberts’s docket this year. In a few months, the Supreme Court will consider a high-profile separation-of-powers dispute over whether House Democrats can obtain the president’s financial records. Secondly, Roberts’s relationship with Trump hasn’t exactly been smooth. While Trump was running for president, he called Roberts a “disaster” and a “nightmare for conservatives.” And in 2018, Roberts rebuked Trump after the president attacked a judge who ruled to restrict his asylum policy as an “Obama judge,” saying, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
Roberts, who is known for his concern about the court’s institutional reputation, may not want to do anything too splashy during the trial to avoid creating the impression of partisanship. But it will be instructive, all the same, to see how he navigates the treacherous waters of an impeachment trial — particularly if there are close votes or disputes over witnesses and evidence.
Will any new evidence emerge?
Of course, one of the biggest unanswered questions as the trial begins is whether the senators will agree to call witnesses or subpoena documents or if new evidence will emerge in other ways.
In the previous two presidential impeachment trials, witnesses did testify. Democrats have been pushing for the Senate to call several Trump aides who haven’t yet shared what they know about the president’s conduct on Ukraine, including former national security advisor John Bolton. (Bolton said he would comply with a subpoena to testify.) Only four Republicans would need to break ranks in order to make this happen.
That doesn’t seem especially likely at this point, even though three Republican senators have already said they’re open to voting to call witnesses. But a fight over witnesses could also end up giving Democrats more than they bargained for, since some Republicans have been arguing for what they’re calling “witness reciprocity” — in other words, if the Democrats insist on hearing from John Bolton, the Republicans will haul in Hunter Biden.
New evidence could also trickle out in other ways, though, and indeed, it already is. Last week, House impeachment investigators released new information obtained from Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani who’s currently under criminal indictment. The documents, which include text messages and voicemails, provide a detailed portrait of Parnas’s involvement with the Ukraine pressure campaign and inject a new layer of uncertainty into the impeachment trial as it begins — a reminder that there’s still a significant amount of information that we don’t know about Trump’s conduct when it comes to Ukraine.
At this point, as you can read in my colleague Perry Bacon Jr.’s article published today, we think the impeachment process in the Senate will play out largely as it did in the House: along party lines. But it’s also dangerous to assume that the trial will unfold exactly as we expect. There are still plenty of open questions that could lead to big surprises over the next few weeks — and continue to shape the narrative on impeachment — even if we’re pretty confident about how this story will end.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-21--How Each Senator Is Likely To Weigh Removing Trump

It ’ s been just over a month since the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump on a largely party-line vote .
Last week , the House voted , also largely along party lines , to officially transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate , officially handing over the reins to the impeachment process .
The Senate ’ s trial of Donald J. Trump starts today .
Just before Trump was impeached , we took a look at how the trial vote was likely to break down in the Senate .
So , now that the ball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has anything changed ?
We ’ ve updated that original article below .
The biggest issue to crop up since we last checked in is the question of what the Senate trial will actually look like .
( You can read more about that , and about what we might learn during the trial , in this piece by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux . )
The transmission of the articles didn ’ t occur sooner largely because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn ’ t want to turn over the impeachment process to the GOP-controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate would hold a trial that included witnesses .
It ’ s not clear if Pelosi succeeded or failed .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not committed to allowing witnesses during the trial .
But three Republicans — Maine ’ s Susan Collins , Alaska ’ s Lisa Murkowski and Utah ’ s Mitt Romney — have already signaled that they want to have witness testimony .
So it ’ s possible that a majority exists — the chamber ’ s 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents joining with four Republicans — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority vote could force McConnell ’ s hand .
This is really not a debate about whether to call witnesses , but which witnesses can be called .
Democrats want to hear from people in Trump ’ s orbit , particularly former National Security Adviser John Bolton , who might offer more details about the Trump administration ’ s attempts to force the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
But McConnell and other Republicans are likely to insist that , if there are witnesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Bidens to testify about how Hunter Biden got a high-paying role with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma .
( Democrats broadly think that forcing Hunter or Joe Biden to testify is improper and basically rewarding Trump ’ s bad behavior . )
So I think it ’ s possible that McConnell pushes for a trial that includes testimony from both Bolton and Hunter Biden — knowing that a bipartisan Senate majority opposes that kind of agreement .
( Essentially , in that scenario , Democrats would be trying to shield Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncomfortable for him , and Republicans would be limiting the potential that new details of the Ukraine scheme might emerge that could their likely votes to acquit Trump harder to justify . )
The result would be no witnesses .
Then again , all of this wrangling over the parameters of the trial may not matter much .
At least at the start of this trial process , the Democrats seem well short of the 67 votes that would be needed to remove the president .
It ’ s still hard to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there may be a few Democrats who are inclined to oppose Trump ’ s removal .
But it ’ s worth explaining exactly why we think the Senate won ’ t vote to remove Trump .
So let ’ s break down the vote among all 100 senators — we expect a mostly party-line vote , but there are a number of incentives at work beneath the surface .
( Again , we first published this breakdown of the possible Senate vote on Dec. 11 , and fundamentally nothing has changed about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Almost certain to vote for removal : 44 Democrats Trump ’ s removal is supported by 47 percent of Americans and more than 80 percent of Democrats .
So if you ’ re the typical Democratic senator who represents a blue-leaning state , the safe and obvious vote is for Trump ’ s removal .
And that ’ s without even considering the strong evidence that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in exchange for a White House meeting and military aid .
It ’ s hard for me to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bipartisanship — Chris Coons of Delaware , for example — or those up for reelection in 2020 in blue-tinged swing states — Gary Peters of Michigan , Tina Smith of Minnesota — voting against impeachment .
Impeachment is popular enough among Democratic voters that any Democratic senator in a state that ’ s not solidly red would have serious electoral problems voting against it .
There are two Democrats , Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona , who are not up for reelection in 2020 but who might still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was elected last November , is known to be fairly centrist and comfortable breaking with her party .
She was one of only three Democrats who backed the confirmation of William Barr to be attorney general , for example .
Manchin is friendly with Trump and voted for Barr and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
The West Virginian has taken the same position as the Trump White House on key votes about 31 percent of the time in the current Congress , making him the chamber ’ s most Trump-aligned Democrat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s position 21 percent of the time .
In terms of partisan lean , Arizona leans red , and West Virginia is super conservative .
But I doubt electoral considerations matter that much to either Manchin nor Sinema — they aren ’ t up for reelection until 2024 , when Trump ’ s impeachment will likely be a distant memory .
