fivethirtyeight--2020-09-25--How Amy Coney Barrett Could Change the Supreme Court

Tomorrow will mark the start of what could be one of the swiftest Supreme Court fights in modern history .
On Saturday , just a week after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , President Trump is expected to announce his nominee for her replacement : Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who is currently serving on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals .
The nomination battle over Barrett will be bitter .
If she is confirmed — and right now , Republicans have the votes — her presence on the court will give the conservative wing a solid 6-3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bypass Chief Justice John Roberts .
Or , put another way , Roberts will no longer be the court ’ s median .
( He has cast several pivotal votes with the liberal justices over the years , often out of apparent concern for the court ’ s institutional legitimacy . )
Barrett ’ s appointment marks an enormous shift in the Supreme Court ’ s center of gravity .
According to one estimate of her ideological leanings , Barrett will be the third-most conservative justice on the court , just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clarence Thomas , and to the right of Trump ’ s two previous nominees , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
That ’ s a best-case scenario for liberals , too .
Several experts told me that based on Barrett ’ s previous rulings as a federal judge and writings as a law professor , she could end up to the right of Alito — or even Thomas .
But even in that third-place slot , Barrett replacing Ginsburg is one of the largest swings on the modern court since 1953 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to predict how any given nominee will vote once she is on the court , and in the past , several of the court ’ s most liberal justices were appointed by Republican presidents .
But over the past several decades , the conservative legal movement has worked to cultivate a stable of potential justices who are consistent ideological conservatives .
Barrett is in many ways the poster child for that effort .
Trump has even said that he was “ saving ” Barrett for Ginsburg ’ s seat .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians in particular , and is widely seen as a justice who would be willing to significantly expand states ’ ability to restrict abortion access , or even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion .
She also criticized Roberts ’ s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a recent law review article , which is significant if she ’ s confirmed by early November , as the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law a week after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screams ‘ reliable conservative , ’ ” said John Kastellec , a politics professor at Princeton University who studies Supreme Court nominations .
“ If you wanted a person who seems like a very safe bet to strike down Roe v. Wade , she ’ d be it.
” So it ’ s hard to imagine that Barrett won ’ t turn out to be the steadfast conservative her boosters are hoping for — and that ’ s a point Democrats are likely to drive home during her confirmation hearings .
This line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Democrats , though .
When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit in 2017 , she was criticized for her conservative ideology , but that backfired somewhat on Democrats , in part because Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested during the hearings that Barrett , a Catholic , would be guided by “ dogma ” in her judicial decision-making — a comment that many religious conservatives saw as an anti-Catholic dog whistle .
But this time around , Kastellec and other experts told me , Democrats are likely to steer clear of attacking Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what a hard conservative swing on the court could mean for abortion , the Affordable Care Act , gun restrictions , and a host of other liberal precedents .
Barrett is young , too .
At 48 , she could be on the court for decades to come .
That means the confirmation hearings , which are likely to start around October 12 , will probably be extremely rancorous .
But it ’ s doubtful that would stop the GOP from steaming ahead with a vote on Barrett ’ s nomination after only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambitious timeline like that seems very possible , since Senate Republicans currently have a solid majority willing to vote on Trump ’ s pick for the Supreme Court even before Barrett was named .
And several Republicans , including Trump , have indicated that they want to make sure the vote happens before Election Day so that the new justice is seated in time to resolve any election-related disputes — potentially giving Trump ’ s new nominee enormous power over the result of the election .
The rush to confirm a new justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking , however .
It could galvanize some religious conservatives and other Republican stalwarts who care a lot about judicial nominations , but it could also turn off other voters , since recent polls have indicated that many Americans are not enthusiastic about the idea of confirming a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election .
But having a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the court is a big enough win for Republicans that they may be willing to risk a lot to achieve it .

Tomorrow will mark the start of what could be one of the swiftest Supreme Court fights in modern history. On Saturday, just a week after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump is expected to announce his nominee for her replacement: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is currently serving on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The nomination battle over Barrett will be bitter.
If she is confirmed — and right now, Republicans have the votes — her presence on the court will give the conservative wing a solid 6-3 majority, allowing the other conservative justices to bypass Chief Justice John Roberts. Or, put another way, Roberts will no longer be the court’s median. (He has cast several pivotal votes with the liberal justices over the years, often out of apparent concern for the court’s institutional legitimacy.)
Barrett’s appointment marks an enormous shift in the Supreme Court’s center of gravity. According to one estimate of her ideological leanings, Barrett will be the third-most conservative justice on the court, just to the left of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and to the right of Trump’s two previous nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. That’s a best-case scenario for liberals, too. Several experts told me that based on Barrett’s previous rulings as a federal judge and writings as a law professor, she could end up to the right of Alito — or even Thomas.
4 Senate races to watch as GOP rushes to fill Justice Ginsburgâs seat
But even in that third-place slot, Barrett replacing Ginsburg is one of the largest swings on the modern court since 1953:
Big swings in the court’s makeup are rare Supreme Court justice replacements by the biggest changes in ideological rank, where 1 is most liberal and 9 is most conservative the biggest shifts on the modern supreme Court term Justice Rank Replacement rank change 1991 Marshall 1 Thomas 9 +8 1969 Warren 2 Burger 9 +7 2020 Ginsburg 2 Barrett 7 +5* 1969 Fortas 3 Blackmun 8 +5 1990 Brennan 2 Souter 5 +3 1962 Frankfurter 8 Goldberg 5 -3 1965 Goldberg 5 Fortas 2 -3 *Estimated change, based on JCS score
When there were more than nine justices in a term, we dropped the justice(s) who voted in the fewest cases (e.g., O’Connor in 2005, Douglas in 1975). Source: Martin-Quinn scores
Of course, it’s difficult to predict how any given nominee will vote once she is on the court, and in the past, several of the court’s most liberal justices were appointed by Republican presidents. But over the past several decades, the conservative legal movement has worked to cultivate a stable of potential justices who are consistent ideological conservatives. Barrett is in many ways the poster child for that effort.
Trump has even said that he was “saving” Barrett for Ginsburg’s seat. That’s because Barrett is a favorite of conservative Christians in particular, and is widely seen as a justice who would be willing to significantly expand states’ ability to restrict abortion access, or even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion. She also criticized Roberts’s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a recent law review article, which is significant if she’s confirmed by early November, as the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law a week after the election.
“Everything about her screams ‘reliable conservative,’” said John Kastellec, a politics professor at Princeton University who studies Supreme Court nominations. “If you wanted a person who seems like a very safe bet to strike down Roe v. Wade, she’d be it.”
So it’s hard to imagine that Barrett won’t turn out to be the steadfast conservative her boosters are hoping for — and that’s a point Democrats are likely to drive home during her confirmation hearings. This line of attack isn’t without risks for Democrats, though. When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit in 2017, she was criticized for her conservative ideology, but that backfired somewhat on Democrats, in part because Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested during the hearings that Barrett, a Catholic, would be guided by “dogma” in her judicial decision-making — a comment that many religious conservatives saw as an anti-Catholic dog whistle.
But this time around, Kastellec and other experts told me, Democrats are likely to steer clear of attacking Barrett on personal traits, and instead emphasize what a hard conservative swing on the court could mean for abortion, the Affordable Care Act, gun restrictions, and a host of other liberal precedents. Barrett is young, too. At 48, she could be on the court for decades to come.
That means the confirmation hearings, which are likely to start around October 12, will probably be extremely rancorous. But it’s doubtful that would stop the GOP from steaming ahead with a vote on Barrett’s nomination after only a few weeks of deliberation. An ambitious timeline like that seems very possible, since Senate Republicans currently have a solid majority willing to vote on Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court even before Barrett was named. And several Republicans, including Trump, have indicated that they want to make sure the vote happens before Election Day so that the new justice is seated in time to resolve any election-related disputes — potentially giving Trump’s new nominee enormous power over the result of the election.
The rush to confirm a new justice is something of a gamble, electorally speaking, however. It could galvanize some religious conservatives and other Republican stalwarts who care a lot about judicial nominations, but it could also turn off other voters, since recent polls have indicated that many Americans are not enthusiastic about the idea of confirming a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election. But having a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the court is a big enough win for Republicans that they may be willing to risk a lot to achieve it.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-25--How Amy Coney Barrett Could Change The Supreme Court


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-28--How A Conservative 6-3 Majority Would Reshape The Supreme Court

