fivethirtyeight--2020-03-17--Historic Turnout In 2020? Not So Far.

Historic Turnout In 2020? Not So Far.

The 2020 election was supposed to bring an avalanche of voters to the polls .
Voter turnout in the 2018 midterm elections was the highest in a midterm election in at least 40 years .
And interest in the 2020 election was at unprecedented levels as early as spring 2019 .
But now that voting is upon us , voter engagement so far seems pretty , well , normal .
( Although , of course , the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. could affect turnout in unpredictable ways , too . )
There could still be historic turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t materialized so far in the primaries .
In fact , in our analysis of 20 states for which we have full primary results , we ’ ve found that , while turnout has generally ticked up since 2016 , it is still short of 2008 , when a history-making contest between then-Sens .
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton electrified the Democratic electorate .
In the states that have voted so far , the 2020 turnout rate ( among the voting eligible population ) in the Democratic primary was a median of 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but 2 points lower than it was in 2008 , according to data from the United States Elections Project ( updated with the most recent 2020 election results as of March 16 ) .
There are a few states where turnout has been much higher , as you can see in the chart below , but that probably is due more to structural changes and differing electoral contexts than higher voter enthusiasm .
Although the increases in some states , like Virginia , are big enough to still be notable , once you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole looks pretty unimpressive .
For instance , the state with the biggest turnout increase from 2016 to 2020 was Colorado ( +19 percentage points ) , but that datapoint can be quickly explained away : Colorado is one of the three states we analyzed that switched from caucuses to a state-run primary .
( As this data demonstrates , primaries generally have much higher voter turnout than caucuses . )
The other two states that switched to state-run primaries , Minnesota ( +13 points ) and Idaho ( +6 points ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2016 .
Colorado , Minnesota and Idaho were also among the only four states that significantly improved upon their 2008 turnout .
As for the fourth state , Michigan , candidates did not bother competing in its 2008 “ beauty contest ” primary , in which there were no delegates awarded based on its results after the state was determined to have violated Democratic Party rules about how early it could vote .
In other words , there were structural changes to the primary process in each of the four states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2008 to 2020 .
As a result , we can ’ t attribute these turnout differences to an uptick in voter enthusiasm alone .
The next several states with the biggest turnout increases over 2016 — Virginia ( +8 points ) , Michigan ( +5 points ) , Vermont ( +4 points ) and South Carolina ( +4 points ) — all host open primaries , meaning any registered voter could vote in the Democratic primary .
The lack of a competitive Republican primary probably made a big difference in these states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contested Democratic and Republican primaries were competing for voters , 2020 has just one such race .
There ’ s also the fact that some of these states have voted more Democratic since 2016 or 2008 .
The combination of this and an open primary might go a long way toward explaining why turnout increased so much in Virginia this year .
Donald Trump ’ s presidency may have pushed some of the 40 percent of Virginia Republicans who cast ballots for Sen. Marco Rubio or former Ohio Gov .
John Kasich in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time around .
Exit polls provide some grist for this theory : The Democratic electorate in Virginia was far less liberal in 2020 , when 53 percent identified as very or somewhat liberal and 39 percent identified as moderate , than in 2016 , when 68 percent were very or somewhat liberal and 29 percent were moderate .
Another factor that may explain Virginia ’ s gains in turnout is its large college-educated white population .
For instance , in the predominantly white , college-educated suburbs of Falls Church , Arlington and Fairfax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share of the citizen voting age population ) increased by more than 18 percentage points .
This wasn ’ t unique to Virginia .
In a regression analysis of county-level turnout in 15 states , we found that counties with a larger share of white college graduates saw bigger increases in Democratic turnout .
These areas are generally located in more urban and suburban areas of the country and played a large role in delivering the suburbs to Democrats in 2018 .
For example , in Iowa , the place where Democratic turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , high-income exurbs of Dallas County .
In Michigan , Democratic turnout was up 11 points in Washtenaw County , also the most college-educated county in the state .
In Tennessee , Williamson County , one of the richest counties in the U.S. , saw its Democratic turnout rate double ; this suburban Nashville county was the only jurisdiction in Tennessee that didn ’ t support Trump in the 2016 GOP primary .
And notably , in Oklahoma , the lone state where Democratic turnout decreased from 2016 to 2020 , the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County and Tulsa County , home of the state ’ s two biggest cities .
Most of these places also voted for former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic primaries .
Sen. Bernie Sanders has claimed that he can win elections by expanding the size of the electorate , but there didn ’ t seem to be a relationship on the county level between increased turnout from 2016 and 2020 and increased support for Sanders .
In a more granular analysis of Iowa and New Hampshire , The New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ municipalities where a majority of the population is between 18 and 24 years old — Sanders ’ s base — was virtually unchanged from 2016 .
Instead , participation spiked the most in areas won by former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar .
Given that their voters were disproportionately college-educated white moderates , this jibes more with our theory that the places where turnout has increased the most in the 2020 Democratic primary are those where Trump-skeptical ( ex- ) Republicans are trying a new party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities and counties above have in common is that all of them trended away from Republicans in 2016 , compared with 2012 .
It ’ s possible that more primary voters pulling Democratic ballots in these areas is a sign that Democrats will continue to make inroads there in the 2020 general election .
However , not every blue-trending area saw the same huge gains .
For instance , 2020 turnout rose 3 points from 2016 in Texas ; given that the Lone Star State conducts open primaries , it ’ s conspicuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Either enthusiasm among the Democratic base is down from 2016 , or fewer Republicans are crossing over than we might think .
In sum , while the turnout patterns of the 2020 primaries are suggestive of how electoral coalitions could shift in the general election , the overall turnout numbers are still fairly underwhelming for Democrats .

The 2020 election was supposed to bring an avalanche of voters to the polls. Voter turnout in the 2018 midterm elections was the highest in a midterm election in at least 40 years. And interest in the 2020 election was at unprecedented levels as early as spring 2019. But now that voting is upon us, voter engagement so far seems pretty, well, normal. (Although, of course, the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. could affect turnout in unpredictable ways, too.)
There could still be historic turnout come November, but it hasn’t materialized so far in the primaries. In fact, in our analysis of 20 states for which we have full primary results, we’ve found that, while turnout has generally ticked up since 2016, it is still short of 2008, when a history-making contest between then-Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton electrified the Democratic electorate.
In the states that have voted so far, the 2020 turnout rate (among the voting eligible population) in the Democratic primary was a median of 3 points higher than it was in 2016 but 2 points lower than it was in 2008, according to data from the United States Elections Project (updated with the most recent 2020 election results as of March 16). There are a few states where turnout has been much higher, as you can see in the chart below, but that probably is due more to structural changes and differing electoral contexts than higher voter enthusiasm. Although the increases in some states, like Virginia, are big enough to still be notable, once you adjust for these factors, 2020 on the whole looks pretty unimpressive.
For instance, the state with the biggest turnout increase from 2016 to 2020 was Colorado (+19 percentage points), but that datapoint can be quickly explained away: Colorado is one of the three states we analyzed that switched from caucuses to a state-run primary. (As this data demonstrates, primaries generally have much higher voter turnout than caucuses.) The other two states that switched to state-run primaries, Minnesota (+13 points) and Idaho (+6 points), also saw big jumps in turnout from 2016.
Colorado, Minnesota and Idaho were also among the only four states that significantly improved upon their 2008 turnout. As for the fourth state, Michigan, candidates did not bother competing in its 2008 “beauty contest” primary, in which there were no delegates awarded based on its results after the state was determined to have violated Democratic Party rules about how early it could vote. In other words, there were structural changes to the primary process in each of the four states that saw the biggest increases in voter turnout from 2008 to 2020. As a result, we can’t attribute these turnout differences to an uptick in voter enthusiasm alone.
The next several states with the biggest turnout increases over 2016 — Virginia (+8 points), Michigan (+5 points), Vermont (+4 points) and South Carolina (+4 points) — all host open primaries, meaning any registered voter could vote in the Democratic primary. The lack of a competitive Republican primary probably made a big difference in these states — compared with 2016, when hotly contested Democratic and Republican primaries were competing for voters, 2020 has just one such race.
There’s also the fact that some of these states have voted more Democratic since 2016 or 2008. The combination of this and an open primary might go a long way toward explaining why turnout increased so much in Virginia this year. Donald Trump’s presidency may have pushed some of the 40 percent of Virginia Republicans who cast ballots for Sen. Marco Rubio or former Ohio Gov. John Kasich in the 2016 primary to vote Democratic this time around. Exit polls provide some grist for this theory: The Democratic electorate in Virginia was far less liberal in 2020, when 53 percent identified as very or somewhat liberal and 39 percent identified as moderate, than in 2016, when 68 percent were very or somewhat liberal and 29 percent were moderate.
Another factor that may explain Virginia’s gains in turnout is its large college-educated white population. For instance, in the predominantly white, college-educated suburbs of Falls Church, Arlington and Fairfax, the turnout rate (as a share of the citizen voting age population) increased by more than 18 percentage points.
This wasn’t unique to Virginia. In a regression analysis of county-level turnout in 15 states, we found that counties with a larger share of white college graduates saw bigger increases in Democratic turnout. These areas are generally located in more urban and suburban areas of the country and played a large role in delivering the suburbs to Democrats in 2018.
For example, in Iowa, the place where Democratic turnout increased the most was in the booming, high-income exurbs of Dallas County. In Michigan, Democratic turnout was up 11 points in Washtenaw County, also the most college-educated county in the state. In Tennessee, Williamson County, one of the richest counties in the U.S., saw its Democratic turnout rate double; this suburban Nashville county was the only jurisdiction in Tennessee that didn’t support Trump in the 2016 GOP primary. And notably, in Oklahoma, the lone state where Democratic turnout decreased from 2016 to 2020, the only two counties where it increased were Oklahoma County and Tulsa County, home of the state’s two biggest cities.
Most of these places also voted for former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic primaries. Sen. Bernie Sanders has claimed that he can win elections by expanding the size of the electorate, but there didn’t seem to be a relationship on the county level between increased turnout from 2016 and 2020 and increased support for Sanders. In a more granular analysis of Iowa and New Hampshire, The New York Times also found that turnout in precincts and municipalities where a majority of the population is between 18 and 24 years old — Sanders’s base — was virtually unchanged from 2016. Instead, participation spiked the most in areas won by former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Given that their voters were disproportionately college-educated white moderates, this jibes more with our theory that the places where turnout has increased the most in the 2020 Democratic primary are those where Trump-skeptical (ex-)Republicans are trying a new party on for size.
Something else the cities and counties above have in common is that all of them trended away from Republicans in 2016, compared with 2012. It’s possible that more primary voters pulling Democratic ballots in these areas is a sign that Democrats will continue to make inroads there in the 2020 general election. However, not every blue-trending area saw the same huge gains. For instance, 2020 turnout rose 3 points from 2016 in Texas; given that the Lone Star State conducts open primaries, it’s conspicuous that turnout did not increase by more. Either enthusiasm among the Democratic base is down from 2016, or fewer Republicans are crossing over than we might think. In sum, while the turnout patterns of the 2020 primaries are suggestive of how electoral coalitions could shift in the general election, the overall turnout numbers are still fairly underwhelming for Democrats.
Likhitha Butchireddygari and Laura Bronner contributed research.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-17--What’s A Campaign Without A Rally? How Coronavirus Could Alter The 2020 Election.