So I would bet that both Manchin and Sinema vote against Trump ’ s removal , preserving their brands as separate from the broader Democratic Party .
Like Manchin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also voted for Barr .
Unlike Manchin and Sinema , Jones is up for reelection in 2020 .
My read on Jones is that he ’ s not that personally centrist ; instead , he seems to be trying to figure out how to stay in his seat in pro-Trump Alabama .
Jones has taken Trump ’ s position on 18 percent of Senate votes this year , making him the third most Trump-aligned Democrat , after Manchin and Sinema .
But relative to his state ’ s politics , Jones ranks behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his state ’ s pro-Trump preferences .
My starting assumption is that Jones will vote against Trump ’ s removal , hoping that the vote helps his reelection bid .
But he could also decide that Trump ’ s behavior is too extreme to condone and back removal , electoral consequences be damned .
Or perhaps Jones votes for Trump ’ s removal both because he opposes the president ’ s conduct but also because the Alabama Democrat sees little chance of winning reelection anyway and is basically auditioning for a spot in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( In 2016 , presidential and Senate voting were highly correlated — no U.S. Senate candidate won in a state where his or her party ’ s presidential nominee lost .
It ’ s hard to imagine the Democratic presidential nominee winning in Alabama in 2020 , so Jones seems like an underdog . )
So that ’ s at least 44 votes for removal just among Democrats , and possibly as many as 47 .
The removal of Trump would require another 20-23 votes .
Those would have to come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I think removal is 20 to 23 votes short of passing .
At least right now , I don ’ t think any Republican is likely to vote for Trump ’ s removal .
My guess is that lots of Republicans privately disapprove of Trump ’ s Ukraine moves .
But GOP senators face significant pressure not to publically break with Trump if they want to maintain their standing within the party and not annoy GOP voters who they need on their side to win primaries and general elections .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely noes .
Let ’ s go through the GOP blocs , from the most likely to vote for Trump ’ s removal to the least likely .
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah are among the most Trump-skeptical Republicans in Congress , with the Utah senator , in particular , occasionally bashing the president very sharply .
Neither has too much to worry about electorally — Murkowski isn ’ t up for reelection until 2022 , and Romney isn ’ t up until 2024 .
Trump isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s Republicans knew they were supporting someone who was not particularly pro-Trump when they nominated Romney in 2018 .
Murkowski lost a GOP primary in 2010 and then won the general election as a write-in candidate , so she probably isn ’ t that afraid of breaking with the party , either .
That said , only 8 percent of Republican voters support removing Trump from office .
Chiding Trump over some of his more outlandish comments is one thing ; supporting the removal of a president who has such strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine are both up for reelection in 2020 in Democratic-leaning states .
Both have a history of breaking with Trump .
They were part of a group of Republicans who publicly said they would not vote for Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election , for example .
And Collins , in particular , has remained fairly critical of the president since he came into office .
So there are some reasons to think that both could support the president ’ s removal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that Republican congressional candidates who broke with Trump in 2016 did worse than those who remained supportive of him , in part because those candidates lost some support from Trump-aligned voters .
Perhaps Collins and Gardner would gain support from more centrist Romney-Clinton voters if they backed Trump ’ s removal , making up for any losses among conservatives .
But that ’ s a risky bet .
Both senators need Republican voters in the general election .
Also , voting for removal has the potential to result in an organized campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respective GOP primaries .
The deadlines to file for the Senate in Colorado and Maine are in mid-March .
That ’ s not a ton of time for a challenger to ramp up a campaign , since the Senate is likely to vote on impeachment sometime in January .
But it would likely be fairly easy for even an obscure Republican to find support among GOP activists and donors if he or she were running against a GOP incumbent who had voted for Trump ’ s removal .
And in Maine , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge Collins the moment she votes for Trump ’ s removal , ex-Gov .
Paul LePage .
In short , for Collins and Gardner , the safest electoral route is to oppose removal .
Ben Sasse of Nebraska was among Trump ’ s most vocal GOP critics during the president ’ s first two years in office .
But as Sasse ’ s 2020 reelection bid has neared , the Nebraska senator has changed course — not quite embracing Trump , but not going out of his way to emphasize their disagreements either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a primary challenger arguing that he is too anti-Trump .
If Sasse voted to remove Trump , I think he would be defeated in Nebraska ’ s May 12 primary .
So I don ’ t think his vote is much in question .
This group includes Lamar Alexander of Tennessee , Richard Burr of North Carolina , Mike Enzi of Wyoming , Pat Roberts of Kansas .
If Trump was truly in danger of being removed , you ’ d expect to see the first signs of it in this group .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be part of any such movement .
He ’ s conservative on policy , but more of an old-school Republican ( think Bob Dole ) in terms of temperament .
He ’ s not particularly close to the president .
Similarly , Burr , Enzi and Roberts have no particular loyalty to Trump and no political reason to be wary of supporting his removal .
That said , all four are longtime loyal party members .
It ’ s just really hard to see them breaking with the party ’ s president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of Republicans — John Cornyn of Texas , Joni Ernst of Iowa , Martha McSally of Arizona , Thom Tillis of North Carolina — has a lot in common with the previous group ( neither particularly anti-Trump nor especially pro-Trump ) , except they ’ re all up for reelection in 2020 in relatively swingy states .
In other words , this is a bit of a complicated vote for them .
The safest course — and the one I would expect all four to take — is to oppose Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary challenge and ensuring Republican voters in their states are strongly behind them for the 2020 general election .
That said , for all four , voting against Trump ’ s removal ties their political prospects even closer to the president ’ s .
If 2020 is an anti-Trump wave year , I think it ’ s possible that Democrats win Senate seats in Arizona , Iowa , North Carolina and/or Texas — the same Senate-presidential vote alignment that is likely to doom Jones in Alabama would also doom some of these members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a moment .
Imagine that everyone in the groups listed so far voted for impeachment .
( Again , I don ’ t think that ’ s at all likely , but let ’ s just pretend . )
That would still give removal “ just ” 60 votes — seven short of the required number .
That makes this next group of Republicans essentially the deciders in the impeachment process .