President Trump ’ s third nominee to the Supreme Court is Amy Coney Barrett .
The nomination process is moving ahead at warp speed , and the court is that much closer to having a 6-3 conservative majority .
The historic nature of this nomination is abundantly clear .
If Barrett is confirmed , the Supreme Court could be the most conservative it ’ s been in 70 years .
But what does that mean for the way the justices rule going forward ?
It ’ s hard to predict how any given nominee will rule once serving on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chances of “ a conservative revolution ” on the court are high .
It ’ s not just that the liberals are losing a key justice or that the conservative balance of power is about to lurch to the right .
It ’ s that the types of cases the court will hear are about to dramatically change , too .
Ultimately , we don ’ t know whether the conservative majority will rush to strike down or hollow out long-standing liberal precedents like Roe v. Wade .
But Supreme Court experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see the legal conservative movement seize this moment , and as such , we should brace for a wave of rulings that move the law fundamentally to the right — on everything from hot-button cultural issues like gun rights and abortion to more legalistic , but nevertheless important , topics like the power of the executive branch .
And , for the first time in decades , there won ’ t be a single swing justice with the power to tip a controversial decision one way or the other .
Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way the court will swing on a given ruling , it will require two conservative justices to stop the court from taking a hard right turn on any given issue .
And at this point , it ’ s not clear who that second conservative justice might be .
The liberals have lost their most powerful dissenter The most immediate impact of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death is that the liberal wing of the court has lost a seat , and the court ’ s left-leaning justices , who have spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what power they can as a minority bloc , are now in an even weaker position .
But Ginsburg also had a distinctive legal voice and long history as an advocate for gender equality , significantly reshaping this area of the law .
And among the four Democratic-appointed justices who have been on the court together since 2010 , Ginsburg was one of the most reliable and prominent liberal voices .
She already was a seasoned Supreme Court veteran by that point and had established herself as a solid liberal vote , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the rights of criminal defendants .
But she became a liberal superstar in the last decade of her life for another reason : her dissents .
Ginsburg ’ s dissenting opinion in Shelby County v. Holder , in which she wrote that the decision by five GOP-appointed justices to invalidate a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was like “ throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet , ” earned her the moniker the Notorious RBG and with it , a place on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes across the country .
That reputation as an ardent dissenter was well earned : By the time of her death , Ginsburg had the highest dissent rate in close cases of any Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall .
Although in a sign of just how conservative and polarized the court has already become , she is not that far ahead of the other liberal justices still on the court .
The symbolic power of Ginsburg ’ s dissents also served a practical purpose , according to Lee Epstein , a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who studies the Supreme Court .
“ Her dissents may have forced the majority to think hard about its decision and to respond to her dissents , ” Epstein said .
But more importantly , she said that they called attention to the majority ’ s decision and set a marker for a different outcome — either by a future court or Congress .
One of Ginsburg ’ s fieriest dissents was in 2007 , when a five-justice , all-male majority ruled that Lilly Ledbetter , a female employee of Goodyear Tire & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company for 19 years of gender-based pay discrimination because she had filed her suit more than 180 days after the first instance of discrimination .
Ginsburg delivered her dissent aloud from the bench , accusing her colleagues of either ignoring or failing to comprehend the “ insidious ” nature of pay discrimination , and called on Congress to act .
It worked .
Two years later , Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 , which changed the statute of limitations so that fair-pay cases could be filed within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which discrimination occurred .
“ Dissents can be a powerful thing , particularly if you ’ re stuck in the minority for a long time , as Ginsburg was , ” Epstein said .
“ It was her way of defending left-leaning legal regimes on a very conservative Republican court.
” With Ginsburg ’ s death , the other liberal justices — especially Sonia Sotomayor , the most left-leaning justice on the court — may feel the need to step into the role of dissenter in chief .
The conservative wing will no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also means a huge loss of power for Roberts .
For the first time in decades , there will be no swing justice poised to decide whether the liberals or conservatives will prevail in close cases .
According to our analysis from earlier this year , Justice Brett Kavanaugh will probably be the new median on the court , assuming the new justice falls to his right , and that means the center of gravity within the conservative wing will shift dramatically — especially if the new justice is closer ideologically to Samuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s two most right-leaning justices .
One way to think about what the court could look like is to revisit some of the recent 5-4 decisions in which Roberts cast a deciding vote with the liberals — decisions that presumably would have gone the other way with Kavanaugh as the new median .
Just this past term , Roberts joined the liberals in a high-profile abortion case involving a Louisiana law that was nearly identical to a Texas restriction struck down by the court in 2016 .
Roberts wrote in his concurring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 case was decided incorrectly , but , at the same time , he said he wasn ’ t willing to undo the precedent it set .
The other four conservatives , on the other hand , were perfectly ready to start rethinking fundamental aspects of the court ’ s approach to abortion rights .
Tom Clark , a political scientist at Emory University , said that with any new Trump nominee on the court , he expects the conservatives to quickly start allowing a much wider range of restrictions on abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sixth conversative on the court , he wasn ’ t sure the Supreme Court would go as far as to say , “ We ’ re throwing out the principle that you have the right to get an abortion , ” adding “ [ T ] hat would be an extremely radical move.
” He thinks , however , that the court will permit Republican-controlled states to erode abortion access much more rapidly than Roberts was willing to tolerate .
If Trump wins a second term , his administration will also be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last year and this year , Roberts joined the liberals in two cases involving major Trump administration policies — the attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and the attempt to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , the Obama-era program that grants certain young undocumented immigrants temporary permission to remain in the country legally .
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in both cases and drew on similar reasoning , arguing that while the Trump administration might have the power to include an extra question on the census or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , they didn ’ t follow the laws governing executive agencies .
The other conservatives didn ’ t see that as a violation of the law , though — which means that Trump policies might have an even friendlier audience at the Supreme Court in the future .
It ’ s possible , of course , that Roberts will continue his campaign of moderation and try to persuade one of the conservatives to join him and the liberals in cases where he thinks his fellow GOP appointees are going too far .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible candidates for that kind of defection — especially Gorsuch , who did vote with Roberts and the liberals this year in a case involving workplace discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees .
But those coalitions could be more difficult for Roberts to forge going forward , particularly since his interests may be more aligned with the moderate liberals than with some of his fellow conservatives .
This year , for example , he voted with Kagan about as often as he did with Alito , more often with Kagan than he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breyer as he did with Thomas .
Roberts does retain one big , important power , though .
As chief justice , he can assign who writes the opinion in any case where he ’ s in the majority .
That might make for a change in strategy for him , however .
Instead of trying to bridge the divide between the left and right , Roberts might side with his fellow conservatives more often , as it would enable him to claim the opinion in cases where he wants to rule as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in much greater danger Even before Ginsburg ’ s death , the Roberts court was overturning precedents with more narrow 5-4 majorities than any other modern court in Supreme Court history — and those rulings usually went in a conservative direction .
Now , that seems likely to accelerate .
And not just because the conservative majority may be open to overturning precedents .
Lower courts , legal advocates , and state legislatures all calibrate their actions , at least to some extent , based on how far they think the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal advocates , for example , have deliberately adopted a more incremental strategy up until now , in part because they thought it was unrealistic that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade outright .
“ That kind of incrementalist thinking will be out the window , ” said Leah Litman , a law professor at the University of Michigan .
Meanwhile , the Supreme Court largely responds to the arguments that are brought to its doorstep , and at least one study has indicated that the justices may be more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been asked to do so explicitly .
This kind of pressure outside the court is hard to measure and quantify — after all , there ’ s no way of knowing what kinds of laws or cases would end up at the Supreme Court if Ginsburg weren ’ t being replaced , most likely by a conservative .
But it ’ s important to understand , nonetheless .
Because even before Ginsburg ’ s death , there were signs that Trump ’ s previous nominations had emboldened conservative advocates to challenge precedents that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case this term which asks the court to reconsider a 1990 decision about religious exemptions written by former Justice Antonin Scalia , which many conservatives now regard as flawed because it allows the government to impose some restrictions on religious practices .
However , we might be surprised by where the court goes next or where fissures emerge among the GOP-appointed justices .
The legal landscape is about to change dramatically , so while some in the conservative legal movement might be eager to prioritize and move forward quickly on particular issues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s nominees could turn out to be wildcards , at least some of the time — even Barrett .
“ The conservative legal movement may be very eager to get a certain person on the court , but once that person is there , they can do what they want and the Federalist Society can ’ t fire them , ” Epstein said .
“ So we ’ ll just have to see what happens .
When the center of the court moves right , will the justices feel like , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nothing stopping us , we ’ re going to plow ahead ’ ?
That might very well happen .
But they might also get a little cautious .
”