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned American society upside down inside of a week .
That includes the presidential campaign , which has already taken a backseat to news of quarantines , lockdowns and hospitals preparing to be overrun with sick people .
Social distancing means an end to conventional retail politics ; kissing a baby or giving a hug to an older supporter could mean spreading an invisible killer .
Holding a rally — one shudders to think of the amount of infected spittle that could be sprayed — when public officials are urging the closure of schools , churches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last week , both Sanders and Joe Biden canceled large public events in Cleveland because of worries over the spread of COVID-19 , which last Wednesday the World Health Organization officially called a pandemic .
When Biden made a victory speech Tuesday night after his win in several primary states , he did so in the presence of a cheering crowd in Philadelphia that was cordoned off from him .
On Wednesday , his campaign said in an email that it was cancelling large in-person events in Illinois and Florida and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced tele-town halls for their surrogates and Jill Biden held a virtual debate watch party Sunday — the debate was not held in front of a crowd .
Trump canceled a rally in Wisconsin scheduled for March 19 , while Sanders live-streamed a fireside chat on Saturday .
All three men in the running for the presidency are in their 70s , placing them at high risk for serious repercussions if they contracted the virus .
So will the candidates lose any great value to their campaigns as they lose large in-person gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a presidential campaign with no rallies ?
American campaigns and campaign coverage are driven by what historian Daniel Boorstin called “ pseudo-events ” — artificial inflection points meant to “ drive the message.
” Rallies are the crown jewel pseudo-events in our age of populist politics .
In 2016 , President Trump calibrated his rallies — earned-media bonanzas — to be uplifting , comedic , dark and cathartically angry all at once .
Bernie Sanders has relied on his to prove the passion of his support , even in the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as intrinsic to the American political fabric as flag pins , sex scandals , and elected officials saying , “ folks.
” The content of rallies matter , but as my colleague Nathanial Rakich wrote earlier this primary cycle , one shouldn ’ t let crowd sizes lead them into a false sense that a candidate will outperform their polls .
Biden , who is the front-runner in the Democratic primary and who seems all but a shoo-in for the nomination , hasn ’ t been known for his crowds at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who dropped out of the race , both made massive rallies centerpieces of their campaigns .
For Sanders , the rally proved critical in his rise in the 2016 primary .
Political scientists John Sides , Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck ’ s book , “ Identity Crisis , ” pointed to the large rallies that followed Sanders ’ s May 2015 campaign kickoff as a large part of the reason “ Sanders ’ s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls.
” He drew estimated crowds of 4,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 5,500 in Denver on June 20 , 9,600 in Madison on July 1 , 11,000 in Phoenix on July 18 , and from August 8 to August 10 , 15,000 in Seattle , 28,000 in Portland , Oregon , and 27,500 in Los Angeles .
In an email , Sides said the cancellation of 2020 events seems different and less likely to make an impact on the outcome of the primary campaign .
“ We ’ re not in the invisible primary anymore and not even really early in the primary season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question whether a rally or two , and the accompanying news coverage , would do much to change any voters ’ mind .
I guess since Sanders is currently trailing , he ’ d prefer to get all the attention he possibly can.
” The question of how to get attention for your campaign — the good kind , not the “ yikes , someone at my rally got coronavirus ” kind — is likely to dog a rally-less 2020 campaign .
It ’ s unclear how many people will tune into live-streamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch parties .
In-person events are critical to campaigns since they help build lists of supporters and garner local media coverage .
( I reached out to the Biden and Sanders campaigns about their plans for events in the foreseeable future but did not hear back . )
In an email , political scientist and FiveThirtyEight contributor Joshua Darr pointed to studies that have shown “ positive effects of candidate appearances , and those effects are often tied to media coverage.
” Political scientists Scott L. Althaus , Peter F. Nardulli & Daron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often make a disproportionate number of campaign appearances in states with Electoral College importance ( makes sense ! )
.
The point of those events isn ’ t just to connect with the people at the event , it ’ s to broadcast their appearance over local news , which campaigns see as friendlier than national media .
Plus , the authors write , “ candidates know that voters perceive local news media reports to be much more credible than television advertisements.
” But do these rallies really change minds ?
A 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Broockman argued that advertising and candidate contact with voters actually has no clear effect in persuading voters in a general election ( primaries are a different story ) .
Early on in a general election , campaigns can have persuadable effects , but those dissipate during the closing months of the election .
That said , the authors note that “ campaigns can sometimes identify pockets of persuadable voters ” in some elections with special circumstances .
One of the examples of persuadable subgroups in an unusual election came from the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant effects ” in an analysis of the presidential race in Ohio .
“ This was a highly unusual race because ( a ) a Republican candidate ( Donald Trump ) taking many positions out of step with the party , and ( b ) the prevailing campaign messages from the Democratic candidate ’ s ( Hillary Clinton ) campaign did not focus on the economic messages one might expect to persuade Ohio voters , ” they wrote .
What will undoubtedly change is the way campaigns try to reach voters .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different , ” Darr said .
“ Campaigns would need to find ways to earn media and connect their candidate with supporters virtually , attracting earned media coverage of their creative solutions.
” He noted that text message outreach and phone banking will become more important as the campaigns continue during the uncertainty of the pandemic .
The 2020 general election race between Trump and whoever comes out of the Democratic contest might well become a precisely tailored endeavor , with campaigns targeting specific communities in specific states with as personalized an outreach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , they ’ ll have to maintain a national image via novel earned-media strategies .
Though he dropped out of the presidential race , Pete Buttigieg demonstrated a creative solution for earned media coverage recently .
Last week , he guest-hosted “ Jimmy Kimmel Live , ” using the opening monologue to rib Trump , promote an emergency COVID-19 response bill , and generally cultivate his image as a smart , likeable guy .
The Buttigieg campaign was ahead of the curve in its earned media strategy — the digital-native fluency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be underrated .
It remains to be seen whether the septuagenarians still running for president will prove to be as creative .
Their political futures may depend on it .