Pro-Trump but looking at the polls : 32 Republicans This is a big group ; I ’ d include : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Missouri , John Boozman of Arkansas , Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia , Bill Cassidy of Louisiana , Mike Crapo of Idaho , Ted Cruz of Texas , Steve Daines of Montana , Deb Fischer of Nebraska , Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , Chuck Grassley of Iowa , John Kennedy of Louisiana , Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma , Josh Hawley of Missouri , John Hoeven of North Dakota , Ron Johnson of Wisconsin , James Lankford of Oklahoma , Mitch McConnell of Kentucky , Mike Lee of Utah , Jerry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kentucky , Rob Portman of Ohio , Jim Risch of Idaho , Marco Rubio of Florida , Mike Rounds of South Dakota , Dan Sullivan of Alaska , Tim Scott of South Carolina , Richard Shelby of Alabama , Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania , John Thune of South Dakota , Todd Young of Indiana , Roger Wicker of Mississippi .
And at first glance , you might not think these members should be in the same group .
After all , Graham has been one of Trump ’ s strongest defenders amid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators — Lee and Paul in particular — have fairly low Trump scores and occasionally break with the president on policy .
But what ties all these senators together , in my view , is that they generally rose to power pre-Trump and are probably more interested in preserving the GOP and their own electoral standing than in defending Trump himself .
And none of them are up for reelection in 2020 in swing states , so they are probably looking more at the broader landscape for Republicans than their own reelection prospects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking with Trump unless it ’ s very politically expedient .
Let ’ s say , at some point , 75 percent of Americans support Trump ’ s removal , including 35 or 40 percent of Republicans .
This is the bloc of Republicans that I think would go to the White House and urge Trump to step down .
They would be the most potent messengers in such a situation — they rarely attack Trump and so can ’ t be written off as “ Never Trumpers , ” a categorization the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismiss criticism from people like Romney .
More importantly , if this group broke with Trump , it would provide the numbers needed to actually remove him from office .
( Again , though , that all seems very unlikely at the moment . )
These Republicans — Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee , Mike Braun of Indiana , Tom Cotton of Arkansas , Kevin Cramer of North Dakota , Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi , Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia , and Rick Scott of Florida — either rose to power post-Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on immigration issues in particular ( Cotton and Perdue ) .
I don ’ t think they will ever , ever break with the president .
If Trump ’ s political standing worsens , Loeffler and Perdue would be making a somewhat risky move in sticking by him because they represent swingy Georgia ( and both are on the ballot in 2020 ) , but I still don ’ t see any circumstances in which they break with the president .
Or , to put it slightly more cautiously , this group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last defenders .
There are a lot of competing incentives at work in the Senate regarding impeachment .
The way it all shakes out , however , is that the removal vote is at about 56-44 in Trump ’ s favor .
That could , of course , change — based on additional evidence emerging , public opinion shifting and senators changing their minds .
But right now , it ’ s just hard to see the Senate trial taking place with any real chance that 67 senators will support removing him from @ @

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

It’s been just over a month since the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump on a largely party-line vote. Last week, the House voted, also largely along party lines, to officially transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, officially handing over the reins to the impeachment process. The Senate’s trial of Donald J. Trump starts today.
Just before Trump was impeached, we took a look at how the trial vote was likely to break down in the Senate. So, now that the ball is in the Senate’s hands, has anything changed? We’ve updated that original article below.
The biggest issue to crop up since we last checked in is the question of what the Senate trial will actually look like. (You can read more about that, and about what we might learn during the trial, in this piece by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux.) The transmission of the articles didn’t occur sooner largely because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t want to turn over the impeachment process to the GOP-controlled Senate until she had assurances that the Senate would hold a trial that included witnesses. It’s not clear if Pelosi succeeded or failed. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has not committed to allowing witnesses during the trial. But three Republicans — Maine’s Susan Collins, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Utah’s Mitt Romney — have already signaled that they want to have witness testimony.
So it’s possible that a majority exists — the chamber’s 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents joining with four Republicans — that would support having witnesses. And a majority vote could force McConnell’s hand.
This is really not a debate about whether to call witnesses, but which witnesses can be called. Democrats want to hear from people in Trump’s orbit, particularly former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who might offer more details about the Trump administration’s attempts to force the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. But McConnell and other Republicans are likely to insist that, if there are witnesses, the list should include at least one of the Bidens to testify about how Hunter Biden got a high-paying role with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. (Democrats broadly think that forcing Hunter or Joe Biden to testify is improper and basically rewarding Trump’s bad behavior.)
So I think it’s possible that McConnell pushes for a trial that includes testimony from both Bolton and Hunter Biden — knowing that a bipartisan Senate majority opposes that kind of agreement. (Essentially, in that scenario, Democrats would be trying to shield Joe Biden from public testimony that might be uncomfortable for him, and Republicans would be limiting the potential that new details of the Ukraine scheme might emerge that could their likely votes to acquit Trump harder to justify.) The result would be no witnesses.
Then again, all of this wrangling over the parameters of the trial may not matter much. At least at the start of this trial process, the Democrats seem well short of the 67 votes that would be needed to remove the president. It’s still hard to see any Republican voting to remove Trump, and there may be a few Democrats who are inclined to oppose Trump’s removal.
But it’s worth explaining exactly why we think the Senate won’t vote to remove Trump. So let’s break down the vote among all 100 senators — we expect a mostly party-line vote, but there are a number of incentives at work beneath the surface. (Again, we first published this breakdown of the possible Senate vote on Dec. 11, and fundamentally nothing has changed about the Senate voting calculus since then.)
Let’s start with the Democrats.
Almost certain to vote for removal: 44 Democrats
Trump’s removal is supported by 47 percent of Americans and more than 80 percent of Democrats. So if you’re the typical Democratic senator who represents a blue-leaning state, the safe and obvious vote is for Trump’s removal. And that’s without even considering the strong evidence that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in exchange for a White House meeting and military aid.
It’s hard for me to see even Democrats who like to emphasize their bipartisanship — Chris Coons of Delaware, for example — or those up for reelection in 2020 in blue-tinged swing states — Gary Peters of Michigan, Tina Smith of Minnesota — voting against impeachment. Impeachment is popular enough among Democratic voters that any Democratic senator in a state that’s not solidly red would have serious electoral problems voting against it.
Swing votes based on centrism: 2 Democrats
There are two Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who are not up for reelection in 2020 but who might still vote against removal.
Sinema, who was elected last November, is known to be fairly centrist and comfortable breaking with her party. She was one of only three Democrats who backed the confirmation of William Barr to be attorney general, for example. Manchin is friendly with Trump and voted for Barr and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The West Virginian has taken the same position as the Trump White House on key votes about 31 percent of the time in the current Congress, making him the chamber’s most Trump-aligned Democrat. Sinema is No. 2, backing the president’s position 21 percent of the time.
