fivethirtyeight--2020-10-07--Take Negative COVID-19 Tests Seriously, But Not Literally

Kayleigh McEnany tested negative for COVID-19 last Thursday .
She tested negative again on Friday .
And on Saturday .
And also on Sunday .
But she wasn ’ t negative on Monday .
And that presents a quandary even if you ’ re not the White House press secretary .
What if you get tested because someone close to you tested positive , but your test shows you ’ re negative … yet three days later you aren ’ t , and , unlike McEnany , you have no idea you have COVID-19 because you don ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House staff and other Republican officials can provide some insight on how to make ourselves , and our communities , safer .
That ’ s because , experts told me , sometimes a “ negative ” test result isn ’ t just a negative test result .
Sometimes it ’ s just the first stop on the way to testing positive .
Those first few McEnany tests fall into the category of “ false negatives , ” said Bobbi Pritt , a microbiologist at the Mayo Clinic .
She was infected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that yet .
Nobody knows exactly how common false negatives are , said Steven Woloshin , co-director of the Center for Medicine and Media at The Dartmouth Institute , but they aren ’ t rare .
In one study from China , between 11 and 40 percent of tests conducted on 213 hospitalized , COVID-positive patients in the first seven days of illness came back negative .
Another paper , this one a review of 34 studies accounting for more than 12,000 patients , suggested a false negative rate between 2 and 58 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a test could produce a false negative .
In McEnany ’ s case , it ’ s likely because there ’ s a lag time between when someone gets an infectious dose of the SARS-COV-2 virus and when there is actually enough virus in their body to register on a test .
“ Say somebody gets exposed today , then half the people will start having positive test results in five days , ” said Davey Smith , a translational research virologist at the University of California San Diego .
“ Eighty percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 and virtually everyone would have it by 14.
” People who know they ’ ve been exposed to COVID-19 often want to come in right away and get a test , Smith said .
But that ’ s the opposite of what you need to do .
In order to test positive , you have to have enough virus in your system for the test to spot its genetic material in your sample .
But virus replication takes time .
If you ’ re tested on day four , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any negative test result is untrustworthy .
But it gets more complicated than that .
Testing too soon is a concern for anyone , but if you ’ re one of the people who contracts COVID-19 and isn ’ t having a serious case , there ’ s also such a thing as testing too late , Pritt said .
In mild cases , she told me , concentrations of virus in a person ’ s system can start to decline six days after infection — meaning if you got tested after that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people who have been in contact with you might not know they were ever at risk .
You can still test positive in the first week after infection — and serious cases can test positive for far longer — but the window for when everyone is most likely to get a “ negative ” that truly means negative is small .
There ’ s a reason state health departments are recommending that asymptomatic people who think they ’ re at risk of COVID-19 be tested five to seven days after exposure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the tests only tell you if you have the virus — not whether or when you are contagious .
It all leaves a lot of room for error .
This isn ’ t anything unique to COVID-19 .
With any virus , there will be differences in how long it takes to replicate to detectable levels .
Some are fast .
Some , like HIV for example , can take months .
And how long it takes a respiratory virus like COVID to reach a detectable point can vary based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s immune system , how much virus they inhaled to begin with , and other factors .
“ If I get a bunch of virus at once , the amount of time it takes to replicate enough to come out my nose is shorter , ” Smith said .
But there are two other reasons why false negatives happen , Pritt told me .
First , the test might not have reached the parts of your body where the virus concentrates .
“ The gold standard is still the nasal pharynx , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of virus is higher there than in the tip , ” she said .
Then , there ’ s also errors in the tests themselves .
No test is perfect , after all .
And different tests have different profiles of how likely they are to fail .
For example , PCR tests — the ones that the virus ’ genetic traces in samples taken from deep in your nose — have been kind of the workhorse of diagnostic testing throughout the pandemic .
There are different kinds , but generally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is called high sensitivity — that is , if you take them at the right time , they ’ re pretty unlikely to mess up in ways that result in false negatives .
The newer rapid tests , on the other hand , are kind of the opposite .
They might turn up some false negatives , but are very unlikely to give you a false positive .
These traits make the different tests most useful in different settings , Smith said .
He uses rapid tests in the ER , where patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing is to be able to trust that a positive test result is for real .
For broadly testing the general public , though , you ’ d rather use a test that produces fewer false negatives , so you don ’ t send asymptomatic carriers out with a false sense of confidence , he told me .
The White House was using rapid tests .
There are a couple of personal lessons you can take away from the outbreak of COVID-19 within the administration .
First , consider your pretest probability — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been in contact with the virus .
Your likelihood of being infected is different if you ’ ve been , say , hanging around in the West Wing of the White House , than if you ’ ve been social distancing in a low-COVID part of the country , Woloshin said .
If you take a test , and it comes back negative , the person with a low probability of having COVID-19 in the first place has good reason to believe the test .
The person who didn ’ t , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t give a negative test result too much credence .
Second , quarantines matter .
If you know you were exposed to COVID-19 and you get a test and it says negative , you did not just get yourself a “ Get Out of Quarantine Free ” card .
Even after day five , studies done on real world patients have found a 20 percent probability of a false negative test .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently advises people who have been exposed to COVID-19 to quarantine themselves for 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McEnany didn ’ t do that in the days before she tested positive .
It ’ s now been eight days since Joe Biden was exposed to President Trump during the debate , and he tested negative that whole time .
But he hasn ’ t stopped campaigning .
“ As long as I ’ m in the window period there ’ s no real guaranteed safe time , ” Smith said .
Third , tests can be useful tools , but you should be very careful how you use them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some friends you haven ’ t seen in months — so you all go get COVID tests in preparation for meeting up .
If you ’ re all negative , you might assume you ’ re in the clear .
But experts are a bit cringey on that plan .
“ I can ’ t say that ’ s a good idea , ” Pritt said .
“ But knowing that what people do is not always going to follow the guidelines … I understand that.
” You can use tests to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know the test is just a snapshot of a moment in time .
Ideally , if you ’ re going to try to do a “ hall pass ” situation , you want more than just one negative test result .
You want people who have no symptoms and no exposures .
You would want to get a test that has a high sensitivity .
And you want to be able to trust that the people you ’ re getting together with are isolating themselves before and after taking the test — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t walk out of the testing clinic and get infected the next day .
Nothing is 100 percent , Smith told me .
But , if it was done carefully , he didn ’ t think a hall pass was the worst idea in the world .
Ultimately , despite all the complexities , the takeaway is pretty simple , Woloshin said .
“ It ’ s a big mistake to rely only on tests , ” he said .
“ You still need masks , social distancing , hand washing , ect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an area where there are high rates of COVID .
”