President Trump’s third nominee to the Supreme Court is Amy Coney Barrett. The nomination process is moving ahead at warp speed, and the court is that much closer to having a 6-3 conservative majority.
The historic nature of this nomination is abundantly clear. If Barrett is confirmed, the Supreme Court could be the most conservative it’s been in 70 years. But what does that mean for the way the justices rule going forward?
It’s hard to predict how any given nominee will rule once serving on the bench. But we do know that the chances of “a conservative revolution” on the court are high. It’s not just that the liberals are losing a key justice or that the conservative balance of power is about to lurch to the right. It’s that the types of cases the court will hear are about to dramatically change, too.
Ultimately, we don’t know whether the conservative majority will rush to strike down or hollow out long-standing liberal precedents like Roe v. Wade. But Supreme Court experts did stress that we’re likely to see the legal conservative movement seize this moment, and as such, we should brace for a wave of rulings that move the law fundamentally to the right — on everything from hot-button cultural issues like gun rights and abortion to more legalistic, but nevertheless important, topics like the power of the executive branch.
4 Senate races to watch as GOP rushes to fill Justice Ginsburgâs seat
And, for the first time in decades, there won’t be a single swing justice with the power to tip a controversial decision one way or the other. Instead of Chief Justice John Roberts single-handedly deciding which way the court will swing on a given ruling, it will require two conservative justices to stop the court from taking a hard right turn on any given issue. And at this point, it’s not clear who that second conservative justice might be.
The liberals have lost their most powerful dissenter
The most immediate impact of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is that the liberal wing of the court has lost a seat, and the court’s left-leaning justices, who have spent the past 10 years trying to wield what power they can as a minority bloc, are now in an even weaker position. But Ginsburg also had a distinctive legal voice and long history as an advocate for gender equality, significantly reshaping this area of the law.
And among the four Democratic-appointed justices who have been on the court together since 2010, Ginsburg was one of the most reliable and prominent liberal voices. She already was a seasoned Supreme Court veteran by that point and had established herself as a solid liberal vote, particularly in cases involving civil rights, unions and the rights of criminal defendants.
Ginsburg was very liberal on unions and civil rights Share of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s liberal votes, by issue on close cases issue Total Cases Liberal Decisions Share Unions 15 15 100.0% Civil Rights 83 79 95.2 Criminal Procedure 153 141 92.2 Due Process 25 21 84.0 Judicial Power 47 35 74.5 First Amendment 33 24 72.7 Economic Activity 51 36 70.6 Federalism 32 22 68.8 Close cases are those in which the majority decision was four or five and the minority was three or four, and excludes cases with no majority. Issues with fewer than 10 cases are excluded. Total cases excludes those for which the Supreme Court Database could not specify whether the decision was liberal or conservative. Source: Supreme Court Database
But she became a liberal superstar in the last decade of her life for another reason: her dissents. Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, in which she wrote that the decision by five GOP-appointed justices to invalidate a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” earned her the moniker the Notorious RBG and with it, a place on tote bags and coffee mugs in liberal homes across the country.
That reputation as an ardent dissenter was well earned: By the time of her death, Ginsburg had the highest dissent rate in close cases of any Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall. Although in a sign of just how conservative and polarized the court has already become, she is not that far ahead of the other liberal justices still on the court.
Ginsburg was one of the court’s top dissenters Top 10 justices by share of dissenting votes on close cases, since 1953 Justice Total Cases Dissents Share Marshall 725 419 57.8% Ginsburg 465 267 57.4 Breyer 449 255 56.8 Sotomayor 171 96 56.1 Kagan 149 83 55.7 Stevens 857 467 54.5 Souter 347 188 54.2 Brennan 973 516 53.0 Douglas 528 280 53.0 Harlan 374 186 49.7 Close cases are those in which the majority decision was four or five and the minority was three or four, and excludes cases with no majority. Source: Supreme Court Database
The symbolic power of Ginsburg’s dissents also served a practical purpose, according to Lee Epstein, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the Supreme Court. “Her dissents may have forced the majority to think hard about its decision and to respond to her dissents,” Epstein said. But more importantly, she said that they called attention to the majority’s decision and set a marker for a different outcome — either by a future court or Congress.
One of Ginsburg’s fieriest dissents was in 2007, when a five-justice, all-male majority ruled that Lilly Ledbetter, a female employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, couldn’t sue the company for 19 years of gender-based pay discrimination because she had filed her suit more than 180 days after the first instance of discrimination. Ginsburg delivered her dissent aloud from the bench, accusing her colleagues of either ignoring or failing to comprehend the “insidious” nature of pay discrimination, and called on Congress to act. It worked. Two years later, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which changed the statute of limitations so that fair-pay cases could be filed within 180 days of the last paycheck in which discrimination occurred.
“Dissents can be a powerful thing, particularly if you’re stuck in the minority for a long time, as Ginsburg was,” Epstein said. “It was her way of defending left-leaning legal regimes on a very conservative Republican court.”
With Ginsburg’s death, the other liberal justices — especially Sonia Sotomayor, the most left-leaning justice on the court — may feel the need to step into the role of dissenter in chief.
The conservative wing will no longer need Roberts
Ginsburg’s death also means a huge loss of power for Roberts. For the first time in decades, there will be no swing justice poised to decide whether the liberals or conservatives will prevail in close cases. According to our analysis from earlier this year, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will probably be the new median on the court, assuming the new justice falls to his right, and that means the center of gravity within the conservative wing will shift dramatically — especially if the new justice is closer ideologically to Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the court’s two most right-leaning justices.
One way to think about what the court could look like is to revisit some of the recent 5-4 decisions in which Roberts cast a deciding vote with the liberals — decisions that presumably would have gone the other way with Kavanaugh as the new median. Just this past term, Roberts joined the liberals in a high-profile abortion case involving a Louisiana law that was nearly identical to a Texas restriction struck down by the court in 2016. Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion this summer that he still thinks the 2016 case was decided incorrectly, but, at the same time, he said he wasn’t willing to undo the precedent it set. The other four conservatives, on the other hand, were perfectly ready to start rethinking fundamental aspects of the court’s approach to abortion rights.
Tom Clark, a political scientist at Emory University, said that with any new Trump nominee on the court, he expects the conservatives to quickly start allowing a much wider range of restrictions on abortion. But he cautioned that even with a sixth conversative on the court, he wasn’t sure the Supreme Court would go as far as to say, “We’re throwing out the principle that you have the right to get an abortion,” adding “[T]hat would be an extremely radical move.” He thinks, however, that the court will permit Republican-controlled states to erode abortion access much more rapidly than Roberts was willing to tolerate.
If Trump wins a second term, his administration will also be free of a major roadblock in Roberts. Last year and this year, Roberts joined the liberals in two cases involving major Trump administration policies — the attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and the attempt to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that grants certain young undocumented immigrants temporary permission to remain in the country legally. Roberts wrote the majority opinion in both cases and drew on similar reasoning, arguing that while the Trump administration might have the power to include an extra question on the census or cancel a previous president’s executive order, they didn’t follow the laws governing executive agencies. The other conservatives didn’t see that as a violation of the law, though — which means that Trump policies might have an even friendlier audience at the Supreme Court in the future.
It’s possible, of course, that Roberts will continue his campaign of moderation and try to persuade one of the conservatives to join him and the liberals in cases where he thinks his fellow GOP appointees are going too far. Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch are both possible candidates for that kind of defection — especially Gorsuch, who did vote with Roberts and the liberals this year in a case involving workplace discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees.
But those coalitions could be more difficult for Roberts to forge going forward, particularly since his interests may be more aligned with the moderate liberals than with some of his fellow conservatives. This year, for example, he voted with Kagan about as often as he did with Alito, more often with Kagan than he did with Thomas and about as often with Breyer as he did with Thomas.
Roberts does retain one big, important power, though. As chief justice, he can assign who writes the opinion in any case where he’s in the majority. That might make for a change in strategy for him, however. Instead of trying to bridge the divide between the left and right, Roberts might side with his fellow conservatives more often, as it would enable him to claim the opinion in cases where he wants to rule as narrowly as possible.
Precedents could be in much greater danger
Even before Ginsburg’s death, the Roberts court was overturning precedents with more narrow 5-4 majorities than any other modern court in Supreme Court history — and those rulings usually went in a conservative direction.
Now, that seems likely to accelerate. And not just because the conservative majority may be open to overturning precedents. Lower courts, legal advocates, and state legislatures all calibrate their actions, at least to some extent, based on how far they think the Supreme Court is willing to go.
Some anti-abortion legal advocates, for example, have deliberately adopted a more incremental strategy up until now, in part because they thought it was unrealistic that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade outright. “That kind of incrementalist thinking will be out the window,” said Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court largely responds to the arguments that are brought to its doorstep, and at least one study has indicated that the justices may be more likely to overturn precedent when they’ve been asked to do so explicitly.
This kind of pressure outside the court is hard to measure and quantify — after all, there’s no way of knowing what kinds of laws or cases would end up at the Supreme Court if Ginsburg weren’t being replaced, most likely by a conservative. But it’s important to understand, nonetheless. Because even before Ginsburg’s death, there were signs that Trump’s previous nominations had emboldened conservative advocates to challenge precedents that used to seem untouchable, like a case this term which asks the court to reconsider a 1990 decision about religious exemptions written by former Justice Antonin Scalia, which many conservatives now regard as flawed because it allows the government to impose some restrictions on religious practices.
However, we might be surprised by where the court goes next or where fissures emerge among the GOP-appointed justices. The legal landscape is about to change dramatically, so while some in the conservative legal movement might be eager to prioritize and move forward quickly on particular issues, others might disagree.
Finally, all Trump’s nominees could turn out to be wildcards, at least some of the time — even Barrett. “The conservative legal movement may be very eager to get a certain person on the court, but once that person is there, they can do what they want and the Federalist Society can’t fire them,” Epstein said. “So we’ll just have to see what happens. When the center of the court moves right, will the justices feel like, ‘You know what, there’s nothing stopping us, we’re going to plow ahead’? That might very well happen. But they might also get a little cautious.”


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-28--A Majority Of Americans Say They Want To Know What Is In Trump’s Tax Returns. Now They Do.