The COVID-19 pandemic has turned American society upside down inside of a week. That includes the presidential campaign, which has already taken a backseat to news of quarantines, lockdowns and hospitals preparing to be overrun with sick people. Social distancing means an end to conventional retail politics; kissing a baby or giving a hug to an older supporter could mean spreading an invisible killer. Holding a rally — one shudders to think of the amount of infected spittle that could be sprayed — when public officials are urging the closure of schools, churches, bars and restaurants is nearly unthinkable.
Last week, both Sanders and Joe Biden canceled large public events in Cleveland because of worries over the spread of COVID-19, which last Wednesday the World Health Organization officially called a pandemic. When Biden made a victory speech Tuesday night after his win in several primary states, he did so in the presence of a cheering crowd in Philadelphia that was cordoned off from him. On Wednesday, his campaign said in an email that it was cancelling large in-person events in Illinois and Florida and that it would hold them virtually. They announced tele-town halls for their surrogates and Jill Biden held a virtual debate watch party Sunday — the debate was not held in front of a crowd. Trump canceled a rally in Wisconsin scheduled for March 19, while Sanders live-streamed a fireside chat on Saturday. All three men in the running for the presidency are in their 70s, placing them at high risk for serious repercussions if they contracted the virus.
So will the candidates lose any great value to their campaigns as they lose large in-person gatherings like rallies? What happens when there’s a presidential campaign with no rallies?
American campaigns and campaign coverage are driven by what historian Daniel Boorstin called “pseudo-events” — artificial inflection points meant to “drive the message.” Rallies are the crown jewel pseudo-events in our age of populist politics. In 2016, President Trump calibrated his rallies — earned-media bonanzas — to be uplifting, comedic, dark and cathartically angry all at once. Bernie Sanders has relied on his to prove the passion of his support, even in the face of establishment skepticism. The rally is as intrinsic to the American political fabric as flag pins, sex scandals, and elected officials saying, “folks.”
The content of rallies matter, but as my colleague Nathanial Rakich wrote earlier this primary cycle, one shouldn’t let crowd sizes lead them into a false sense that a candidate will outperform their polls. Biden, who is the front-runner in the Democratic primary and who seems all but a shoo-in for the nomination, hasn’t been known for his crowds at all, while Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who dropped out of the race, both made massive rallies centerpieces of their campaigns.
For Sanders, the rally proved critical in his rise in the 2016 primary. Political scientists John Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck’s book, “Identity Crisis,” pointed to the large rallies that followed Sanders’s May 2015 campaign kickoff as a large part of the reason “Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls.” He drew estimated crowds of 4,000 in Minneapolis on May 31, 2015, 5,500 in Denver on June 20, 9,600 in Madison on July 1, 11,000 in Phoenix on July 18, and from August 8 to August 10, 15,000 in Seattle, 28,000 in Portland, Oregon, and 27,500 in Los Angeles.
In an email, Sides said the cancellation of 2020 events seems different and less likely to make an impact on the outcome of the primary campaign. “We’re not in the invisible primary anymore and not even really early in the primary season. So it’s an open question whether a rally or two, and the accompanying news coverage, would do much to change any voters’ mind. I guess since Sanders is currently trailing, he’d prefer to get all the attention he possibly can.”
The question of how to get attention for your campaign — the good kind, not the “yikes, someone at my rally got coronavirus” kind — is likely to dog a rally-less 2020 campaign. It’s unclear how many people will tune into live-streamed fireside chats or digital rally events or watch parties. In-person events are critical to campaigns since they help build lists of supporters and garner local media coverage. (I reached out to the Biden and Sanders campaigns about their plans for events in the foreseeable future but did not hear back.)
In an email, political scientist and FiveThirtyEight contributor Joshua Darr pointed to studies that have shown “positive effects of candidate appearances, and those effects are often tied to media coverage.”
Political scientists Scott L. Althaus, Peter F. Nardulli & Daron R. Shaw noted in 2002 that candidates often make a disproportionate number of campaign appearances in states with Electoral College importance (makes sense!). The point of those events isn’t just to connect with the people at the event, it’s to broadcast their appearance over local news, which campaigns see as friendlier than national media. Plus, the authors write, “candidates know that voters perceive local news media reports to be much more credible than television advertisements.”
But do these rallies really change minds? A 2017 paper by political scientists Joshua Kalla and David Broockman argued that advertising and candidate contact with voters actually has no clear effect in persuading voters in a general election (primaries are a different story). Early on in a general election, campaigns can have persuadable effects, but those dissipate during the closing months of the election. That said, the authors note that “campaigns can sometimes identify pockets of persuadable voters” in some elections with special circumstances. One of the examples of persuadable subgroups in an unusual election came from the 2016 presidential race. There were “statistically significant effects” in an analysis of the presidential race in Ohio. “This was a highly unusual race because (a) a Republican candidate (Donald Trump) taking many positions out of step with the party, and (b) the prevailing campaign messages from the Democratic candidate’s (Hillary Clinton) campaign did not focus on the economic messages one might expect to persuade Ohio voters,” they wrote.
What will undoubtedly change is the way campaigns try to reach voters. “A campaign without rallies would be very different,” Darr said. “Campaigns would need to find ways to earn media and connect their candidate with supporters virtually, attracting earned media coverage of their creative solutions.” He noted that text message outreach and phone banking will become more important as the campaigns continue during the uncertainty of the pandemic.
The 2020 general election race between Trump and whoever comes out of the Democratic contest might well become a precisely tailored endeavor, with campaigns targeting specific communities in specific states with as personalized an outreach as they can muster. At the same time, they’ll have to maintain a national image via novel earned-media strategies.
Though he dropped out of the presidential race, Pete Buttigieg demonstrated a creative solution for earned media coverage recently. Last week, he guest-hosted “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” using the opening monologue to rib Trump, promote an emergency COVID-19 response bill, and generally cultivate his image as a smart, likeable guy. The Buttigieg campaign was ahead of the curve in its earned media strategy — the digital-native fluency of the first millennial presidential candidate can’t be underrated. It remains to be seen whether the septuagenarians still running for president will prove to be as creative. Their political futures may depend on it.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-17--2020 Democratic Primary Elections In Arizona, Florida And Illinois: Live Analysis And Results

2020 Democratic Primary Elections In Arizona , Florida And Illinois : Live Analysis And Results

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-17--5 States Have Postponed Their Primaries Because Of The Coronavirus

To slow the spread of the new coronavirus , virtually all aspects of public life are being scaled back , including the democratic process itself .
In an extraordinary move , Ohio on Monday delayed its primary election , previously scheduled for today .
Yesterday afternoon , Ohio Gov .
Mike DeWine directed the filing of a lawsuit to postpone the primary to prevent voters and poll workers from being exposed to the coronavirus .
Initially , a judge ruled that it was too late to put the election on hold , but late Monday night , DeWine announced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would order Ohio polls to close on Tuesday as part of a health emergency .
Overnight , the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that the election should be delayed ; it is now scheduled for June 2 .
The other three March 17 primaries , however , are proceeding as scheduled , albeit with some modifications .
Florida and Illinois have relocated polling places away from nursing homes , while Arizona consolidated polling locations in Maricopa County , its largest county .
The states are also taking precautions to ensure voters ’ health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machines regularly and providing hand sanitizer at polling places .
And elections officials have encouraged voters to take advantage of early- and absentee-voting options .
But the impact of the coronavirus on primary elections extends well beyond today .
In addition to Ohio , four other presidential primaries have already been postponed : • Louisiana was the first state to delay its primary , doing so Thursday .
Its primary was originally scheduled for April 4 , and normally , changing the primary date would require an act of the state legislature .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Gov .
John Bel Edwards made the change themselves , citing a state law that allows them to move elections in emergency situations .
The Louisiana primary is now slated for June 20 , but the late date presents a bit of a conundrum : The new date is almost two weeks after the last possible date allowed by the Democratic National Committee ( June 9 ) .
The DNC told ABC News it will “ continue to work with every state party as they adjust their delegate selection plans around coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our rules could result in a penalty that would include a state losing at least half of its delegates.
” The DNC ’ s Rules and Bylaws Committee is still reviewing Louisiana ’ s change .
• In Georgia , Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Saturday he will delay the state ’ s primary from March 24 to May 19 .
May 19 was already the primary day for Georgia ’ s down-ballot offices like U.S. senator and representative , so the two elections will simply now be consolidated .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been cast in the presidential primary ( due to early voting ) will still count ; those voters will have the option of casting a ballot in May that includes all races except the presidential race .
• Kentucky also announced Monday that it would postpone its primary for both president and down-ballot offices , which had been scheduled for May 19 .
Kentucky ’ s primary is now set to be the last on the calendar : June 23 .
In addition to running afoul of the same DNC rules as Louisiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three weeks before the start of the Democratic National Convention , which could pose logistical challenges .
• Finally , the Maryland primary has officially moved from April 28 to June 2 .
Under Maryland ’ s current state of emergency , Gov .
Larry Hogan had the power to postpone elections without legislative approval , which he did by proclamation Tuesday morning .
Hogan also gave the Maryland State Board of Elections a deadline of April 3 to develop a plan to conduct the election in a safe manner .
Other states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primaries , but it could be a longer process : Of the states that have not yet voted or already postponed their primaries , only Oregon grants its governor the emergency authority to move elections .
Otherwise , the authority to reschedule elections falls to state legislatures — and at least one jurisdiction has already begun that process .
The Puerto Rico Senate passed a bill Monday that would move the commonwealth ’ s primary election from March 29 to April 26 .
The territorial House and governor still have to sign off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition to the change , which was requested by the local Democratic Party president and endorsed by the commonwealth ’ s head of elections .
If Puerto Rico successfully reschedules , the Democratic primary calendar for the next six weeks would be pretty bare .
After today ’ s contests , only four primaries would be held before the next big election day on April 28 , and only one — Wisconsin on April 7 — would be conducted predominantly in person .
For now , Wisconsin is expected to keep that election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always change .
As for the other three upcoming primaries , two ( Alaska and Hawaii ) were always going to be conducted primarily by mail .
And last week in Wyoming , the state party canceled the in-person component of the Wyoming caucuses , making that contest effectively a vote-by-mail primary as well .
( Every registered Democrat in Wyoming was already being mailed a ballot , which they could mail back or drop off at a predesignated location .
But there will no longer be an option to assemble at local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuade neighbors as in a traditional caucus . )
Voting by mail could be an increasingly appealing option for states going forward , too , if the coronavirus spreads further and deters in-person voting .
For instance , Maryland is scheduled to hold a special election in the 7th Congressional District on April 28 that is not being postponed , but Hogan is directing election officials to conduct it entirely by mail .
And Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon , one of five states that already votes by mail under normal circumstances , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote-by-mail nationwide if at least 25 percent of states declare a coronavirus-related emergency .
The bill would earmark $ 500 million to help states prepare .
With so much up in the air because of the coronavirus pandemic , many people have wondered aloud if the general election is also in danger of being delayed .
However , legally speaking , moving the Nov. 3 election would be an enormously difficult undertaking .
That date ( the Tuesday after the first Monday in November ) is set by federal law and would require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning President Trump can not use executive authority to change it ) .
In addition , under the Constitution , a new Congress must be sworn in on Jan. 3 , and the president ’ s term must end at noon on Jan. 20 , so the 2020 election must take place by the end of , well , 2020 .
Hopefully , of course , this will be a moot point and the general election will be able to proceed safely as planned .