Kayleigh McEnany tested negative for COVID-19 last Thursday. She tested negative again on Friday. And on Saturday. And also on Sunday.
But she wasn’t negative on Monday.
And that presents a quandary even if you’re not the White House press secretary. What if you get tested because someone close to you tested positive, but your test shows you’re negative … yet three days later you aren’t, and, unlike McEnany, you have no idea you have COVID-19 because you don’t get tested daily?
The recent outbreak among White House staff and other Republican officials can provide some insight on how to make ourselves, and our communities, safer. That’s because, experts told me, sometimes a “negative” test result isn’t just a negative test result. Sometimes it’s just the first stop on the way to testing positive.
Those first few McEnany tests fall into the category of “false negatives,” said Bobbi Pritt, a microbiologist at the Mayo Clinic. She was infected, but the tests couldn’t tell that yet. Nobody knows exactly how common false negatives are, said Steven Woloshin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Media at The Dartmouth Institute, but they aren’t rare. In one study from China, between 11 and 40 percent of tests conducted on 213 hospitalized, COVID-positive patients in the first seven days of illness came back negative. Another paper, this one a review of 34 studies accounting for more than 12,000 patients, suggested a false negative rate between 2 and 58 percent.
There are multiple reasons why a test could produce a false negative. In McEnany’s case, it’s likely because there’s a lag time between when someone gets an infectious dose of the SARS-COV-2 virus and when there is actually enough virus in their body to register on a test. “Say somebody gets exposed today, then half the people will start having positive test results in five days,” said Davey Smith, a translational research virologist at the University of California San Diego. “Eighty percent will have it by [day] 10 and virtually everyone would have it by 14.”
People who know they’ve been exposed to COVID-19 often want to come in right away and get a test, Smith said. But that’s the opposite of what you need to do. In order to test positive, you have to have enough virus in your system for the test to spot its genetic material in your sample. But virus replication takes time. If you’re tested on day four, there’s a greater than 50 percent chance that any negative test result is untrustworthy.
But it gets more complicated than that. Testing too soon is a concern for anyone, but if you’re one of the people who contracts COVID-19 and isn’t having a serious case, there’s also such a thing as testing too late, Pritt said. In mild cases, she told me, concentrations of virus in a person’s system can start to decline six days after infection — meaning if you got tested after that, the result might come back negative and people who have been in contact with you might not know they were ever at risk.
You can still test positive in the first week after infection — and serious cases can test positive for far longer — but the window for when everyone is most likely to get a “negative” that truly means negative is small. There’s a reason state health departments are recommending that asymptomatic people who think they’re at risk of COVID-19 be tested five to seven days after exposure. What’s more, Woloshin said, the tests only tell you if you have the virus — not whether or when you are contagious. It all leaves a lot of room for error.
This isn’t anything unique to COVID-19. With any virus, there will be differences in how long it takes to replicate to detectable levels. Some are fast. Some, like HIV for example, can take months. And how long it takes a respiratory virus like COVID to reach a detectable point can vary based on the strain of the virus, the person’s immune system, how much virus they inhaled to begin with, and other factors. “If I get a bunch of virus at once, the amount of time it takes to replicate enough to come out my nose is shorter,” Smith said.
But there are two other reasons why false negatives happen, Pritt told me. First, the test might not have reached the parts of your body where the virus concentrates. “The gold standard is still the nasal pharynx, several inches up your nose. The amount of virus is higher there than in the tip,” she said.