A Majority Of Americans Say They Want To Know What Is In Trump ’ s Tax Returns .
Now They @ @


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-28--Politics Podcast: Trump’s Tax Returns Challenge His Successful Businessman Image

The New York Times reported on Sunday that President Trump paid $ 750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and @ @ @ @ @ tax in 10 of the previous 15 years due to reported business losses .
In @ @ @ @ @ Politics podcast , the crew weighs the potential political implications of the report .
They @ @ @ @ @ conservative majority on the Supreme Court would look like , given Judge Amy Coney Barrett @ @ @ @ @ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ @ @ @ @ @ audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your @ @ @ @ @ you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

The New York Times reported on Sunday that President Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 and no federal income tax in 10 of the previous 15 years due to reported business losses. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew weighs the potential political implications of the report. They also discuss what a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court would look like, given Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-28--Trump Is An Underdog, But The Electoral College’s Republican Tilt Improves His Chances

Even if you ’ re not following the polls super closely like those of us at FiveThirtyEight , you probably know that Joe Biden has both a sizable and fairly stable lead over President Trump .
However , you shouldn ’ t count Trump out just yet .
Trump currently has a nearly 1 in 4 shot of winning the election , according to our presidential forecast , even though he only has a 1 in 10 chance of winning the national popular vote .
That ’ s , of course , due to the Electoral College , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Historically , which party enjoys an advantage in the Electoral College ebbs and flows ; sometimes the Democrats benefit from it ; at other times , the Republicans .
But in 2020 , the Electoral College is clearly boosting Trump ’ s odds of winning reelection .
That ’ s because the states that are most likely to decide the contest are somewhat more Republican-leaning than the country as a whole , as the table below shows .
Overall , these 14 states decide the election in 94 percent of FiveThirtyEight ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of 10 simulations , the tipping-point state is one of the 11 that may vote more Republican than the country .
Meanwhile , only three of these states may vote to the left of the country , too , and of those , only Colorado and Virginia look like safe bets to vote more Democratic at this point .
Collectively , what this means is that Trump has a better shot to win than if he had to win the national popular vote Take a state like Pennsylvania to see what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely tipping-point state in the Electoral College ( nearly a 1 in 3 chance ) , and at the moment , Biden is projected to win there by 4.5 points .
But even if that were to happen , that still puts Pennsylvania 2.5 points to the right of the forecast ’ s national margin .
What that means is if the polls were to tighten and Biden ’ s national advantage slips , the rightward tilt of Pennsylvania could very well help Trump win .
And because most of the other likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capture enough right-leaning battleground states to win a majority in the Electoral College without winning the national popular vote .
Now , as we said at the outset , the Electoral College ’ s GOP bias is by no means permanent , and even in 2020 , its Republican lean might be insufficient for Trump to win reelection .
( It remains to be seen if the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notably alters the political environment . )
But nonetheless , the Republicans ’ Electoral College advantage this cycle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump victory than if he had to win via the popular vote .
Sum it up this way : Biden enjoys a 9 in 10 chance of winning the national popular vote but slightly less than an 8 in 10 shot of winning the election .
The difference between those two probabilities is , roughly speaking , the Republican advantage in the Electoral College this year .
We can really see how this works if we break down the national popular vote margin in our forecast ’ s simulations and Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As you can see in the table below , Biden is only favored to win if he wins by at least 3 points nationally — one more point than Clinton ’ s 2016 margin .
Anything less than that makes him at best not even a 50-50 bet to win and , in most cases , a clear underdog .
In fact , Biden ’ s chances only become pretty certain if he wins by more than 5 points nationally , showing just how large the Republicans ’ Electoral College edge might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden ’ s lead has to get up to 9 points before there are no simulations in our forecast in which Trump wins .
Meanwhile , Trump is almost guaranteed to win the election if he wins the national popular vote , and he actually wins a majority in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote ( 12 percent ) more often than when he wins the most votes ( 10 percent ) .
The good news for Biden , though , is that he has nearly twice as good a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by at least 8 points ( 43 percent ) as Trump has of winning , period .
In other words , in more than half of the cases where Biden wins in our forecast simulations , he wins by at least that much .
So it ’ s also entirely possible that Biden will end up claiming a sizable victory .
Yet it ’ s also quite possible that Biden loses while winning the popular vote , and that scenario boils down to the current rightward tilt of the key battleground states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Together , those states give Trump a real shot at another four years in the White House , especially if the race tightens over the next 36 days .

Even if you’re not following the polls super closely like those of us at FiveThirtyEight, you probably know that Joe Biden has both a sizable and fairly stable lead over President Trump.
However, you shouldn’t count Trump out just yet. Trump currently has a nearly 1 in 4 shot of winning the election, according to our presidential forecast, even though he only has a 1 in 10 chance of winning the national popular vote.
That’s, of course, due to the Electoral College, in which Trump has an edge this year.
Historically, which party enjoys an advantage in the Electoral College ebbs and flows; sometimes the Democrats benefit from it; at other times, the Republicans. But in 2020, the Electoral College is clearly boosting Trump’s odds of winning reelection.
That’s because the states that are most likely to decide the contest are somewhat more Republican-leaning than the country as a whole, as the table below shows.
Battleground states in 2020 lean Republican Forecasted vote margin in states that have at least a 1 percent chance of being the tipping-point* state, according to the FiveThirtyEight presidential model as of 9:15 a.m. Eastern on Sept. 28 State Tipping-point chance Forecast margin Lean Relative to Nation Texas 1% R+3.8 R+10.9 Georgia 2 R+2.1 R+9.2 Ohio 5 D+0.4 R+6.7 North Carolina 5 D+0.7 R+6.3 Florida 12 D+1.4 R+5.7 Arizona 6 D+2.7 R+4.4 Pennsylvania 32 D+4.5 R+2.5 Wisconsin 9 D+6.2 R+0.9 Nevada 3 D+6.5 R+0.6 New Hampshire 2 D+6.5 R+0.6 Michigan 9 D+7.0 R+0.1 Minnesota 3 D+7.9 D+0.9 Colorado 3 D+9.1 D+2.0 Virginia 1 D+11.0 D+3.9 *A state’s tipping-point chance is based on the odds it will provide the decisive vote in the Electoral College.
Overall, these 14 states decide the election in 94 percent of FiveThirtyEight’s forecast simulations, and in almost 9 out of 10 simulations, the tipping-point state is one of the 11 that may vote more Republican than the country. Meanwhile, only three of these states may vote to the left of the country, too, and of those, only Colorado and Virginia look like safe bets to vote more Democratic at this point. Collectively, what this means is that Trump has a better shot to win than if he had to win the national popular vote
Take a state like Pennsylvania to see what I mean. Pennsylvania is currently the most likely tipping-point state in the Electoral College (nearly a 1 in 3 chance), and at the moment, Biden is projected to win there by 4.5 points. But even if that were to happen, that still puts Pennsylvania 2.5 points to the right of the forecast’s national margin. What that means is if the polls were to tighten and Biden’s national advantage slips, the rightward tilt of Pennsylvania could very well help Trump win. And because most of the other likely tipping-point states lean Republican, Trump could capture enough right-leaning battleground states to win a majority in the Electoral College without winning the national popular vote.
Now, as we said at the outset, the Electoral College’s GOP bias is by no means permanent, and even in 2020, its Republican lean might be insufficient for Trump to win reelection. (It remains to be seen if the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notably alters the political environment.) But nonetheless, the Republicans’ Electoral College advantage this cycle leaves the door more open to a Trump victory than if he had to win via the popular vote.
Sum it up this way: Biden enjoys a 9 in 10 chance of winning the national popular vote but slightly less than an 8 in 10 shot of winning the election. The difference between those two probabilities is, roughly speaking, the Republican advantage in the Electoral College this year.
We can really see how this works if we break down the national popular vote margin in our forecast’s simulations and Biden’s chances of winning based on different scenarios. As you can see in the table below, Biden is only favored to win if he wins by at least 3 points nationally — one more point than Clinton’s 2016 margin. Anything less than that makes him at best not even a 50-50 bet to win and, in most cases, a clear underdog.
To be favored, Biden must win the popular vote by 3+ points Biden’s chances of victory at different national popular vote scenarios, plus the likelihood of those scenarios, according to the FiveThirtyEight presidential model as of 9:15 a.m. Eastern on Sept. 28 National popular vote scenario Scenario chance Biden chance in scenario Trump wins popular vote 10% 0.8% Biden wins by 0 to 1 points 3 7.4 Biden wins by 1 to 2 points 4 19.7 Biden wins by 2 to 3 points 5 44.9 Biden wins by 3 to 4 points 6 69.6 Biden wins by 4 to 5 points 6 88.4 Biden wins by 5 to 6 points 7 96.0 Biden wins by 6 to 7 points 7 98.9 Biden wins by 7 to 8 points 7 99.8 Biden wins by 8 or more points 43 100.0
In fact, Biden’s chances only become pretty certain if he wins by more than 5 points nationally, showing just how large the Republicans’ Electoral College edge might be in 2020. And even then, Biden’s lead has to get up to 9 points before there are no simulations in our forecast in which Trump wins. Meanwhile, Trump is almost guaranteed to win the election if he wins the national popular vote, and he actually wins a majority in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote (12 percent) more often than when he wins the most votes (10 percent).
The good news for Biden, though, is that he has nearly twice as good a chance of winning the national popular vote by at least 8 points (43 percent) as Trump has of winning, period. In other words, in more than half of the cases where Biden wins in our forecast simulations, he wins by at least that much. So it’s also entirely possible that Biden will end up claiming a sizable victory.
Yet it’s also quite possible that Biden loses while winning the popular vote, and that scenario boils down to the current rightward tilt of the key battleground states that are most likely to decide this election. Together, those states give Trump a real shot at another four years in the White House, especially if the race tightens over the next 36 days.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-28--Do You Buy That … Democrats Have An Edge With Five Weeks To Go Until The Elections?