In terms of partisan lean, Arizona leans red, and West Virginia is super conservative. But I doubt electoral considerations matter that much to either Manchin nor Sinema — they aren’t up for reelection until 2024, when Trump’s impeachment will likely be a distant memory.
So I would bet that both Manchin and Sinema vote against Trump’s removal, preserving their brands as separate from the broader Democratic Party.
Swing vote based on electoral considerations: 1 Democrat
Like Manchin and Sinema, Doug Jones of Alabama also voted for Barr. Unlike Manchin and Sinema, Jones is up for reelection in 2020. My read on Jones is that he’s not that personally centrist; instead, he seems to be trying to figure out how to stay in his seat in pro-Trump Alabama. Jones has taken Trump’s position on 18 percent of Senate votes this year, making him the third most Trump-aligned Democrat, after Manchin and Sinema. But relative to his state’s politics, Jones ranks behind only Jon Tester of Montana in bucking his state’s pro-Trump preferences.
My starting assumption is that Jones will vote against Trump’s removal, hoping that the vote helps his reelection bid. But he could also decide that Trump’s behavior is too extreme to condone and back removal, electoral consequences be damned. Or perhaps Jones votes for Trump’s removal both because he opposes the president’s conduct but also because the Alabama Democrat sees little chance of winning reelection anyway and is basically auditioning for a spot in the next Democratic president’s cabinet. (In 2016, presidential and Senate voting were highly correlated — no U.S. Senate candidate won in a state where his or her party’s presidential nominee lost. It’s hard to imagine the Democratic presidential nominee winning in Alabama in 2020, so Jones seems like an underdog.)
So that’s at least 44 votes for removal just among Democrats, and possibly as many as 47. The removal of Trump would require another 20-23 votes. Those would have to come from among the chamber’s 53 Republicans. And I think removal is 20 to 23 votes short of passing.
At least right now, I don’t think any Republican is likely to vote for Trump’s removal. My guess is that lots of Republicans privately disapprove of Trump’s Ukraine moves. But GOP senators face significant pressure not to publically break with Trump if they want to maintain their standing within the party and not annoy GOP voters who they need on their side to win primaries and general elections.
Still, there are some gradations among the likely noes. Let’s go through the GOP blocs, from the most likely to vote for Trump’s removal to the least likely.
Trump-skeptical, limited electoral considerations: 2 Republicans
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah are among the most Trump-skeptical Republicans in Congress, with the Utah senator, in particular, occasionally bashing the president very sharply. Neither has too much to worry about electorally — Murkowski isn’t up for reelection until 2022, and Romney isn’t up until 2024. Trump isn’t super popular in Utah, and the state’s Republicans knew they were supporting someone who was not particularly pro-Trump when they nominated Romney in 2018. Murkowski lost a GOP primary in 2010 and then won the general election as a write-in candidate, so she probably isn’t that afraid of breaking with the party, either.
That said, only 8 percent of Republican voters support removing Trump from office. Chiding Trump over some of his more outlandish comments is one thing; supporting the removal of a president who has such strong support within your party is something else.
Trump-skeptical, significant electoral considerations: 2 Republicans
Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine are both up for reelection in 2020 in Democratic-leaning states. Both have a history of breaking with Trump. They were part of a group of Republicans who publicly said they would not vote for Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, for example. And Collins, in particular, has remained fairly critical of the president since he came into office. So there are some reasons to think that both could support the president’s removal.
That said, there was some evidence that Republican congressional candidates who broke with Trump in 2016 did worse than those who remained supportive of him, in part because those candidates lost some support from Trump-aligned voters. Perhaps Collins and Gardner would gain support from more centrist Romney-Clinton voters if they backed Trump’s removal, making up for any losses among conservatives. But that’s a risky bet. Both senators need Republican voters in the general election.
Also, voting for removal has the potential to result in an organized campaign to defeat Collins or Gardner in their respective GOP primaries. The deadlines to file for the Senate in Colorado and Maine are in mid-March. That’s not a ton of time for a challenger to ramp up a campaign, since the Senate is likely to vote on impeachment sometime in January. But it would likely be fairly easy for even an obscure Republican to find support among GOP activists and donors if he or she were running against a GOP incumbent who had voted for Trump’s removal. And in Maine, there is a very prominent pro-Trump Republican may challenge Collins the moment she votes for Trump’s removal, ex-Gov. Paul LePage.
In short, for Collins and Gardner, the safest electoral route is to oppose removal.
Trump-skeptical, huge electoral considerations: 1 Republican
Ben Sasse of Nebraska was among Trump’s most vocal GOP critics during the president’s first two years in office. But as Sasse’s 2020 reelection bid has neared, the Nebraska senator has changed course — not quite embracing Trump, but not going out of his way to emphasize their disagreements either. Not coincidentally, Sasse already has a primary challenger arguing that he is too anti-Trump.
If Sasse voted to remove Trump, I think he would be defeated in Nebraska’s May 12 primary. So I don’t think his vote is much in question.
Pro-Trump, retiring (so no electoral pressure): 4 Republicans
This group includes Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Pat Roberts of Kansas.
If Trump was truly in danger of being removed, you’d expect to see the first signs of it in this group. I think Alexander, in particular, would be part of any such movement. He’s conservative on policy, but more of an old-school Republican (think Bob Dole) in terms of temperament. He’s not particularly close to the president.
Similarly, Burr, Enzi and Roberts have no particular loyalty to Trump and no political reason to be wary of supporting his removal. That said, all four are longtime loyal party members. It’s just really hard to see them breaking with the party’s president on this kind of vote.
Pro-Trump, with significant electoral considerations: 4 Republicans
This group of Republicans — John Cornyn of Texas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Martha McSally of Arizona, Thom Tillis of North Carolina — has a lot in common with the previous group (neither particularly anti-Trump nor especially pro-Trump), except they’re all up for reelection in 2020 in relatively swingy states. In other words, this is a bit of a complicated vote for them.
The safest course — and the one I would expect all four to take — is to oppose Trump’s removal, therefore preventing a major primary challenge and ensuring Republican voters in their states are strongly behind them for the 2020 general election. That said, for all four, voting against Trump’s removal ties their political prospects even closer to the president’s. If 2020 is an anti-Trump wave year, I think it’s possible that Democrats win Senate seats in Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina and/or Texas — the same Senate-presidential vote alignment that is likely to doom Jones in Alabama would also doom some of these members.