To slow the spread of the new coronavirus, virtually all aspects of public life are being scaled back, including the democratic process itself.
In an extraordinary move, Ohio on Monday delayed its primary election, previously scheduled for today. Yesterday afternoon, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine directed the filing of a lawsuit to postpone the primary to prevent voters and poll workers from being exposed to the coronavirus. Initially, a judge ruled that it was too late to put the election on hold, but late Monday night, DeWine announced the director of the Ohio Department of Health would order Ohio polls to close on Tuesday as part of a health emergency. Overnight, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that the election should be delayed; it is now scheduled for June 2.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 Affected Tuesday’s Vote
The other three March 17 primaries, however, are proceeding as scheduled, albeit with some modifications. Florida and Illinois have relocated polling places away from nursing homes, while Arizona consolidated polling locations in Maricopa County, its largest county. The states are also taking precautions to ensure voters’ health, like instructing poll workers to clean voting machines regularly and providing hand sanitizer at polling places. And elections officials have encouraged voters to take advantage of early- and absentee-voting options.
But the impact of the coronavirus on primary elections extends well beyond today. In addition to Ohio, four other presidential primaries have already been postponed:
Louisiana was the first state to delay its primary, doing so Thursday. Its primary was originally scheduled for April 4, and normally, changing the primary date would require an act of the state legislature. However, Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin and Gov. John Bel Edwards made the change themselves, citing a state law that allows them to move elections in emergency situations. The Louisiana primary is now slated for June 20, but the late date presents a bit of a conundrum: The new date is almost two weeks after the last possible date allowed by the Democratic National Committee (June 9). The DNC told ABC News it will “continue to work with every state party as they adjust their delegate selection plans around coronavirus,” but that “any violation of our rules could result in a penalty that would include a state losing at least half of its delegates.” The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is still reviewing Louisiana’s change.
In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Saturday he will delay the state’s primary from March 24 to May 19. May 19 was already the primary day for Georgia’s down-ballot offices like U.S. senator and representative, so the two elections will simply now be consolidated. The more than 275,000 ballots that have already been cast in the presidential primary (due to early voting) will still count; those voters will have the option of casting a ballot in May that includes all races except the presidential race.
the presidential race. Kentucky also announced Monday that it would postpone its primary for both president and down-ballot offices, which had been scheduled for May 19. Kentucky’s primary is now set to be the last on the calendar: June 23. In addition to running afoul of the same DNC rules as Louisiana, this new date is less than three weeks before the start of the Democratic National Convention, which could pose logistical challenges.
Finally, the Maryland primary has officially moved from April 28 to June 2. Under Maryland’s current state of emergency, Gov. Larry Hogan had the power to postpone elections without legislative approval, which he did by proclamation Tuesday morning. Hogan also gave the Maryland State Board of Elections a deadline of April 3 to develop a plan to conduct the election in a safe manner.
Other states are also considering whether to postpone their primaries, but it could be a longer process: Of the states that have not yet voted or already postponed their primaries, only Oregon grants its governor the emergency authority to move elections. Otherwise, the authority to reschedule elections falls to state legislatures — and at least one jurisdiction has already begun that process. The Puerto Rico Senate passed a bill Monday that would move the commonwealth’s primary election from March 29 to April 26. The territorial House and governor still have to sign off, but there appears to be little opposition to the change, which was requested by the local Democratic Party president and endorsed by the commonwealth’s head of elections.
If Puerto Rico successfully reschedules, the Democratic primary calendar for the next six weeks would be pretty bare. After today’s contests, only four primaries would be held before the next big election day on April 28, and only one — Wisconsin on April 7 — would be conducted predominantly in person. For now, Wisconsin is expected to keep that election date in place, although that could always change.
As for the other three upcoming primaries, two (Alaska and Hawaii) were always going to be conducted primarily by mail. And last week in Wyoming, the state party canceled the in-person component of the Wyoming caucuses, making that contest effectively a vote-by-mail primary as well. (Every registered Democrat in Wyoming was already being mailed a ballot, which they could mail back or drop off at a predesignated location. But there will no longer be an option to assemble at local gymnasiums, form groups and try to persuade neighbors as in a traditional caucus.)
Voting by mail could be an increasingly appealing option for states going forward, too, if the coronavirus spreads further and deters in-person voting. For instance, Maryland is scheduled to hold a special election in the 7th Congressional District on April 28 that is not being postponed, but Hogan is directing election officials to conduct it entirely by mail. And Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, one of five states that already votes by mail under normal circumstances, has introduced a bill that would implement vote-by-mail nationwide if at least 25 percent of states declare a coronavirus-related emergency. The bill would earmark $500 million to help states prepare.
With so much up in the air because of the coronavirus pandemic, many people have wondered aloud if the general election is also in danger of being delayed. However, legally speaking, moving the Nov. 3 election would be an enormously difficult undertaking. That date (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November) is set by federal law and would require an act of Congress to move (meaning President Trump cannot use executive authority to change it). In addition, under the Constitution, a new Congress must be sworn in on Jan. 3, and the president’s term must end at noon on Jan. 20, so the 2020 election must take place by the end of, well, 2020. Hopefully, of course, this will be a moot point and the general election will be able to proceed safely as planned.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-17--Our Final Forecast For Arizona, Florida And Illinois Shows A Big Biden Lead