Do You Buy That … Democrats Have An Edge With Five Weeks To Go Until The Elections ?


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-29--Will The First Presidential Debate Shake Up The Race?

Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight ’ s politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarah ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : We ’ ve been saying for a while now that we ’ re in the thick of the presidential election , and it ’ s true , we are !
We ’ ve just a little over a month now to go , and people are already busy casting ballots .
Today , though , marks Americans ’ first real opportunity to see President Trump and Joe Biden go head-to-head in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The candidates are expected to stick to six topics : • Race and Violence in Our Cities • The Integrity of the Election The reality going into tonight is this : Donald Trump is fairly far behind Joe Biden in the polls , and has been for a while now .
According to our forecast , he still has a very real chance of winning , but he is the underdog .
So let ’ s start there .
Given that Biden is ahead ( and has been all cycle ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Or no , Sarah , I disagree .
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : Yeah , Sarah , I think that ’ s right .
We shouldn ’ t overthink this : As long as everything stays the way it ’ s been going , that ’ s good for Biden .
The debates , though , represent a chance for the status quo to be disrupted .
Now , I know that we ’ ve written in the past that the first debate typically helps the challenger — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m not sure the ingredients are there for that this year .
sarah : Say more about that .
Why not ?
Because Biden already has such a sizable lead nationally ?
nrakich : For one thing , there are very few undecided voters this year .
For another , I don ’ t think Trump has some aura of incumbency around him — he ’ s pretty unpopular .
Not to mention , both Democrats and Republicans are solidly behind their candidate this year , so there ’ s less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home ” to the base .
I ’ ll also point out that the first debate in 2016 actually seemed to help Hillary Clinton ( who was a member of the incumbent party ) .
Clinton led in our national polling average by 1.4 points on the day of the first debate ; a week later , her lead was up to 3.7 points .
So I ’ m not convinced that the “ the challenger usually benefits ” thing is an ironclad rule so much as it is just happenstance .
natesilver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) : I might point out that Clinton wasn ’ t actually the challenger in 2016 .
There was no incumbent , although she was sort of a quasi-incumbent .
sarah : What does a situation in which Biden actually loses some standing tonight look like , you think ?
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : The idea that Biden has the most to lose because he is ahead seems correct to me .
I honestly think the worse thing for Biden is if he forgets something like when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies he was proposing to eliminate in a debate in the 2012 cycle .
One of the Trump team ’ s biggest arguments is that Biden is too old to be president , and kind of out of it mentally .
So a major gaffe that is not really about policy and is easy for the media to cover that could be replayed in a way that might reach undecided voters , who are surely not watching this debate in full , would help Trump .
natesilver : Yeah .
They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the other hand , if there are verbal gaffes — and those are fairly common from Biden — they ’ re priming folks to give it a lot of attention .
nrakich : Yeah , I agree with all that .
I ’ d also say that Trump could help his cause by appearing prepared and shooting from the hip less than he usually does .
Beyond that , if he can center the debate on typical Democratic-Republican partisan issues ( rather than , say , the coronavirus , which Americans say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has mishandled ) , that might cause some reversion to the mean .
sarah : Yeah , this kind of segues into what are the respective candidates ’ liabilities ?
Biden ’ s is that he ’ s not that great of a debater , right ?
That he makes some verbal gaffes , which support this idea that the Trump campaign has leaned into : He ’ s too old to be president .
But doesn ’ t Trump have a lot of liabilities , too ?
Especially when you consider some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always playing by the book ?
natesilver : What are the odds that Trump seems well prepared ?
He seems to think an off-the-cuff style works for him , but it ’ s not clear that he ’ s right .
nrakich : Biden had a few poor moments in the Democratic primary debates , although they obviously didn ’ t hurt him that much .
I ’ d also point out that Biden kinda has a track record of shifting into a higher gear when the stakes are higher .
For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones before Nevada and South Carolina , when his candidacy was hanging by a thread , and he did very well in the 2008 and 2012 vice presidential debates , too .
In addition , Biden ’ s worst moments in the primary debates tended to happen at the end of a two- or three-hour debate .
The fact then that tonight ’ s debate will last only 90 minutes could be good for him .
sarah : One thing I thought was interesting in that article Nathaniel was citing earlier is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it really is the first debate that can shake up the race the most .
Do we think that ’ s still the case ?
I ask , as we kind of didn ’ t see a convention bounce this year with everything going on , right ?
natesilver : I think it makes sense to expect the first debate to be the most important one .
It ’ s more of a novelty to see the candidates together on stage for the first time .
And expectations tend to be better calibrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , I would say that both Biden and Trump are relatively uneven debaters , so maybe the first debate won ’ t be as predictive of the remaining debates as normal .
nrakich : Yeah , the convention bounces were minimal , if they happened at all .
That ’ s actually an interesting question : Is there a correlation between the size of the convention bounce and the size of any debate bounces ?
I ’ d expect that the same reason we barely saw a convention bounce this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely that we ’ ll see a debate bounce .
natesilver : I mean , you ’ d expect polls to move less in general under high polarization .
And that ’ s basically been true so far this year .
The debate wouldn ’ t be an exception to it .
And polls show that fewer voters than in the past say that the debates will matter to their vote this year .
nrakich : Yeah , Biden ’ s lead in our national polling average has been between 6.6 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s been a remarkably steady race .
sarah : So , let ’ s shift gear to the topics — six in total — ranging from their respective track records to the integrity of the election .
Tonight really will cover a wide range of issues , and I ’ m personally a little curious to see how much overlap there is with the other two debates ( I ’ d imagine quite a bit ) .
But of the issues tonight ’ s moderator Chris Wallace and the debate commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominate the evening ?
Or if you think each will be given truly equal time , which does Biden have the upper hand on ?
And which does Trump have the upper hand on ?
For reference the issues are : • Race and Violence in Our Cities • The Integrity of the Election nrakich : Well , Biden should have a clear advantage in the COVID-19 and race and violence in our cities segments .
Polls have consistently shown that voters trust Biden more than Trump to handle those issues .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also show that voters trust Biden over Trump to pick Supreme Court justices , and of course Trump ’ s decision to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat now rather than wait until after the election is unpopular .
But that segment may play out more along traditional partisan lines , which relatively speaking is good for Trump .
natesilver : I ’ d also say Biden as a clear advantage on the integrity of the election segment and that ’ s a place where Trump could get himself in a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of me still can ’ t believe we wrote this article about what might happen if Trump won ’ t leave office quietly , but 2020 : Where … anything is possible ?
nrakich : Nate , do you mean like if Trump gets caught saying he won ’ t respect the election results again ?
natesilver : Yeah .
I don ’ t imagine that ’ s a very popular position , although casting doubt on the integrity of the election can also lower turnout .
nrakich : Yeah , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Biden can really go after Trump if he makes a comment like that again — unlike the White House briefing room , an environment that is fairly tightly controlled by the administration .
perry : Biden ’ s vote in support of the Iraq War .
The 1994 crime bill .
He sponsored bills to slow down school integration .
He voted for NAFTA .
He didn ’ t handle the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings well .
Do these things matter ?
I have no idea .
But sharp questions about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic primary and are a potential weak point now .
I would expect Chris Wallace and Trump in particular to press him on the idea that he supported too much incarceration of Black men .
nrakich : Yeah , Perry , there was a lot of that at the Republican National Convention .
On the surface it appeared aimed at winning over Black voters , but really it may have been more about winning over white voters who are concerned that Trump is racist .
In the debates , it could maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
sarah : Do you think one possible approach for tonight will be Trump trying to paint Biden as too far to the left ?
natesilver : I think the debate is a hard moment to paint Biden as being some big leftist .
He ’ s an old white guy who comes across as pretty affable .
Better to make that argument in ads where you aren ’ t featuring Biden himself as much and can argue he ’ s some sort of Trojan horse .
sarah : What about how Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his campaign has been about winning back the soul of America , and Americans are really unhappy .
An AP-NORC poll from this summer also found 8 in 10 Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction .
That ’ s the highest it ’ s been since Trump took office .
perry : I think Biden will lean into the decency/character stuff , but I also think The New York Times ’ s reporting on Trump ’ s tax returns and Trump ’ s pick of Amy Coney Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about policy — namely , that Biden will raise taxes on the super-rich and that Trump is trying to get the Affordable Care Act rolled back or Roe v. Wade overturned with Barrett on the court .
nrakich : Yeah , I actually think the debate will be a big indicator of how big of a role the tax returns story plays .
If Biden really decides to go after Trump on it , it amplifies the story .
If not , the news cycle turns over to whatever topic dominates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who “ won ” or “ lost ” a debate is difficult to answer .
Clinton , for instance , got a lot of positive press coverage for how she handled herself in the debates in 2016 , and Trump … won the election .
So what if anything are you doing to “ update your priors ” going into the debate tonight ?
natesilver : I think Clinton won the 2016 debates .
She moved up in the polls after the debates .
But debate bounces can be temporary .
But yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuff stick ?
What about the election integrity segment ?
Does Biden make some big verbal gaffes or seem “ out of it ” ?
Those are all a bit obvious , I suppose , but they ’ re the things I ’ ll be most interested to watch .
nrakich : Exactly .
I ’ ll just be reminding myself not to overreact to how the polls change after tonight .
Mitt Romney also won the first debate in 2012 , remember ?
But that momentum ( our favorite word ! )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of the electorate already clear on whom they will support , I think the key thing to watch for is : “ What will move undecided voters ?
” I define that as people who are either soft Biden or Trump supporters , backing a third-party candidate or undecided .
And those people aren ’ t likely to tune into a debate but will see whatever two to three moments get replayed on Facebook , shared on social media , etc .
So I think policy disputes aren ’ t likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing from the debates four years ago was in the final debate when Trump got too physically close to Clinton — and this was after the “ Access Hollywood ” tape had come out .
Does anyone do anything in the debate that becomes a defining moment until the Oct. 7 VP debate ?
nrakich : Yeah , to be honest , I remember Ken Bone more than anything Trump or Clinton did in those debates .
perry : People ’ s views on Trump are so well-defined , I suspect even among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big to shift those .