But let’s pause here for a moment. Imagine that everyone in the groups listed so far voted for impeachment. (Again, I don’t think that’s at all likely, but let’s just pretend.) That would still give removal “just” 60 votes — seven short of the required number. That makes this next group of Republicans essentially the deciders in the impeachment process.
Pro-Trump but looking at the polls: 32 Republicans
This is a big group; I’d include: John Barrasso of Wyoming, Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Ted Cruz of Texas, Steve Daines of Montana, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Jim Risch of Idaho, Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, John Thune of South Dakota, Todd Young of Indiana, Roger Wicker of Mississippi.
And at first glance, you might not think these members should be in the same group. After all, Graham has been one of Trump’s strongest defenders amid the Ukraine scandal, while some of these senators — Lee and Paul in particular — have fairly low Trump scores and occasionally break with the president on policy. But what ties all these senators together, in my view, is that they generally rose to power pre-Trump and are probably more interested in preserving the GOP and their own electoral standing than in defending Trump himself. And none of them are up for reelection in 2020 in swing states, so they are probably looking more at the broader landscape for Republicans than their own reelection prospects.
I don’t see them breaking with Trump unless it’s very politically expedient. Let’s say, at some point, 75 percent of Americans support Trump’s removal, including 35 or 40 percent of Republicans. This is the bloc of Republicans that I think would go to the White House and urge Trump to step down. They would be the most potent messengers in such a situation — they rarely attack Trump and so can’t be written off as “Never Trumpers,” a categorization the president’s allies have used to dismiss criticism from people like Romney. More importantly, if this group broke with Trump, it would provide the numbers needed to actually remove him from office. (Again, though, that all seems very unlikely at the moment.)
Always Trumpers: 8 Republicans
These Republicans — Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia, and Rick Scott of Florida — either rose to power post-Trump or are closely allied with the president on immigration issues in particular (Cotton and Perdue). I don’t think they will ever, ever break with the president. If Trump’s political standing worsens, Loeffler and Perdue would be making a somewhat risky move in sticking by him because they represent swingy Georgia (and both are on the ballot in 2020), but I still don’t see any circumstances in which they break with the president. Or, to put it slightly more cautiously, this group of Republicans would likely be Trump’s last defenders.
There are a lot of competing incentives at work in the Senate regarding impeachment. The way it all shakes out, however, is that the removal vote is at about 56-44 in Trump’s favor. That could, of course, change — based on additional evidence emerging, public opinion shifting and senators changing their minds. But right now, it’s just hard to see the Senate trial taking place with any real chance that 67 senators will support removing him from office.
Do Parties Or Voters Choose Presidential Nominees?


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-21--What Went Down At The Senate Impeachment Trial On Tuesday

Search
No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-22--Why People Keep Asking Elizabeth Warren Whether She Can Win

At a campaign event in southeastern Iowa in December , a graduate student named Charlotte Moser was waiting to ask Sen. Elizabeth Warren a question .
As we sat and talked in a crowded union hall before the event began , Charlotte told me she felt a little guilty that it wasn ’ t about Warren ’ s plans or policies .
But what she really wanted to know , she said , was how Warren coped with sexism on the campaign trail .
“ She ’ s faced a lot of that recently — being called elitist and unlikable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The previous day , a similar version of Charlotte ’ s question had cropped up at another town hall , when a middle-aged woman named Kris stood and asked Warren why “ so many Americans would rather see a man with a tie ” in the Oval Office .
And the candidate got another twist on the same query a few hours after I talked to Charlotte , at another event in a neighboring town overlooking the Mississippi River .
This time , it was from a reporter in a scrum who wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a preoccupation for the voters who had come hear her speak .
In both cases , Warren had an answer that amounted to this : It shouldn ’ t be .
“ I think a lot of the world changed after 2016 , ” she told Kris , going on to describe the flood of women ’ s protests in the days after President Trump ’ s inauguration and the wave of women elected to state legislatures and Congress in 2017 and 2018 .
“ And I think in 2020 , women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are stepping up , and this is when we ’ re going to make it happen.
” It was a practiced response to a question that can turn into a trap for female candidates , even when it ’ s asked with the best of intentions .
During the Democratic debate last week , Warren disputed on national television what she says Sen. Bernie Sanders told her in a private meeting in 2018 : A woman couldn ’ t defeat Trump .
Sanders denies ever saying this , but when asked about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as a moment to attack doubts about women ’ s electability .
“ Look at the men on this stage : Collectively , they have lost 10 elections , ” she said .
“ The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they ’ ve been in are the women.
” Studies do show that when female candidates run for Congress , they win at about the same rate as men .
That doesn ’ t mean the playing field is level — the women who win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterparts , and perhaps held to a higher standard by voters — but what often gets lost in the debate over electability is just how adept women are at responding to sexism in politics , whether it ’ s from their opponents , voters or the media .
Still , it ’ s hard to know what will reassure voters whose fears mostly seem to be grounded in one specific election , and one specific candidate — 2016 and Donald Trump .
That tension is something I ’ ve been rolling around in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Iowa , because it ’ s hard to figure out how gender is shaping a race while it ’ s unfolding .
What I saw in Iowa was far from an overwhelming consensus that Warren was doomed to fail .
Nor was it especially reminiscent of the “ you go girl !
” excitement of the 2016 election .
Instead , voters were grappling with a conundrum that felt very familiar to me : How do you acknowledge the reality of the challenges that women face without going too far and contributing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning ?
On the one hand , there ’ s evidence that in the last few years , voters are increasingly likely to identify gender discrimination as a major reason women are not elected to top positions .
And people who study gender and politics still argue that voters ’ biases remain a real barrier for women who run for office .
But those factors don ’ t necessarily determine the fate of Warren or any other female candidates .
Women win elections all the time .
And there is a clear risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much weight , concerns around a female candidate ’ s electability will become a self-defeating cycle where even the people who are most excited about the prospect of a female president are too afraid to vote for one .
“ I thought Hillary would be our first woman president .
I wanted her to be , ” said Chris Moore , 70 , at a town hall in a brightly lit school gymnasium as snow started to fall outside .
It wasn ’ t her first time seeing Warren speak , and she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates , she thought Warren would probably make the best president .
“ I guess the question is , is she electable ?
” I asked Moore what she thought might harm Warren ’ s chances .