In an extraordinary move , Ohio postponed its primary election at the last minute due to concerns about COVID-19 , meaning just three states will vote today — Arizona , Florida and Illinois , the latter two of which are among the 10 most delegate-rich contests in the Democratic presidential primary .
But despite the bumps in the road , the Democratic nomination race continues , which means it ’ s time for FiveThirtyEight to once again freeze its forecast to see what the outlook is in each state .
( Remember , we won ’ t be adding any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our forecast until we have results from tonight ’ s contests . )
Overall , the top-line outcomes in these three states are pretty straightforward : Former Vice President Joe Biden is the heavy favorite , with a greater than 99 percent chance of winning the most votes in each state , according to our forecast .
On average , Biden is projected to win anywhere from 59 percent to 67 percent of the vote , which doesn ’ t leave Sen. Bernie Sanders with much of a shot in any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch tonight will be the margins between Biden and Sanders , as these will directly affect the delegate race .
Blowout wins for Biden could also push the race toward its de facto conclusion and may even prompt Sanders to drop out .
Although this scenario is unlikely , we shouldn ’ t completely write off an election surprise , especially considering we don ’ t know how the COVID-19 virus may affect these elections .
Coming into Tuesday , we have plenty of polling from Florida ( 12 polls ) , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have six or fewer polls conducted entirely after Super Tuesday .
The polls we do have , though , largely tell the same story : Biden is ahead and often by double-digit margins .
Let ’ s run through what the surveys conducted since Super Tuesday say about the race in each state , starting with Florida ( from most recent to oldest ) : • The final looks at the Florida contest come from Swayable and AtlasIntel , which both found Biden way up .
Swayable ’ s survey showed Biden leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 25 percent .
AtlasIntel ’ s poll similarly found Biden up 40 points , 67 percent to 27 percent .
And after adjusting for the pollster ’ s house effects , or the tendency for a pollster to consistently poll better or worse for one candidate , the model treated the AtlasIntel survey as a 43-point lead for Biden .
( The Swayable poll ’ s margin didn ’ t shift . )
• Point Blank Political has taken two looks at the Democratic race in Florida since Super Tuesday , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 to 13 , found Biden ahead of Sanders by about 28 percentage points , 57 percent to 29 percent .
This was largely in line with the pollster ’ s earlier poll , conducted right after Super Tuesday , which found Biden up by about 26 points .
Once we adjusted for house effects , these polls were even more favorable for Biden , putting his margin at 36 points instead of 28 in Point Blank Political ’ s most recent poll and at 33 points instead of 26 in its older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College found Biden leading Sanders by 38 points , 65 percent to 27 percent .
And because Emerson has usually had pretty strong numbers for Sanders , the model treated this poll as a 42-point margin for Biden , after adjusting for house effects .
• Another survey from Gravis Marketing conducted March 10 to 12 , put Biden ahead by 41 points over Sanders , 66 percent to 25 percent .
Latino Decisions was similarly bullish on Biden , as its Florida survey found Biden up by 38 points , 63 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much after adjusting for house effects .
The same was true of a survey from the University of North Florida , which gave Biden a 44-point edge over Sanders , 66 percent to 22 percent .
ROI Rocket found Biden ahead by 40 points , 67 percent to 27 percent , which shifted to a 42-point Biden lead after adjusting for house effects .
• St. Pete Polls has polled the Florida race twice since Super Tuesday , and its most recent survey found Biden ahead of Sanders by about 55 points , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop-out candidates winning most of the remaining vote .
This was an 8-point increase for Biden from St. Pete Polls ’ s earlier March poll , although the gap between Biden and Sanders in the newest poll narrows to 47 points after adjusting for house effects .
Florida Atlantic University also polled the Florida primary and found Biden up by 36 points over Sanders , 61 percent to 25 percent , and that margin doesn ’ t move much after accounting for house effects .
We don ’ t have as much polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the surveys in those states also agree that Biden is well ahead of Sanders .
Here ’ s what the polls say : • In Arizona , Swayable found Biden ahead of Sanders by 24 points , 53 percent to 29 percent , a margin that didn ’ t really change because of house effects .
Meanwhile , NBC News/Marist College ’ s survey found Biden up just 17 points over Sanders .
But Marist has been a bit friendlier to Sanders than some other pollsters , so after adjusting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll as Biden ahead by 20 points .
Latino Decisions also found Biden leading Sanders by 17 points , 51 percent to 34 percent , which doesn ’ t move much due to house effects .
Another poll from Monmouth University on Monday showed Biden ahead by 20 points , 51 percent to 31 percent , and that result barely budged after considering house effects .
• In Illinois , Swayable also took a final look and found Biden leading Sanders by 34 points , 63 percent to 29 percent , which didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house effects .
Emerson College found Biden up by 21 points over Sanders , 57 percent to 36 percent , but after adjusting for Emerson ’ s pro-Sanders lean , the model treated Biden as up by 25 points in this poll .
ROI Rocket polled here as well and found Biden up 23 points , 57 percent to 34 percent , which the model treated as a 25-point lead after adjusting for house effects .
Gravis Marketing showed Biden ahead by 38 points ( a 63 percent to 25 percent edge over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift much due to house effects .
Victory Research found a somewhat closer race , with Biden up 55 percent to 36 percent , though after adjustments Biden led by 21 points .
Lastly , GOP pollster Ogden & Fry found Biden up by 29 points over Sanders , and once we adjusted for house effects , Biden led by 27 points .
As for the overall state of the Democratic nomination race , not much seems in doubt at this point .
Our forecast gives Biden better than a 99 in 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates , leaving Sanders with less than a 1 in 100 chance .
There ’ s also a less than 1 percent chance that no single candidate will capture a delegate majority , but that too is very unlikely at this point .
Besides the polls showing Biden well ahead in today ’ s contests , a couple of national polls conducted since last Tuesday reaffirm Biden ’ s sizable advantage in the Democratic race .
Morning Consult ’ s survey from after the March 10 contests found Biden with a 21-point lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
This marked a 3-point increase over Biden ’ s 18-point advantage that Morning Consult found the previous week .
And a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found Biden up by even more — 29 points .
Biden led Sanders 61 percent to 32 percent , a sea change from the pollster ’ s last look at the race in mid-February , when Sanders led Biden 27 percent to 15 percent ( with the then-crowded field making up the remainder ) .
Neither of the margins in these two new polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either .
Taken together , the state and national surveys show a race that just isn ’ t all that competitive .
Biden looks almost certain to win the nomination unless something wild happens .
The question now is , just how much longer will the race go on ?
The results in today ’ s contests may help answer that and whether Sanders decides to fight on or to drop out of the race , making Biden the presumptive nominee .

In an extraordinary move, Ohio postponed its primary election at the last minute due to concerns about COVID-19, meaning just three states will vote today — Arizona, Florida and Illinois, the latter two of which are among the 10 most delegate-rich contests in the Democratic presidential primary.
But despite the bumps in the road, the Democratic nomination race continues, which means it’s time for FiveThirtyEight to once again freeze its forecast to see what the outlook is in each state. (Remember, we won’t be adding any new polls, endorsements or other data to our forecast until we have results from tonight’s contests.)
Overall, the top-line outcomes in these three states are pretty straightforward: Former Vice President Joe Biden is the heavy favorite, with a greater than 99 percent chance of winning the most votes in each state, according to our forecast. On average, Biden is projected to win anywhere from 59 percent to 67 percent of the vote, which doesn’t leave Sen. Bernie Sanders with much of a shot in any of these states.
Biden looks likely to sweep today’s contests Top Democratic presidential candidates’ chances of winning the most votes in each contest, according to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast as of 9 a.m. Eastern on March 17 State total Pledged delegates Biden’s chance Sanders’s chance Florida 219 >99% 0% Illinois 155 >99 0 Arizona 67 >99 0 Ohio postponed its election until June 2nd
The main thing to watch tonight will be the margins between Biden and Sanders, as these will directly affect the delegate race. Blowout wins for Biden could also push the race toward its de facto conclusion and may even prompt Sanders to drop out. Although this scenario is unlikely, we shouldn’t completely write off an election surprise, especially considering we don’t know how the COVID-19 virus may affect these elections.
Coming into Tuesday, we have plenty of polling from Florida (12 polls), but in Arizona and Illinois, we only have six or fewer polls conducted entirely after Super Tuesday. The polls we do have, though, largely tell the same story: Biden is ahead and often by double-digit margins. Let’s run through what the surveys conducted since Super Tuesday say about the race in each state, starting with Florida (from most recent to oldest):
We don’t have as much polling to work with from Arizona and Illinois, but the surveys in those states also agree that Biden is well ahead of Sanders. Here’s what the polls say:
In Arizona, Swayable found Biden ahead of Sanders by 24 points, 53 percent to 29 percent, a margin that didn’t really change because of house effects. Meanwhile, NBC News/Marist College’s survey found Biden up just 17 points over Sanders. But Marist has been a bit friendlier to Sanders than some other pollsters, so after adjusting for house effects, the model treated this poll as Biden ahead by 20 points. Latino Decisions also found Biden leading Sanders by 17 points, 51 percent to 34 percent, which doesn’t move much due to house effects. Another poll from Monmouth University on Monday showed Biden ahead by 20 points, 51 percent to 31 percent, and that result barely budged after considering house effects.
In Illinois, Swayable also took a final look and found Biden leading Sanders by 34 points, 63 percent to 29 percent, which didn’t change much after adjusting for house effects. Emerson College found Biden up by 21 points over Sanders, 57 percent to 36 percent, but after adjusting for Emerson’s pro-Sanders lean, the model treated Biden as up by 25 points in this poll. ROI Rocket polled here as well and found Biden up 23 points, 57 percent to 34 percent, which the model treated as a 25-point lead after adjusting for house effects. Gravis Marketing showed Biden ahead by 38 points (a 63 percent to 25 percent edge over Sanders), which didn’t shift much due to house effects. Victory Research found a somewhat closer race, with Biden up 55 percent to 36 percent, though after adjustments Biden led by 21 points. Lastly, GOP pollster Ogden & Fry found Biden up by 29 points over Sanders, and once we adjusted for house effects, Biden led by 27 points.
As for the overall state of the Democratic nomination race, not much seems in doubt at this point. Our forecast gives Biden better than a 99 in 100 shot of winning a majority of pledged delegates, leaving Sanders with less than a 1 in 100 chance. There’s also a less than 1 percent chance that no single candidate will capture a delegate majority, but that too is very unlikely at this point.
Besides the polls showing Biden well ahead in today’s contests, a couple of national polls conducted since last Tuesday reaffirm Biden’s sizable advantage in the Democratic race. Morning Consult’s survey from after the March 10 contests found Biden with a 21-point lead over Sanders, 58 percent to 37 percent. This marked a 3-point increase over Biden’s 18-point advantage that Morning Consult found the previous week. And a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found Biden up by even more — 29 points. Biden led Sanders 61 percent to 32 percent, a sea change from the pollster’s last look at the race in mid-February, when Sanders led Biden 27 percent to 15 percent (with the then-crowded field making up the remainder). Neither of the margins in these two new polls shifted much after accounting for house effects either.
Taken together, the state and national surveys show a race that just isn’t all that competitive. Biden looks almost certain to win the nomination unless something wild happens. The question now is, just how much longer will the race go on? The results in today’s contests may help answer that and whether Sanders decides to fight on or to drop out of the race, making Biden the presumptive nominee.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-17--What Went Down In The Arizona, Florida And Illinois Primaries

What Went Down In The Arizona , Florida And Illinois Primaries


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-18--Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 Affected Tuesday’s Vote

Three states held primary elections Tuesday night amid the COVID-19 pandemic , while Ohio postponed its contest .
In this @ @ @ @ @ podcast , Nathaniel Rakich and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux discuss how concern about the virus affected the @ @ @ @ @ and Illinois .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” @ @ @ @ @ above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast @ @ @ @ @ new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays @ @ @ @ @ listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have @ @ @ @ @ suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email @ @ @ @ @ the comments .