Will The First Presidential Debate Shake Up The Race? TBD. But here’s what we’re watching.
Welcome to a special edition of FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): We’ve been saying for a while now that we’re in the thick of the presidential election, and it’s true, we are! We’ve just a little over a month now to go, and people are already busy casting ballots.
Today, though, marks Americans’ first real opportunity to see President Trump and Joe Biden go head-to-head in the first of three scheduled presidential debates. The candidates are expected to stick to six topics:
The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
COVID-19
The Economy
Race and Violence in Our Cities
The Integrity of the Election
The reality going into tonight is this: Donald Trump is fairly far behind Joe Biden in the polls, and has been for a while now. According to our forecast, he still has a very real chance of winning, but he is the underdog.
So let’s start there. Given that Biden is ahead (and has been all cycle), does he have more to lose tonight? Or no, Sarah, I disagree.
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): Yeah, Sarah, I think that’s right. We shouldn’t overthink this: As long as everything stays the way it’s been going, that’s good for Biden. The debates, though, represent a chance for the status quo to be disrupted.
Now, I know that we’ve written in the past that the first debate typically helps the challenger — in this case, Biden.
But I’m not sure the ingredients are there for that this year.
sarah: Say more about that. Why not? Because Biden already has such a sizable lead nationally?
nrakich: For one thing, there are very few undecided voters this year. For another, I don’t think Trump has some aura of incumbency around him — he’s pretty unpopular.
Not to mention, both Democrats and Republicans are solidly behind their candidate this year, so there’s less room for party members to “come home” to the base.
I’ll also point out that the first debate in 2016 actually seemed to help Hillary Clinton (who was a member of the incumbent party). Clinton led in our national polling average by 1.4 points on the day of the first debate; a week later, her lead was up to 3.7 points.
So I’m not convinced that the “the challenger usually benefits” thing is an ironclad rule so much as it is just happenstance.
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I might point out that Clinton wasn’t actually the challenger in 2016. There was no incumbent, although she was sort of a quasi-incumbent.
sarah: What does a situation in which Biden actually loses some standing tonight look like, you think?
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): The idea that Biden has the most to lose because he is ahead seems correct to me. I honestly think the worse thing for Biden is if he forgets something like when Rick Perry famously forgot about the federal agencies he was proposing to eliminate in a debate in the 2012 cycle.
One of the Trump team’s biggest arguments is that Biden is too old to be president, and kind of out of it mentally. So a major gaffe that is not really about policy and is easy for the media to cover that could be replayed in a way that might reach undecided voters, who are surely not watching this debate in full, would help Trump.
natesilver: Yeah. They’re setting expectations pretty low for Biden. On the other hand, if there are verbal gaffes — and those are fairly common from Biden — they’re priming folks to give it a lot of attention.
nrakich: Yeah, I agree with all that. I’d also say that Trump could help his cause by appearing prepared and shooting from the hip less than he usually does. Beyond that, if he can center the debate on typical Democratic-Republican partisan issues (rather than, say, the coronavirus, which Americans say 56 percent to 40 percent that he has mishandled), that might cause some reversion to the mean.
sarah: Yeah, this kind of segues into what are the respective candidates’ liabilities? Biden’s is that he’s not that great of a debater, right? That he makes some verbal gaffes, which support this idea that the Trump campaign has leaned into: He’s too old to be president. But doesn’t Trump have a lot of liabilities, too? Especially when you consider some of the risks he takes by not always playing by the book?
natesilver: What are the odds that Trump seems well prepared? He seems to think an off-the-cuff style works for him, but it’s not clear that he’s right.
nrakich: Biden had a few poor moments in the Democratic primary debates, although they obviously didn’t hurt him that much. I’d also point out that Biden kinda has a track record of shifting into a higher gear when the stakes are higher. For instance, his best primary debates were the ones before Nevada and South Carolina, when his candidacy was hanging by a thread, and he did very well in the 2008 and 2012 vice presidential debates, too.
In addition, Biden’s worst moments in the primary debates tended to happen at the end of a two- or three-hour debate. The fact then that tonight’s debate will last only 90 minutes could be good for him.
sarah: One thing I thought was interesting in that article Nathaniel was citing earlier is that regardless of who benefits from tonight, it really is the first debate that can shake up the race the most.
Polls don’t move that much after the first debate Incumbent Party Average Polling Lead Year Post-First Debate End of Campaign Absolute Difference 1976 -3.0 -1.3 1.7 1980 -1.4 -3.8 2.4 1984 +17.0 +17.7 0.7 1988 +5.2 +9.0 3.8 1992 -13.5 -8.2 5.3 1996 +15.1 +12.1 3.0 2000 -1.5 -2.1 0.6 2004 +2.4 +1.0 1.4 2008 -6.0 -7.4 1.4 2012 +0.1 +1.5 1.4 Average 2.2 Sources: National Council On Public Polling, HuffPost Pollster
Do we think that’s still the case?
I ask, as we kind of didn’t see a convention bounce this year with everything going on, right?
natesilver: I think it makes sense to expect the first debate to be the most important one. It’s more of a novelty to see the candidates together on stage for the first time. And expectations tend to be better calibrated once the first debate has taken place.
Now, I would say that both Biden and Trump are relatively uneven debaters, so maybe the first debate won’t be as predictive of the remaining debates as normal.
nrakich: Yeah, the convention bounces were minimal, if they happened at all. That’s actually an interesting question: Is there a correlation between the size of the convention bounce and the size of any debate bounces?
I’d expect that the same reason we barely saw a convention bounce this year (high polarization) also makes it less likely that we’ll see a debate bounce.
Nate, maybe you’ve studied that?
natesilver: I mean, you’d expect polls to move less in general under high polarization. And that’s basically been true so far this year. The debate wouldn’t be an exception to it. And polls show that fewer voters than in the past say that the debates will matter to their vote this year.
nrakich: Yeah, Biden’s lead in our national polling average has been between 6.6 points and 9.6 points since early June. It’s been a remarkably steady race.
sarah: So, let’s shift gear to the topics — six in total — ranging from their respective track records to the integrity of the election. Tonight really will cover a wide range of issues, and I’m personally a little curious to see how much overlap there is with the other two debates (I’d imagine quite a bit).
But of the issues tonight’s moderator Chris Wallace and the debate commission picked, which do you think will dominate the evening? Or if you think each will be given truly equal time, which does Biden have the upper hand on? And which does Trump have the upper hand on?
For reference the issues are:
The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
COVID-19
The Economy
Race and Violence in Our Cities
The Integrity of the Election
nrakich: Well, Biden should have a clear advantage in the COVID-19 and race and violence in our cities segments. Polls have consistently shown that voters trust Biden more than Trump to handle those issues.
By a smaller margin, though, polls also show that voters trust Biden over Trump to pick Supreme Court justices, and of course Trump’s decision to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat now rather than wait until after the election is unpopular. But that segment may play out more along traditional partisan lines, which relatively speaking is good for Trump.
natesilver: I’d also say Biden as a clear advantage on the integrity of the election segment and that’s a place where Trump could get himself in a lot of trouble.
sarah: Yeah … part of me still can’t believe we wrote this article about what might happen if Trump won’t leave office quietly, but 2020: Where … anything is possible?
nrakich: Nate, do you mean like if Trump gets caught saying he won’t respect the election results again?
natesilver: Yeah. I don’t imagine that’s a very popular position, although casting doubt on the integrity of the election can also lower turnout.
nrakich: Yeah, and a debate is a more combative setting where Biden can really go after Trump if he makes a comment like that again — unlike the White House briefing room, an environment that is fairly tightly controlled by the administration.
perry: Biden’s vote in support of the Iraq War. The 1994 crime bill. He sponsored bills to slow down school integration. He voted for NAFTA. He didn’t handle the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings well. Do these things matter? I have no idea. But sharp questions about this pre-VP record seemed to annoy him during the Democratic primary and are a potential weak point now. I would expect Chris Wallace and Trump in particular to press him on the idea that he supported too much incarceration of Black men.
nrakich: Yeah, Perry, there was a lot of that at the Republican National Convention. On the surface it appeared aimed at winning over Black voters, but really it may have been more about winning over white voters who are concerned that Trump is racist. In the debates, it could maybe be an attempt to depress Black turnout.
sarah: Do you think one possible approach for tonight will be Trump trying to paint Biden as too far to the left?
natesilver: I think the debate is a hard moment to paint Biden as being some big leftist. He’s an old white guy who comes across as pretty affable. Better to make that argument in ads where you aren’t featuring Biden himself as much and can argue he’s some sort of Trojan horse.
sarah: What about how Biden will try to paint Trump?
Much of his campaign has been about winning back the soul of America, and Americans are really unhappy.
An AP-NORC poll from this summer also found 8 in 10 Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction. That’s the highest it’s been since Trump took office.
perry: I think Biden will lean into the decency/character stuff, but I also think The New York Times’s reporting on Trump’s tax returns and Trump’s pick of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court allow Biden to talk about policy — namely, that Biden will raise taxes on the super-rich and that Trump is trying to get the Affordable Care Act rolled back or Roe v. Wade overturned with Barrett on the court.
nrakich: Yeah, I actually think the debate will be a big indicator of how big of a role the tax returns story plays. If Biden really decides to go after Trump on it, it amplifies the story. If not, the news cycle turns over to whatever topic dominates the debate.
sarah: OK, knowing who “won” or “lost” a debate is difficult to answer. Clinton, for instance, got a lot of positive press coverage for how she handled herself in the debates in 2016, and Trump … won the election. So what if anything are you doing to “update your priors” going into the debate tonight?
natesilver: I think Clinton won the 2016 debates. She moved up in the polls after the debates. But debate bounces can be temporary.
But yeah, how much does the tax returns stuff stick? What about the election integrity segment? Does Biden make some big verbal gaffes or seem “out of it”? Those are all a bit obvious, I suppose, but they’re the things I’ll be most interested to watch.
nrakich: Exactly. I’ll just be reminding myself not to overreact to how the polls change after tonight. Mitt Romney also won the first debate in 2012, remember? But that momentum (our favorite word!) evaporated too.
perry: With so much of the electorate already clear on whom they will support, I think the key thing to watch for is: “What will move undecided voters?” I define that as people who are either soft Biden or Trump supporters, backing a third-party candidate or undecided. And those people aren’t likely to tune into a debate but will see whatever two to three moments get replayed on Facebook, shared on social media, etc.
So I think policy disputes aren’t likely to become big fodder. The most memorable thing from the debates four years ago was in the final debate when Trump got too physically close to Clinton — and this was after the “Access Hollywood” tape had come out.
Does anyone do anything in the debate that becomes a defining moment until the Oct. 7 VP debate?
nrakich: Yeah, to be honest, I remember Ken Bone more than anything Trump or Clinton did in those debates.
perry: People’s views on Trump are so well-defined, I suspect even among undecided voters. It will take something big to shift those.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-29--What To Watch For During The First Presidential Debate