“ I hope being a woman isn ’ t a negative , ” she said .
“ But it could be an issue for some people — maybe not for Democrats , but we need to attract independents in order to win.
” This was something weighing on many of the voters I spoke with .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gender , it seemed difficult for them to not at least briefly contemplate a future in which another woman went up against Trump and lost .
Part of the trouble may be that while men ’ s failed presidential runs have become routine , Hillary Clinton ’ s loss was entirely novel and therefore harder for voters to move past .
But some also recognized their own role in that process , and said they ’ re trying to resist the temptation to look to the past for clues about which candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get that people are afraid about what happens if Trump wins again — we ’ ve got to beat him , ” said Matt Falduto , 48 , who had brought his daughters to a Warren town hall on a chilly Sunday morning .
“ But you can ’ t let those fears make you second-guess your instincts about which candidate is the best.
” Few of the voters I talked to in December had fully committed to a candidate , and a month later , the race in Iowa still looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through bunting-adorned elementary schools and knelt next to voters on the floor of a sandwich shop turned rally space , it was clear that anxiety about sexism was only one part of the equation .
For some , Warren was too liberal ; others thought she wasn ’ t liberal enough .
I heard worries about whether she ’ d be able to connect with voters of color or people who were less educated .
But this year ’ s election also seemed to be a reckoning of sorts for many voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads around the reality of sexism in politics and figure out what — if anything — it should mean for their vote .
On the campaign trail , Warren doesn ’ t talk much about what it would mean to be the first female president .
Instead , she brings up her gender in subtler ways , like when she talks about being fired from her job as a teacher when she got pregnant .
Her affect is folksy and down-to-earth — she jokes about her snap decision to go to law school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor at Harvard Law School .
When I saw her in Iowa , she was in the midst of an attempt to pivot away from the health care debate she ’ d found herself mired in and back to the bread and butter of her candidacy : her pitch to voters that economic populism and an anti-corruption agenda are what ’ s needed to beat Trump in 2020 .
In some ways , being a woman could help her make that pitch .
Research has shown that elected women are generally perceived to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which could give Warren ’ s anti-corruption message extra heft .
And there are other reasons to think that Warren should be more appealing to primary voters than her rivals at the top of the field , who are white , male and either gunning to be the first octogenarian president or the youngest to ever be elected .
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted in November found that 83 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they would be enthusiastic about voting for a female candidate — substantially higher than any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including someone under 40 ( 62 percent ) , a white man ( 53 percent ) , and someone over 70 ( 31 percent ) .
In surveys conducted recently , Democrats say they favor female candidates over male candidates , all else being equal .
But there are also signs that in the aftermath of the 2016 election , voters are more cynical about women ’ s chances in the presidential arena — and especially against Trump .
Surveys of Democratic voters by the left-leaning group Avalanche Strategy , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular when respondents are given the ability to pick a presidential candidate without having to worry whether they ’ ll beat Trump .
In follow-up interviews , many of those would-be Warren supporters said the negative impact of gender was a big part of their calculus .
Other polls have found that while most Democrats say they are comfortable with a female president , they think their friends and neighbors might be more reluctant to support a woman .
It ’ s not clear that these fears are entirely baseless .
A survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October found , for instance , that Warren performed worse than Sanders or Biden in head-to-head matchups against Trump in key battleground states — a pattern that can also be seen in head-to-head national polls .
Admittedly , Warren ’ s liberal views are a confounding factor .
In that New York Times survey , 52 percent of voters who said they ’ d vote for Biden but not Warren in a matchup against Trump ( Sanders wasn ’ t part of the equation ) said it was because she ’ s too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent also agreed with the statement that women who run for president “ just aren ’ t that likable.
” Those groups represent only a fraction of the electorate .
But in a close election , they could make a difference .
Whether it ’ s helpful to dwell on these fears or emphasize the barriers female presidential candidates face is up for debate , even among the people who spend their lives studying gender and politics .
After I got back from Iowa , I called Kathleen Dolan , a political science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get her take on how much gender bias really seemed to be hurting Warren .
She told me she found the media ’ s focus on it exasperating .
“ I would give my eye teeth for a process where no reporter asks questions about what it ’ s like to be a woman in politics , how they deal with sexism , whether a woman can win , ” she said .
“ Then we ’ d have a genuine sense of whether voters are actually worried about this.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably hurting Warren and the other female candidates .
Dan Cassino , a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University , concluded from a recent survey experiment that sexist views are fairly widespread among voters — particularly male voters — and many of those voters are less motivated to support a female candidate .
“ Eventually , we will get to a point where enough women have run for president that it ’ s entirely unremarkable , ” he said .
“ But we ’ re not at that point yet , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some votes if they nominate a woman.
” I asked Cassino how much of a difference it could make , compared to other factors that voters care about like age , ideology or political experience .
“ Could those lost votes be offset by a million other factors ?
” he said .
“ Absolutely .
If it ’ s a choice between a worse male candidate and a better female candidate , you still want the woman .
But it ’ s a calculation.
” The trouble is that weighing those trade-offs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nearly impossible to do in real time .
Case in point : Nearly four years later , political scientists are still trying to figure out exactly how much of an impact sexism had in the 2016 election .
The consensus among most of the experts I ’ ve spoken with is that sexism does seem to have moderately helped Trump and hurt Clinton — but seeing the attacks on Clinton may also have galvanized some of her supporters .
And all of this might not tell us much about how a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different year , would fare .
In Iowa , some of Warren ’ s supporters told me they were trying to resist the urge to compare this year ’ s crop of female candidates to Clinton .
“ I really hope people don ’ t assume that all women who run for office are kind of cut from the same cloth , ” said Robin Flattery , 31 .
It would be a mistake , Flattery added , to allow Warren ’ s gender to obscure the aspects of her biography and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s — her working-class roots , her unapologetic progressivism or the fact that she hasn ’ t weathered decades of scandal and controversy .
There is one inescapable similarity between 2016 and 2020 , though : the Republican opponent .
And while the research doesn ’ t suggest that a majority of American voters simply won ’ t accept the idea of a female president — the fact that Clinton won nearly three million more votes than Trump is pretty good evidence to the contrary — it ’ s not hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another woman going up against Trump .
“ I think the conversation would be different if the Democrats weren ’ t facing the prospect of a scorched-earth campaign by a president who ’ s willing to use sexism and what had previously been socially unacceptable language and attacks against a woman , ” said Danny Hayes , a political science professor at George Washington University .