Three states held primary elections Tuesday night amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while Ohio postponed its contest. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Nathaniel Rakich and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux discuss how concern about the virus affected the vote in Florida, Arizona and Illinois.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 Affected Tuesday’s Vote
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-18--Election Update: Biden’s Delegate Lead Is Now Nearly Insurmountable

With Tuesday ’ s elections now in the rearview mirror , we ’ ve turned the FiveThirtyEight forecast back on .
It now accounts for the results in Florida and Illinois , plus partial results in Arizona .
But overall , very little has changed .
Biden entered the March 17 primaries as an overwhelming favorite to win the nomination , and he remains in the same position today .
Our updated forecast shows Biden ’ s average pledged delegate count just shy of 2,400 delegates — about the same as before .
A candidate needs 1,991 pledged delegates to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to easily clear that bar even though it might now be a while before the next primary .
Sanders did gain very slightly in our average delegate forecast — and some of that is because of how bullish the model has been on Biden — but his chances of winning a majority essentially did not change .
The chances that no candidate wins a majority also inched up , but again , we ’ re talking about tiny shifts that aren ’ t all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been awarded so far , Biden has won about 300 more than Sanders , which is a nearly insurmountable lead .
To claim the nomination , Sanders would need not only to win a bunch of states , but to do so by very large margins .
And after yesterday ’ s races , there ’ s no reason to think that ’ s going to start happening .
Still , there ’ s some uncertainty about the upcoming calendar thanks to the spread of the new coronavirus in the U.S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , for instance , Maryland announced it ’ s moving its primary from April 28 to June 2 , making it the fifth state to postpone its primary in response to the COVID-19 crisis .
And Maryland might not be the last to do so .
For instance , Rhode Island ’ s board of elections has already asked Gov .
Gina Raimondo to shift the state ’ s primary date from April 28 to June 2 .
The next scheduled primary is Puerto Rico on March 29 , but that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assuming that delay is confirmed , there would then be an almost three-week break until the next round of contests on April 4 .
Three states — Alaska , Hawaii and Wyoming — will hold party-run primaries that day , and they could be favorable for Sanders .
He won a similar type of contest in North Dakota on March 10 , but together the trio of states is only worth 53 delegates , which is about 1 percent of all pledged delegates .
And after that — if it isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on April 7 , which could also be good for Sanders .
He won the state by about 14 percentage points in the 2016 primary , but as we saw in Michigan , Sanders ’ s performance this year hasn ’ t necessarily follow the same patterns as 2016 .
Our polling average currently has Biden up by about 11 points in Wisconsin , with the model giving Biden about a 5 in 6 ( 82 percent ) chance of finishing first there .
At this point , there ’ s little sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race is going to change .
Our updated forecast shows Biden is still a huge favorite , and — as some pundits and media outlets started doing last night — it may be time to start calling him the “ presumptive ” nominee .

Election Update: Biden’s Delegate Lead Is Now Nearly Insurmountable It might be a while before the next primary is held, but the race is all but over.
With Tuesday’s elections now in the rearview mirror, we’ve turned the FiveThirtyEight forecast back on. It now accounts for the results in Florida and Illinois, plus partial results in Arizona. But overall, very little has changed. Biden entered the March 17 primaries as an overwhelming favorite to win the nomination, and he remains in the same position today.
Our updated forecast shows Biden’s average pledged delegate count just shy of 2,400 delegates — about the same as before. A candidate needs 1,991 pledged delegates to clinch the majority, so Biden looks set to easily clear that bar even though it might now be a while before the next primary. Sanders did gain very slightly in our average delegate forecast — and some of that is because of how bullish the model has been on Biden — but his chances of winning a majority essentially did not change.
Biden is still an overwhelming favorite to win Change in our forecast for the top two candidates after the March 17 primaries, as of 10 a.m. Eastern on March 18 Candidate Avg. projected delegates Change Chance of majority Change Joe Biden 2,393 -47 99.1% -0.6 Bernie Sanders 1,365 +40 0.1 +0.1 No majority — — 0.9 +0.5 Arizona has only partially reported results.
The chances that no candidate wins a majority also inched up, but again, we’re talking about tiny shifts that aren’t all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.
In terms of the pledged delegates that have been awarded so far, Biden has won about 300 more than Sanders, which is a nearly insurmountable lead. To claim the nomination, Sanders would need not only to win a bunch of states, but to do so by very large margins. And after yesterday’s races, there’s no reason to think that’s going to start happening.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 Affected Tuesday’s Vote
Still, there’s some uncertainty about the upcoming calendar thanks to the spread of the new coronavirus in the U.S. While the model was frozen on Tuesday, for instance, Maryland announced it’s moving its primary from April 28 to June 2, making it the fifth state to postpone its primary in response to the COVID-19 crisis. And Maryland might not be the last to do so. For instance, Rhode Island’s board of elections has already asked Gov. Gina Raimondo to shift the state’s primary date from April 28 to June 2.
The next scheduled primary is Puerto Rico on March 29, but that will likely be postponed until April 26. Assuming that delay is confirmed, there would then be an almost three-week break until the next round of contests on April 4. Three states — Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming — will hold party-run primaries that day, and they could be favorable for Sanders. He won a similar type of contest in North Dakota on March 10, but together the trio of states is only worth 53 delegates, which is about 1 percent of all pledged delegates.
And after that — if it isn’t postponed — there is the Wisconsin primary on April 7, which could also be good for Sanders. He won the state by about 14 percentage points in the 2016 primary, but as we saw in Michigan, Sanders’s performance this year hasn’t necessarily follow the same patterns as 2016. Our polling average currently has Biden up by about 11 points in Wisconsin, with the model giving Biden about a 5 in 6 (82 percent) chance of finishing first there.
At this point, there’s little sign that the overall trajectory of the Democratic race is going to change. Our updated forecast shows Biden is still a huge favorite, and — as some pundits and media outlets started doing last night — it may be time to start calling him the “presumptive” nominee.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-18--Which Workers Are Most Vulnerable To The Economic Costs Of The Coronavirus?

Kolby Ledbetter , 25 , began worrying about the new coronavirus a few weeks ago , when it became clear that it was starting to spread in the United States .
He works two jobs — a full-time job as an Americorps service member in Chicago and a part-time job at a bar — and at first , his main concern was for his health , since he doesn ’ t have paid leave at his bar job or health insurance to fall back on .
Then on Sunday afternoon , Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker announced that all bars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dine-in customers through the end of March .
The bar where Ledbetter works closed the next day , leaving him with a whole new set of worries .
“ Even before all of this coronavirus stuff , I had a lot of financial anxiety because I was basically living paycheck to paycheck , ” he said .
“ Now I have a lot of worry about my health , but I ’ m also terrified about my ability to stay afloat financially even if I don ’ t get sick.
” As dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus are implemented across the country , workers like Ledbetter will likely be among the first to feel the economic effects .
Big retailers like Gap and Columbia Sportswear are cutting their hours or shutting down entirely in an effort to slow the spread of the virus .
And bars and restaurants have also been closed or restricted in a number of states beyond Illinois .
On Monday , President Trump urged Americans in a press conference to avoid congregating in groups of more than 10 people .
According to data from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Ledbetter could be especially hard hit economically by the coronavirus , as part-time workers , very young or old workers , and workers in the lowest quartile of earnings are disproportionately likely to work in service industry or sales jobs .
Martha Ross , a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution who studies the labor market , told us that workers like Ledbetter have few economic protections right now .
“ There are a lot of folks who don ’ t get paid leave if they get sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remotely , so they ’ re more likely to get sick if they do go to work , ” said Ross .
“ And even if they don ’ t get the virus , they ’ re still at higher risk of losing their jobs or having their hours cut .
They ’ re vulnerable no matter what happens.
” Crises have a way of exposing inequalities that linger uncomfortably below the surface when times are good .
A few groups of workers are particularly likely to lack both paid leave and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers , the youngest and oldest people in the workforce ( those under the age of 25 and over the age of 65 ) and workers who fall below the 25th percentile of earnings .
Of course , some of these groups make up a bigger portion of the workforce than others .
Workers over the age of 65 — who are also at elevated risk of a life-threatening infection because of their age — only make up about 5 percent of people with jobs , for instance .
But part-time workers make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these groups may overlap — young workers , for example , are disproportionately likely to be part-time workers — but they still represent a sizable chunk of the country ’ s workforce .
Many of these workers are employed in jobs that will be hard-hit by the recent wave of closures and cancellations , too .
Almost one-third of part-time workers are employed in the service industry , which includes people who work in food preparation , and 25 percent work in sales .
About 40 percent of workers under the age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
Other research suggests that contingent workers — independent contractors , freelancers , or other people who work in the “ gig economy ” — are disproportionately likely to be affected , since they ’ re more likely to be young and to work part-time .
And they typically have no access to paid leave or other benefits because their employment is only temporary .
They also tend to make less than workers in traditional , permanent jobs .
( The data wasn ’ t available from the BLS , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sectors that will be hard hit . )
Lee Taylor , 31 , a musician living in New York City , said she watched all of her work evaporate as bars and music venues across the city shut down , and she stopped being able to give voice lessons in person .
“ I ’ m getting three or four texts or emails every day , all saying the same thing — ‘ “ Unfortunately , we ’ re postponing.
’ ” Taylor is in a particularly tough position as she can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money to cover her rent for April , but says she doesn ’ t know what she ’ ll do if the entertainment industry remains shuttered .
“ I have no idea how to get income.
” And Taylor is not alone .
“ It ’ s a bad week to be a waiter , or a cashier , or any kind of contractor whose work relies on in-person interaction , ” said Jesse Rothstein , a professor of public policy and economics at the University of California , Berkeley .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts to their income — their hours might be reduced , or they might lose their jobs altogether.
” Taken together , all of these factors create a bleak outlook , no matter what happens next .
People who don ’ t have access to paid leave and the ability to work remotely are disproportionately likely to be low-income , which means if their workplace isn ’ t shuttered , they ’ re more likely to keep coming to work out of necessity , even if they ’ re not feeling well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being infected , since their coworkers may be doing the same thing .
Research has found some workers in the food service industry kept coming to work even though they had symptoms of norovirus because they were afraid of losing their job or leaving their coworkers short-staffed .
And the possibility that many will lose their jobs or have their hours cut because of the coronavirus creates a whole new set of problems .
A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation from March 11 to 15 found that 73 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 40,000 a year , 68 percent of part-time workers , and 60 percent of self-employed workers are worried that they will lose income due to a workplace closure or reduced hours because of the coronavirus .
According to that survey , part-time and self-employed workers are likelier than full-time or salaried workers to say they ’ ve already lost income so far .
If the shutdowns persist , some employers may go out of business , leaving workers who weren ’ t permanently laid off with no job to return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what ’ s going to happen when people can ’ t pay their rent or mortgage , ” Rothstein said .
“ Because these workers are going to start burning through their savings — if they have any at all.
” CORRECTION ( March 18 , 2020 , 4:26 p.m. ) : A previous version of this article gave an incorrect number for the share of part-time workers .
About 20 percent of people with one job work part time , not 22 percent .