The politics crew chat about what they ’ ll be watching for in the first debate between President Trump and @ @ @ @ @ The gang also looks at new polling conducted by FiveThirtyEight and Ipsos in advance of @ @ @ @ @ , the team addresses the age-old question : Do debates actually matter ?

The politics crew chat about what they’ll be watching for in the first debate between President Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden. The gang also looks at new polling conducted by FiveThirtyEight and Ipsos in advance of the big night. Plus, the team addresses the age-old question: Do debates actually matter?


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-29--2020 Presidential Debate, Trump vs. Biden: Live Updates And Analysis

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-29--How Trump’s Tax Returns Could Affect The Election

On Sunday , a New York Times exposé on President Trump ’ s tax returns revealed decades of tax avoidance and millions of dollars in business losses over the past two decades .
The picture painted by Trump ’ s returns is sharply at odds with the shrewd , deal-making image the president has tried to fashion as a real estate mogul and TV star on a show built around his business prowess , “ The Apprentice.
” Now , five weeks from Election Day , the question is will these new revelations affect the presidential race ?
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , will The Times ’ s revelations change perceptions of Trump ’ s record as a businessman ?
And second , do perceptions of Trump ’ s business acumen matter in who voters decide to support ?
We ’ ll take those one at a time , but spoiler alert : Past polling and research belies the notion that “ nothing matters ” when it comes to public perceptions about the president .
In May 2019 , after The New York Times published a report that showed Trump had lost around $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public polling found the story could lower public opinion regarding Trump ’ s business acuity .
In a Politico/Morning Consult survey , 54 percent of voters said Trump had been a “ very successful ” or “ somewhat successful ” businessman , while only 36 percent thought he ’ d been unsuccessful .
But after being presented with information about Trump ’ s financial losses , the share of voters who thought he ’ d been a successful businessman dropped to 43 percent .
And that slide was felt across the board , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and Republicans , and 8 points among independents .
Meanwhile , another May 2019 poll from Fox News suggested that evidence against Trump ’ s business savvy could influence the attitudes of a small but meaningful share of voters : 20 percent said there was a “ strong ” or “ some ” chance that new revelations could affect their views of him .
That 2019 polling squared with findings from a study by political scientists at the University of Maryland , which found that voters ’ opinions of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans when told how Trump had benefited substantially from his family ’ s financial help .
The study showed that a lack of knowledge about Trump ’ s background mattered to how Americans perceived him , as a sizable share of Americans — around 40 to 50 percent — didn ’ t know that Trump grew up very wealthy and received millions of dollars in financial assistance from his family .
If respondents had fewer misperceptions about the president ’ s financial background and the aid he received from his family , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poorly , the study found .
All in all , past surveys and research suggest that The Times ’ s latest story — which is more significant in scope and covers a more recent part of Trump ’ s business dealings than past revelations — could put a dent in how the public views Trump ’ s business acumen .
Whether that actually happens may come down to how much sustained media attention the story receives .
For example , will the first presidential debate , on Tuesday night , dwell on Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax returns do stay in the spotlight , there is reason to think they could hurt Trump electorally .
For one , Trump is an underdog for reelection at the moment and the clock is ticking — any day during which he ’ s not making up ground is a problem .
But the malleability of voters ’ views of Trump ’ s business record is also notable because we have reason to think Trump ’ s business credentials played at least some role in his electoral success in 2016 , and may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .
First , Trump ’ s image as a business maven helped him attract support in the 2016 Republican presidential primary .
In a February 2016 Gallup survey , 16 percent of Republicans cited his being a “ good businessman ” as a key reason for their support , a trait that trailed only his political outsider status ( 22 percent of respondents ) as a factor in GOP voters ’ support .
And as a September 2015 Pew Research poll showed , 65 percent of Republicans wanted someone with new ideas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave them in spades as a businessman outsider .
Trump ’ s image as a successful businessman may have also played a part in his defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 , too , by helping to fuel the view that he would handle the economy better .
In the national exit poll , 48 percent of voters said Trump would better handle the economy , compared to 46 percent for Clinton .
Those same exit polls found Clinton leading Trump on who voters thought would better handle foreign policy ( by 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better commander in chief ( by 3 points ) .
Voters , in other words , thought Trump was best prepared to handle the economy relative to other issues .
That view was especially prevalent ( and critical ) among independent voters , particularly in key swing states .
Among independents nationally , 48 percent preferred Trump on the economy versus 43 percent who picked Clinton .
And independents in Florida , Michigan and Wisconsin all preferred Trump to Clinton on the economy by double-digit margins , possibly boosting Trump ’ s performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Electoral College , all of which he won by incredibly narrow margins .
Trump ’ s relative strength on the economy has continued to be apparent in 2020 , even as the country ’ s economic conditions have taken a massive hit due to the coronavirus .
His approval ratings on the economy have tended to run ahead of his ratings on other issues , such as crime , education , foreign policy , etc .
While the strong economy in the early years of Trump ’ s presidency undoubtedly boosted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue , even in the face of the coronavirus crisis , Trump polled better on the economy than on most issues only months into his presidency , too .
It ’ s hard not to see that as partly a result of the image he has sought to cultivate as a savvy businessman .
We can ’ t know how the public will react to the revelations in Trump ’ s tax returns , especially because we don ’ t know how quickly the news cycle will move on .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least a few voters question Trump ’ s business acumen .
And perceptions of that acumen have played a role in Trump ’ s electoral success .
With The Times promising further revelations from Trump ’ s tax returns , Trump trailing in polls nationally and in most swing states , and people already starting to cast their ballots , the tax returns have the real potential to prevent Trump from making up ground on Joe Biden , or even to ( most likely marginally ) eat into Trump ’ s support @ @ @ @ @