As Warren is fond of pointing out , of course , the world has changed since 2016 .
The Women ’ s March happened ; the # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of women ran for office and won in 2018 .
The problem is that it ’ s not clear how much those changes help her .
There was never much reason to believe that female voters would coalesce around Warren simply because she was a woman .
Plus , a general electorate may be less inclined to get behind Warren ’ s particular brand of liberal politics .
So it ’ s worth thinking about the lessons we ’ ll take from Warren ’ s candidacy , not only if she wins the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loses .
The risks in failing to confront sexism in politics may seem obvious .
And if nothing else , the spat between Warren and Sanders brought the issue into plain view , perhaps forcing more voters to grapple with it as the Iowa caucuses draw closer .
But there ’ s also a danger , Dolan said , in taking for granted that it ’ s a decisive factor , particularly as women running for president becomes more routine .
“ Yes , we need to call out sexism when we see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But we also need to avoid the assumption that when a woman fails , it ’ s because she ’ s a woman .
”

At a campaign event in southeastern Iowa in December, a graduate student named Charlotte Moser was waiting to ask Sen. Elizabeth Warren a question. As we sat and talked in a crowded union hall before the event began, Charlotte told me she felt a little guilty that it wasn’t about Warren’s plans or policies. But what she really wanted to know, she said, was how Warren coped with sexism on the campaign trail. “She’s faced a lot of that recently — being called elitist and unlikable and angry,” she said.
The previous day, a similar version of Charlotte’s question had cropped up at another town hall, when a middle-aged woman named Kris stood and asked Warren why “so many Americans would rather see a man with a tie” in the Oval Office. And the candidate got another twist on the same query a few hours after I talked to Charlotte, at another event in a neighboring town overlooking the Mississippi River. This time, it was from a reporter in a scrum who wanted to know why Warren thought sexism was such a preoccupation for the voters who had come to hear her speak.
In both cases, Warren had an answer that amounted to this: It shouldn’t be. “I think a lot of the world changed after 2016,” she told Kris, going on to describe the flood of women’s protests in the days after President Trump’s inauguration and the wave of women elected to state legislatures and Congress in 2017 and 2018. “And I think in 2020, women are stepping up, friends of women are stepping up, and this is when we’re going to make it happen.”
It was a practiced response to a question that can turn into a trap for female candidates, even when it’s asked with the best of intentions. During the Democratic debate last week, Warren disputed on national television what she says Sen. Bernie Sanders told her in a private meeting in 2018: A woman couldn’t defeat Trump. Sanders denies ever saying this, but when asked about the exchange by a moderator, Warren used it as a moment to attack doubts about women’s electability. “Look at the men on this stage: Collectively, they have lost 10 elections,” she said. “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.”
Studies do show that when female candidates run for Congress, they win at about the same rate as men. That doesn’t mean the playing field is level — the women who win are generally more qualified than their male counterparts, and perhaps held to a higher standard by voters — but what often gets lost in the debate over electability is just how adept women are at responding to sexism in politics, whether it’s from their opponents, voters or the media. Still, it’s hard to know what will reassure voters whose fears mostly seem to be grounded in one specific election, and one specific candidate — 2016 and Donald Trump.
That tension is something I’ve been rolling around in my head ever since I got back from Iowa, because it’s hard to figure out how gender is shaping a race while it’s unfolding. What I saw in Iowa was far from an overwhelming consensus that Warren was doomed to fail. Nor was it especially reminiscent of the “you go girl!” excitement of the 2016 election. Instead, voters were grappling with a conundrum that felt very familiar to me: How do you acknowledge the reality of the challenges that women face without going too far and contributing to the forces that keep them from winning?
On the one hand, there’s evidence that in the last few years, voters are increasingly likely to identify gender discrimination as a major reason women are not elected to top positions. And people who study gender and politics still argue that voters’ biases remain a real barrier for women who run for office. But those factors don’t necessarily determine the fate of Warren or any other female candidates. Women win elections all the time. And there is a clear risk that if these doubts are given too much weight, concerns around a female candidate’s electability will become a self-defeating cycle where even the people who are most excited about the prospect of a female president are too afraid to vote for one.
“I thought Hillary would be our first woman president. I wanted her to be,” said Chris Moore, 70, at a town hall in a brightly lit school gymnasium as snow started to fall outside. It wasn’t her first time seeing Warren speak, and she told me that of all the Democratic candidates, she thought Warren would probably make the best president. “I guess the question is, is she electable?”
I asked Moore what she thought might harm Warren’s chances. “I hope being a woman isn’t a negative,” she said. “But it could be an issue for some people — maybe not for Democrats, but we need to attract independents in order to win.”
This was something weighing on many of the voters I spoke with. When the conversation touched on Warren’s gender, it seemed difficult for them to not at least briefly contemplate a future in which another woman went up against Trump and lost. Part of the trouble may be that while men’s failed presidential runs have become routine, Hillary Clinton’s loss was entirely novel and therefore harder for voters to move past. But some also recognized their own role in that process, and said they’re trying to resist the temptation to look to the past for clues about which candidate to support.
“Look, I get that people are afraid about what happens if Trump wins again — we’ve got to beat him,” said Matt Falduto, 48, who had brought his daughters to a Warren town hall on a chilly Sunday morning. “But you can’t let those fears make you second-guess your instincts about which candidate is the best.”
Few of the voters I talked to in December had fully committed to a candidate, and a month later, the race in Iowa still looks like a free-for-all. And as I moved through bunting-adorned elementary schools and knelt next to voters on the floor of a sandwich shop turned rally space, it was clear that anxiety about sexism was only one part of the equation. For some, Warren was too liberal; others thought she wasn’t liberal enough. I heard worries about whether she’d be able to connect with voters of color or people who were less educated. But this year’s election also seemed to be a reckoning of sorts for many voters who were struggling with how to wrap their heads around the reality of sexism in politics and figure out what — if anything — it should mean for their vote.
On the campaign trail, Warren doesn’t talk much about what it would mean to be the first female president. Instead, she brings up her gender in subtler ways, like when she talks about being fired from her job as a teacher when she got pregnant. Her affect is folksy and down-to-earth — she jokes about her snap decision to go to law school but delicately skirts her decades as a professor at Harvard Law School. When I saw her in Iowa, she was in the midst of an attempt to pivot away from the health care debate she’d found herself mired in and back to the bread and butter of her candidacy: her pitch to voters that economic populism and an anti-corruption agenda are what’s needed to beat Trump in 2020.