Kolby Ledbetter, 25, began worrying about the new coronavirus a few weeks ago, when it became clear that it was starting to spread in the United States. He works two jobs — a full-time job as an Americorps service member in Chicago and a part-time job at a bar — and at first, his main concern was for his health, since he doesn’t have paid leave at his bar job or health insurance to fall back on.
Then on Sunday afternoon, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced that all bars and restaurants would be shut down for dine-in customers through the end of March. The bar where Ledbetter works closed the next day, leaving him with a whole new set of worries. “Even before all of this coronavirus stuff, I had a lot of financial anxiety because I was basically living paycheck to paycheck,” he said. “Now I have a lot of worry about my health, but I’m also terrified about my ability to stay afloat financially even if I don’t get sick.”
Why we shouldnât hope COVID-19 is seasonal like the flu
As dramatic measures to tamp down the spread of the virus are implemented across the country, workers like Ledbetter will likely be among the first to feel the economic effects. Big retailers like Gap and Columbia Sportswear are cutting their hours or shutting down entirely in an effort to slow the spread of the virus. And bars and restaurants have also been closed or restricted in a number of states beyond Illinois. On Monday, President Trump urged Americans in a press conference to avoid congregating in groups of more than 10 people.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers like Ledbetter could be especially hard hit economically by the coronavirus, as part-time workers, very young or old workers, and workers in the lowest quartile of earnings are disproportionately likely to work in service industry or sales jobs.
Martha Ross, a fellow in the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution who studies the labor market, told us that workers like Ledbetter have few economic protections right now. “There are a lot of folks who don’t get paid leave if they get sick. They probably can’t work remotely, so they’re more likely to get sick if they do go to work,” said Ross. “And even if they don’t get the virus, they’re still at higher risk of losing their jobs or having their hours cut. They’re vulnerable no matter what happens.”
Crises have a way of exposing inequalities that linger uncomfortably below the surface when times are good. A few groups of workers are particularly likely to lack both paid leave and the ability to work from home: part-time workers, the youngest and oldest people in the workforce (those under the age of 25 and over the age of 65) and workers who fall below the 25th percentile of earnings.
Who is economically vulnerable to the coronavirus? Percent of workers with access to paid leave or with the ability to work from home by job status, age and earnings in 2017-18 job Status* Paid Leave Work From Home Part-time 23.3% – – 13.7% – – Full-time 77.0 – – 32.6 – – Age (years) Paid Leave Work From Home 15 to 24 35.4% – – 6.7% – – 25 to 34 70.3 – – 31.4 – – 35 to 44 71.7 – – 36.2 – – 45 to 54 74.4 – – 32.5 – – 55 to 64 74.2 – – 32.2 – – ≥ 65 51.7 – – 25.5 – – Earnings† Paid Leave Work from home ≤ 25th percentile 56.5% – – 9.2% – – 25th to 50th percentiles 80.0 – – 20.1 – – 50th to 75th percentiles 83.9 – – 37.3 – – > 75th percentile 86.0 – – 61.5 – – Included all wage and salary workers who were 15 years or older at their main job. Self-employed workers are excluded. *Full-time includes those who work 35 hours or more a week and hold a single job. Part-time includes those who work 34 hours or less a week and hold a single job. †Earnings includes only full-time workers. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Time Use Survey
Of course, some of these groups make up a bigger portion of the workforce than others. Workers over the age of 65 — who are also at elevated risk of a life-threatening infection because of their age — only make up about 5 percent of people with jobs, for instance. But part-time workers make up about 20 percent. Some of these groups may overlap — young workers, for example, are disproportionately likely to be part-time workers — but they still represent a sizable chunk of the country’s workforce.
Many of these workers are employed in jobs that will be hard-hit by the recent wave of closures and cancellations, too. Almost one-third of part-time workers are employed in the service industry, which includes people who work in food preparation, and 25 percent work in sales. About 40 percent of workers under the age of 25 are employed in service or sales, too. Other research suggests that contingent workers — independent contractors, freelancers, or other people who work in the “gig economy” — are disproportionately likely to be affected, since they’re more likely to be young and to work part-time. And they typically have no access to paid leave or other benefits because their employment is only temporary. They also tend to make less than workers in traditional, permanent jobs. (The data wasn’t available from the BLS, but low-wage workers are also overrepresented in these sectors that will be hard hit.)
Where do economically vulnerable employees work? Percent of employed persons who work part-time and are under the age of 25 by occupation in 2019 Occupation Part-time Less than 25 years old Service 31.2% – – 22.0% – – Sales and related 24.7 – – 19.2 – – Office and administrative support 19.7 – – 14.4 – – Transportation and material moving 16.8 – – 14.0 – – Professional and related 15.0 – – 7.5 – – Mgmt., business and financial ops. 8.3 – – 3.9 – – Production 7.3 – – 11.0 – – Construction and extraction 7.3 – – 11.0 – – Installation, maintenance and repair 5.5 – – 10.9 – – Part-time includes those who work 34 hours or less a week. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey
Lee Taylor, 31, a musician living in New York City, said she watched all of her work evaporate as bars and music venues across the city shut down, and she stopped being able to give voice lessons in person. “I’m getting three or four texts or emails every day, all saying the same thing — ‘“Unfortunately, we’re postponing.’” Taylor is in a particularly tough position as she can’t work remotely either. She has the money to cover her rent for April, but says she doesn’t know what she’ll do if the entertainment industry remains shuttered. “I have no idea how to get income.”
And Taylor is not alone. “It’s a bad week to be a waiter, or a cashier, or any kind of contractor whose work relies on in-person interaction,” said Jesse Rothstein, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “Those people are going to see dramatic cuts to their income — their hours might be reduced, or they might lose their jobs altogether.”
Taken together, all of these factors create a bleak outlook, no matter what happens next. People who don’t have access to paid leave and the ability to work remotely are disproportionately likely to be low-income, which means if their workplace isn’t shuttered, they’re more likely to keep coming to work out of necessity, even if they’re not feeling well. That can put them at greater risk of being infected, since their coworkers may be doing the same thing. Research has found some workers in the food service industry kept coming to work even though they had symptoms of norovirus because they were afraid of losing their job or leaving their coworkers short-staffed.
And the possibility that many will lose their jobs or have their hours cut because of the coronavirus creates a whole new set of problems. A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation from March 11 to 15 found that 73 percent of workers with a household income of less than $40,000 a year, 68 percent of part-time workers, and 60 percent of self-employed workers are worried that they will lose income due to a workplace closure or reduced hours because of the coronavirus. According to that survey, part-time and self-employed workers are likelier than full-time or salaried workers to say they’ve already lost income so far.
If the shutdowns persist, some employers may go out of business, leaving workers who weren’t permanently laid off with no job to return to. “We have to start thinking about what’s going to happen when people can’t pay their rent or mortgage,” Rothstein said. “Because these workers are going to start burning through their savings — if they have any at all.”
CORRECTION (March 18, 2020, 4:26 p.m.): A previous version of this article gave an incorrect number for the share of part-time workers. About 20 percent of people with one job work part time, not 22 percent.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-18--Biden Won Tuesday’s Primaries As Voters Embraced Voting By Mail