On Sunday, a New York Times exposé on President Trump’s tax returns revealed decades of tax avoidance and millions of dollars in business losses over the past two decades. The picture painted by Trump’s returns is sharply at odds with the shrewd, deal-making image the president has tried to fashion as a real estate mogul and TV star on a show built around his business prowess, “The Apprentice.” Now, five weeks from Election Day, the question is will these new revelations affect the presidential race?
There are really two parts to that question: First, will The Times’s revelations change perceptions of Trump’s record as a businessman? And second, do perceptions of Trump’s business acumen matter in who voters decide to support?
We’ll take those one at a time, but spoiler alert: Past polling and research belies the notion that “nothing matters” when it comes to public perceptions about the president.
In May 2019, after The New York Times published a report that showed Trump had lost around $1.2 billion between 1985 and 1994, public polling found the story could lower public opinion regarding Trump’s business acuity. In a Politico/Morning Consult survey, 54 percent of voters said Trump had been a “very successful” or “somewhat successful” businessman, while only 36 percent thought he’d been unsuccessful. But after being presented with information about Trump’s financial losses, the share of voters who thought he’d been a successful businessman dropped to 43 percent. And that slide was felt across the board, falling more than 10 percentage points among Democrats and Republicans, and 8 points among independents. Meanwhile, another May 2019 poll from Fox News suggested that evidence against Trump’s business savvy could influence the attitudes of a small but meaningful share of voters: 20 percent said there was a “strong” or “some” chance that new revelations could affect their views of him.
That 2019 polling squared with findings from a study by political scientists at the University of Maryland, which found that voters’ opinions of Trump’s business skills fell among both Democrats and Republicans when told how Trump had benefited substantially from his family’s financial help. The study showed that a lack of knowledge about Trump’s background mattered to how Americans perceived him, as a sizable share of Americans — around 40 to 50 percent — didn’t know that Trump grew up very wealthy and received millions of dollars in financial assistance from his family. If respondents had fewer misperceptions about the president’s financial background and the aid he received from his family, they tended to rate his business competence more poorly, the study found.
All in all, past surveys and research suggest that The Times’s latest story — which is more significant in scope and covers a more recent part of Trump’s business dealings than past revelations — could put a dent in how the public views Trump’s business acumen. Whether that actually happens may come down to how much sustained media attention the story receives. For example, will the first presidential debate, on Tuesday night, dwell on Trump’s tax returns?
If the tax returns do stay in the spotlight, there is reason to think they could hurt Trump electorally. For one, Trump is an underdog for reelection at the moment and the clock is ticking — any day during which he’s not making up ground is a problem. But the malleability of voters’ views of Trump’s business record is also notable because we have reason to think Trump’s business credentials played at least some role in his electoral success in 2016, and may continue to undergird some of his support today.
First, Trump’s image as a business maven helped him attract support in the 2016 Republican presidential primary. In a February 2016 Gallup survey, 16 percent of Republicans cited his being a “good businessman” as a key reason for their support, a trait that trailed only his political outsider status (22 percent of respondents) as a factor in GOP voters’ support. And as a September 2015 Pew Research poll showed, 65 percent of Republicans wanted someone with new ideas and a different approach — something Trump gave them in spades as a businessman outsider.
Trump’s image as a successful businessman may have also played a part in his defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, too, by helping to fuel the view that he would handle the economy better. In the national exit poll, 48 percent of voters said Trump would better handle the economy, compared to 46 percent for Clinton. Those same exit polls found Clinton leading Trump on who voters thought would better handle foreign policy (by 11 points) and who would be a better commander in chief (by 3 points). Voters, in other words, thought Trump was best prepared to handle the economy relative to other issues.
That view was especially prevalent (and critical) among independent voters, particularly in key swing states. Among independents nationally, 48 percent preferred Trump on the economy versus 43 percent who picked Clinton. And independents in Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin all preferred Trump to Clinton on the economy by double-digit margins, possibly boosting Trump’s performance in three of the most critical states in the Electoral College, all of which he won by incredibly narrow margins.
Trump’s relative strength on the economy has continued to be apparent in 2020, even as the country’s economic conditions have taken a massive hit due to the coronavirus. His approval ratings on the economy have tended to run ahead of his ratings on other issues, such as crime, education, foreign policy, etc. While the strong economy in the early years of Trump’s presidency undoubtedly boosted how the public views his handling of the issue, even in the face of the coronavirus crisis, Trump polled better on the economy than on most issues only months into his presidency, too. It’s hard not to see that as partly a result of the image he has sought to cultivate as a savvy businessman.
We can’t know how the public will react to the revelations in Trump’s tax returns, especially because we don’t know how quickly the news cycle will move on. But we have some evidence that it could make at least a few voters question Trump’s business acumen. And perceptions of that acumen have played a role in Trump’s electoral success. With The Times promising further revelations from Trump’s tax returns, Trump trailing in polls nationally and in most swing states, and people already starting to cast their ballots, the tax returns have the real potential to prevent Trump from making up ground on Joe Biden, or even to (most likely marginally) eat into Trump’s support as it currently stands.


fivethirtyeight--2020-09-29--Here’s Where The Candidates Stand Before The First Presidential Debate

How likely do you think each is to win ?
How likely are you to vote for each ?
Tonight , President Trump and Joe Biden finally face off for the first of three planned debates .
We ’ re once again partnering with Ipsos to track how the debate affects Americans ’ views of the election and their feelings about the two candidates .
The FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll uses Ipsos ’ s KnowledgePanel to interview the same group of people both before and after the debate to see how it changes their minds — if it does so at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of third-party candidates or ‘ someone else.
’ Additionally , they could indicate that they will not vote .
When asked how likely they were to vote for each candidate on a scale from 0 to 10 , most respondents seemed very sure of their vote : The overwhelming majority gave one candidate a 10 and the other a 0 .
On average , Biden received a score of 5 out of 10 , and Trump a score of 3.8 , reflecting Biden ’ s lead in the polls .
However , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the election , respondents were more divided , with many saying both candidates were about equally likely to win .
In fact , respondents gave the two about the same chance , a score of 4.7 for Trump and 4.6 for Biden , on average .
We ’ ll see whether either of these metrics changes substantially after the debate , as one thing that ’ s proven somewhat constant is people thinking that Trump has a good chance to win even though he ’ s been trailing Biden in the polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are excited How likely and how excited respondents are to vote in the 2020 presidential election , by preferred candidate We grouped respondents by which candidate they gave the higher score to ( out of 10 ) .
Respondents who gave both candidates the same score are not included .
Respondents who already voted are included in the “ absolutely certain ” bucket and respondents who gave themselves a 50-50 shot of voting are included in the “ not too likely ” bucket .
The overwhelming majority of both candidates ’ supporters said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote — 84 percent of Biden ’ s backers and 81 percent of Trump ’ s .
( That includes a small percentage who said they ’ d already voted , around three percent in Biden ’ s case and two percent in Trump ’ s . )
Most other supporters said they were “ very likely ” to vote .
However , enthusiasm wasn ’ t quite as high : Just under 50 percent of each candidate ’ s supporters said they were “ very excited ” to vote for them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ somewhat excited .
”

On Tuesday, President Trump and Joe Biden faced off for the first time, in a rocky and, at times, tumultuous debate. We once again partnered with Ipsos to track how the debate affected Americans’ views of the election, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel to interview the same group of people both before and after the debate. The topline is clear: Americans were not impressed with the president’s performance. Whether that will actually lead people to change their votes remains to be seen, though it seems unlikely.
Biden may have gained a little support, but many still think Trump has a good chance of winning
How likely respondents are to vote for each candidate and how likely, they think each candidate is to win, on a scale from 0 (no chance) to 10 (absolutely certain)
Respondents were also given the option of third-party candidates or ‘someone else.’ Additionally, they could indicate that they will not vote.
Most respondents started out firmly in either Biden or Trump’s camp, and the debate didn’t change that: In fact, very few people changed their minds at all about how likely they were to vote for each candidate.
That said, the debate did have a bit more of an effect on who people think will win the presidency. Slightly more respondents now think both candidates have some chance of winning, although those respondents gave Biden a slightly better chance of winning than Trump.
Biden got higher marks for his performance — and his policies
How respondents rated each candidate’s debate performance and their answers on policies
Performance Policies Candidate good poor good poor Trump 32.9% 66.2% 39.1% 57.4% Biden 59.7 39.1 56.6 39.2
Only among respondents who said that they had watched some or all of the debate.
Debate watchers were pretty decisive in their verdict of last night’s performances: Only about one-third said Trump’s performance was “somewhat good” or “very good,” and 50 percent said it was “very poor.” Biden’s performance was more positively received, with around 60 percent saying they thought he performed well. Respondents gave more mixed grades on how they thought the candidates outlined their policies, but Biden received better marks here, too: Almost 60 percent said they thought his policies were “somewhat good” or “very good,” compared to about 40 percent who said the same for Trump.