In some ways, being a woman could help her make that pitch. Research has shown that elected women are generally perceived to be more honest than their male counterparts, which could give Warren’s anti-corruption message extra heft. And there are other reasons to think that Warren should be more appealing to primary voters than her rivals at the top of the field, who are white, male and either gunning to be the first octogenarian president or the youngest to ever be elected.
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted in November found that 83 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they would be enthusiastic about voting for a female candidate — substantially higher than any other type of candidate mentioned in the poll, including someone under 40 (62 percent), a white man (53 percent), and someone over 70 (31 percent). In surveys conducted recently, Democrats say they favor female candidates over male candidates, all else being equal.
Democrats are enthusiastic about a woman candidate Responses to a November 2019 NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll of Democrats asking whether they would be enthusiastic about candidates with the following qualities Type Percent A woman 83% – Someone who is gay or lesbian 69 – Someone under 40 62 – A white man 53 – A socialist 37 – A business executive 34 – Someone over 70 31 – From a survey of 453 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents conducted Nov. 11 to Nov. 15, 2019. Source: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist
But there are also signs that in the aftermath of the 2016 election, voters are more cynical about women’s chances in the presidential arena — and especially against Trump. Surveys of Democratic voters by the left-leaning group Avalanche Strategy, for instance, have found that Warren is most popular when respondents are given the ability to pick a presidential candidate without having to worry whether they’ll beat Trump. In follow-up interviews, many of those would-be Warren supporters said the negative impact of gender was a big part of their calculus. Other polls have found that while most Democrats say they are comfortable with a female president, they think their friends and neighbors might be more reluctant to support a woman.
It’s not clear that these fears are entirely baseless. A survey conducted by The New York Times in October found, for instance, that Warren performed worse than Sanders or Biden in head-to-head matchups against Trump in key battleground states — a pattern that can also be seen in head-to-head national polls. Admittedly, Warren’s liberal views are a confounding factor. In that New York Times survey, 52 percent of voters who said they’d vote for Biden but not Warren in a matchup against Trump (Sanders wasn’t part of the equation) said it was because she’s too far to the left. But 41 percent also agreed with the statement that women who run for president “just aren’t that likable.” Those groups represent only a fraction of the electorate. But in a close election, they could make a difference.
Democrats think others wouldn’t support a female president Responses to October 2019 Morning Consult/Politico poll of Democrats answering “Yes, definitely” to the following questions Question Percent Do you think you are ready for a female president? 71% – Do you think America is ready for a female president? 57 – Do you think your neighbors are ready for a female president? 31 – From an online survey of 736 Democrats conducted Oct. 25 to Oct. 28, 2019. Source: Morning Consult/Politico
Whether it’s helpful to dwell on these fears or emphasize the barriers female presidential candidates face is up for debate, even among the people who spend their lives studying gender and politics. After I got back from Iowa, I called Kathleen Dolan, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, to get her take on how much gender bias really seemed to be hurting Warren. She told me she found the media’s focus on it exasperating. “I would give my eye teeth for a process where no reporter asks questions about what it’s like to be a woman in politics, how they deal with sexism, whether a woman can win,” she said. “Then we’d have a genuine sense of whether voters are actually worried about this.”
But other researchers have argued that sexism is probably hurting Warren and the other female candidates. Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, concluded from a recent survey experiment that sexist views are fairly widespread among voters — particularly male voters — and many of those voters are less motivated to support a female candidate. “Eventually, we will get to a point where enough women have run for president that it’s entirely unremarkable,” he said. “But we’re not at that point yet, and I think the Democrats will probably lose some votes if they nominate a woman.” I asked Cassino how much of a difference it could make, compared to other factors that voters care about like age, ideology or political experience. “Could those lost votes be offset by a million other factors?” he said. “Absolutely. If it’s a choice between a worse male candidate and a better female candidate, you still want the woman. But it’s a calculation.”
The trouble is that weighing those trade-offs is hard to do in hindsight, and nearly impossible to do in real time. Case in point: Nearly four years later, political scientists are still trying to figure out exactly how much of an impact sexism had in the 2016 election. The consensus among most of the experts I’ve spoken with is that sexism does seem to have moderately helped Trump and hurt Clinton — but seeing the attacks on Clinton may also have galvanized some of her supporters. And all of this might not tell us much about how a different woman, with different policies, in a different year, would fare.
In Iowa, some of Warren’s supporters told me they were trying to resist the urge to compare this year’s crop of female candidates to Clinton. “I really hope people don’t assume that all women who run for office are kind of cut from the same cloth,” said Robin Flattery, 31. It would be a mistake, Flattery added, to allow Warren’s gender to obscure the aspects of her biography and candidacy that are very different from Clinton’s — her working-class roots, her unapologetic progressivism or the fact that she hasn’t weathered decades of scandal and controversy.
There is one inescapable similarity between 2016 and 2020, though: the Republican opponent. And while the research doesn’t suggest that a majority of American voters simply won’t accept the idea of a female president — the fact that Clinton won nearly three million more votes than Trump is pretty good evidence to the contrary — it’s not hard to understand why some voters are worried about another woman going up against Trump. “I think the conversation would be different if the Democrats weren’t facing the prospect of a scorched-earth campaign by a president who’s willing to use sexism and what had previously been socially unacceptable language and attacks against a woman,” said Danny Hayes, a political science professor at George Washington University.
As Warren is fond of pointing out, of course, the world has changed since 2016. The Women’s March happened; the #MeToo movement happened; a historic number of women ran for office and won in 2018. The problem is that it’s not clear how much those changes help her. There was never much reason to believe that female voters would coalesce around Warren simply because she was a woman. Plus, a general electorate may be less inclined to get behind Warren’s particular brand of liberal politics.
So it’s worth thinking about the lessons we’ll take from Warren’s candidacy, not only if she wins the Democratic nomination — but also if she loses. The risks in failing to confront sexism in politics may seem obvious. And if nothing else, the spat between Warren and Sanders brought the issue into plain view, perhaps forcing more voters to grapple with it as the Iowa caucuses draw closer. But there’s also a danger, Dolan said, in taking for granted that it’s a decisive factor, particularly as women running for president becomes more routine. “Yes, we need to call out sexism when we see it,” she said. “But we also need to avoid the assumption that when a woman fails, it’s because she’s a woman.”
Do Parties Or Voters Choose Presidential Nominees?