Amid the economic and social turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic , the Democratic presidential primary marched on Tuesday as three states ( admittedly one less than expected ) went to the polls .
And as expected , former Vice President Joe Biden scored decisive victories in all three , further distancing himself from Sen. Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination .
In Florida , Biden was crushing Sanders 62 percent to 23 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting .
That was almost exactly the margin that Biden was expected to win by , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a bit different — the forecast put Biden at 67 percent and Sanders at 28 percent in the average preelection simulation .
With 98 percent of precincts reporting in Illinois , Biden had 59 percent of the vote , while Sanders had 36 percent .
The average FiveThirtyEight forecast in the Land of Lincoln gave Biden 66 percent and Sanders 30 percent , so it was Sanders who actually outperformed expectations .
And in a down-ballot surprise , progressive Marie Newman defeated centrist Rep. Dan Lipinski in the Democratic primary in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for progressives in Illinois .
And finally , with 69 percent of the expected vote counted , 42 percent of Democrats in Arizona had voted for Biden , while 30 percent had voted for Sanders .
So far that ’ s a significantly smaller margin than the 25-point Biden win forecasted by our model , but we shouldn ’ t make any comparisons yet , as it ’ s still early in the vote-counting process .
Even under normal circumstances , around 80 percent of Arizonans cast their ballots via mail , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be finalized .
There is reason to think Sanders could tighten the margin in the later count : Young voters and Latino voters , two groups that have made up Sanders ’ s base thus far , are among those who tend to mail their ballots at the last minute .
However , there is no doubt that Biden will win Arizona — both ABC and the Associated Press called the state for him .
Expected though they may have been , Biden ’ s victories in these three states are still significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are worth : Florida , with 219 pledged delegates , is the fourth-most delegate-rich state on the primary calendar ; Illinois , with 155 pledged delegates , is sixth .
So far , ABC News is projecting that Biden has won 227 delegates while Sanders has won 81 ( 133 are still to be determined ) .
That gives Biden a strong 297-delegate lead in the race overall .
That might not seem insurmountable , given that there are still 1,668 pledged delegates to award ( plus those from yesterday that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it this way : Sanders would need to win 68 percent of the remaining delegates to claim a majority — yet he is currently almost 20 points behind Biden in our national polling average .
Of course , Biden already had a greater than 99 in 100 ( 99 percent ) chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates , per our forecast , so yesterday doesn ’ t really change the state of the race .
The real headline may have been the way the elections were affected by the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ late because so few poll workers showed up to work out of fear of the virus ; in Illinois , understaffed polling places conscripted untrained volunteers into service , and some relocated polling places lacked the proper equipment to process voters , leading to long lines at other voting locations .
And while we can ’ t isolate the effect of the coronavirus on turnout — the diminishing competitiveness of the Democratic race may also have contributed — turnout was slightly down from 2016 levels in Florida , and it fell by even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that so many ballots are left to count in Arizona means we can not calculate its turnout rate this early . )
Around 1.54 million Democratic ballots have been counted so far in Illinois , for a turnout rate of 17 percent of the voting eligible population ; in 2016 , that number was 23 percent .
Meanwhile , in Florida , a preliminary total of 1.73 million people voted in the Democratic primary , which computes to a VEP turnout rate of 11 percent ; in 2016 , it was 12 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big a drop as in Illinois , but it ’ s still notable since 2020 turnout topped 2016 ’ s in almost every other state that has voted so far this year .
The turnout drop may have been especially stark in Illinois because it is more reliant on in-person voting than Florida .
Indeed , both states saw an increase in the number of early or mail votes but a decrease in the number of in-person Election Day votes — which , given the pandemic , makes sense .
Election Day turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraction of what it was in the 2016 primary , but the city also received more absentee ballot requests and early votes than any previous presidential primary .
And according to the Illinois State Board of Elections , the state likely set a record for most early and mail votes in a presidential primary .
Meanwhile , in Florida , 658,234 Democrats had returned their mail ballots as of Tuesday morning — already an increase of 27 percent from 2016 .
And 438,949 Florida Democrats voted early , which was up 19 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Democrats cast only about 500,000 votes on Election Day itself , which would be down 40 percent from 2016 .
Basically , the data from yesterday ’ s elections suggests that , in the face of the coronavirus threat , many voters simply traded voting in person for voting early or by mail .
As long as the pandemic lingers , this could become a new normal for elections .

Amid the economic and social turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Democratic presidential primary marched on Tuesday as three states (admittedly one less than expected) went to the polls. And as expected, former Vice President Joe Biden scored decisive victories in all three, further distancing himself from Sen. Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic nomination.
In Florida, Biden was crushing Sanders 62 percent to 23 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting. That was almost exactly the margin that Biden was expected to win by, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast, although the vote shares were a bit different — the forecast put Biden at 67 percent and Sanders at 28 percent in the average preelection simulation.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How COVID-19 Affected Tuesday’s Vote
With 98 percent of precincts reporting in Illinois, Biden had 59 percent of the vote, while Sanders had 36 percent. The average FiveThirtyEight forecast in the Land of Lincoln gave Biden 66 percent and Sanders 30 percent, so it was Sanders who actually outperformed expectations. And in a down-ballot surprise, progressive Marie Newman defeated centrist Rep. Dan Lipinski in the Democratic primary in the 3rd Congressional District — a bright spot for progressives in Illinois.
And finally, with 69 percent of the expected vote counted, 42 percent of Democrats in Arizona had voted for Biden, while 30 percent had voted for Sanders. So far that’s a significantly smaller margin than the 25-point Biden win forecasted by our model, but we shouldn’t make any comparisons yet, as it’s still early in the vote-counting process. Even under normal circumstances, around 80 percent of Arizonans cast their ballots via mail, which means results can take several days to be finalized. There is reason to think Sanders could tighten the margin in the later count: Young voters and Latino voters, two groups that have made up Sanders’s base thus far, are among those who tend to mail their ballots at the last minute. However, there is no doubt that Biden will win Arizona — both ABC and the Associated Press called the state for him.
Expected though they may have been, Biden’s victories in these three states are still significant because of the large number of delegates they are worth: Florida, with 219 pledged delegates, is the fourth-most delegate-rich state on the primary calendar; Illinois, with 155 pledged delegates, is sixth. So far, ABC News is projecting that Biden has won 227 delegates while Sanders has won 81 (133 are still to be determined). That gives Biden a strong 297-delegate lead in the race overall. That might not seem insurmountable, given that there are still 1,668 pledged delegates to award (plus those from yesterday that are still unallocated), but think about it this way: Sanders would need to win 68 percent of the remaining delegates to claim a majority — yet he is currently almost 20 points behind Biden in our national polling average.
Of course, Biden already had a greater than 99 in 100 (99 percent) chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates, per our forecast, so yesterday doesn’t really change the state of the race. The real headline may have been the way the elections were affected by the coronavirus. In Florida, some polling places opened late because so few poll workers showed up to work out of fear of the virus; in Illinois, understaffed polling places conscripted untrained volunteers into service, and some relocated polling places lacked the proper equipment to process voters, leading to long lines at other voting locations.
And while we can’t isolate the effect of the coronavirus on turnout — the diminishing competitiveness of the Democratic race may also have contributed — turnout was slightly down from 2016 levels in Florida, and it fell by even more in Illinois. (The fact that so many ballots are left to count in Arizona means we cannot calculate its turnout rate this early.) Around 1.54 million Democratic ballots have been counted so far in Illinois, for a turnout rate of 17 percent of the voting eligible population; in 2016, that number was 23 percent. Meanwhile, in Florida, a preliminary total of 1.73 million people voted in the Democratic primary, which computes to a VEP turnout rate of 11 percent; in 2016, it was 12 percent. That’s obviously not as big a drop as in Illinois, but it’s still notable since 2020 turnout topped 2016’s in almost every other state that has voted so far this year.
The turnout drop may have been especially stark in Illinois because it is more reliant on in-person voting than Florida. Indeed, both states saw an increase in the number of early or mail votes but a decrease in the number of in-person Election Day votes — which, given the pandemic, makes sense. Election Day turnout at polling places in Chicago was a fraction of what it was in the 2016 primary, but the city also received more absentee ballot requests and early votes than any previous presidential primary. And according to the Illinois State Board of Elections, the state likely set a record for most early and mail votes in a presidential primary.
Meanwhile, in Florida, 658,234 Democrats had returned their mail ballots as of Tuesday morning — already an increase of 27 percent from 2016. And 438,949 Florida Democrats voted early, which was up 19 percent from 2016. However, it looks like Democrats cast only about 500,000 votes on Election Day itself, which would be down 40 percent from 2016.
Basically, the data from yesterday’s elections suggests that, in the face of the coronavirus threat, many voters simply traded voting in person for voting early or by mail. As long as the pandemic lingers, this could become a new normal for elections.