Then, there’s also errors in the tests themselves. No test is perfect, after all. And different tests have different profiles of how likely they are to fail. For example, PCR tests — the ones that the virus’ genetic traces in samples taken from deep in your nose — have been kind of the workhorse of diagnostic testing throughout the pandemic. There are different kinds, but generally, experts said, they all have what is called high sensitivity — that is, if you take them at the right time, they’re pretty unlikely to mess up in ways that result in false negatives. The newer rapid tests, on the other hand, are kind of the opposite. They might turn up some false negatives, but are very unlikely to give you a false positive. These traits make the different tests most useful in different settings, Smith said. He uses rapid tests in the ER, where patients come in symptomatic and the most important thing is to be able to trust that a positive test result is for real. For broadly testing the general public, though, you’d rather use a test that produces fewer false negatives, so you don’t send asymptomatic carriers out with a false sense of confidence, he told me. The White House was using rapid tests.
There are a couple of personal lessons you can take away from the outbreak of COVID-19 within the administration. First, consider your pretest probability — or the chances you’ve actually been in contact with the virus. Your likelihood of being infected is different if you’ve been, say, hanging around in the West Wing of the White House, than if you’ve been social distancing in a low-COVID part of the country, Woloshin said. If you take a test, and it comes back negative, the person with a low probability of having COVID-19 in the first place has good reason to believe the test. The person who didn’t, on the other hand, probably shouldn’t give a negative test result too much credence.
Second, quarantines matter. If you know you were exposed to COVID-19 and you get a test and it says negative, you did not just get yourself a “Get Out of Quarantine Free” card. Even after day five, studies done on real world patients have found a 20 percent probability of a false negative test. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently advises people who have been exposed to COVID-19 to quarantine themselves for 14 days from the day they were exposed. McEnany didn’t do that in the days before she tested positive. It’s now been eight days since Joe Biden was exposed to President Trump during the debate, and he tested negative that whole time. But he hasn’t stopped campaigning. “As long as I’m in the window period there’s no real guaranteed safe time,” Smith said.
Third, tests can be useful tools, but you should be very careful how you use them. Say you want to hang out with some friends you haven’t seen in months — so you all go get COVID tests in preparation for meeting up. If you’re all negative, you might assume you’re in the clear. But experts are a bit cringey on that plan. “I can’t say that’s a good idea,” Pritt said. “But knowing that what people do is not always going to follow the guidelines … I understand that.”
You can use tests to reduce risk, but that only works if you know the test is just a snapshot of a moment in time. Ideally, if you’re going to try to do a “hall pass” situation, you want more than just one negative test result. You want people who have no symptoms and no exposures. You would want to get a test that has a high sensitivity. And you want to be able to trust that the people you’re getting together with are isolating themselves before and after taking the test — so you know that they didn’t walk out of the testing clinic and get infected the next day. Nothing is 100 percent, Smith told me. But, if it was done carefully, he didn’t think a hall pass was the worst idea in the world.
Ultimately, despite all the complexities, the takeaway is pretty simple, Woloshin said. “It’s a big mistake to rely only on tests,” he said. “You still need masks, social distancing, hand washing, ect. Especially if you’re in an area where there are high rates of COVID.”


2020 House Forecast

Leading candidate ’ s forecasted chance of winning and margin of victory in the top 50 competitive districts .
Dots @ @ @ @ @ tighter races , and wider bars mean more uncertainty about the outcome .

Who’s ahead in competitive districts
Leading candidate’s forecasted chance of winning and margin of victory in the top 50 competitive districts. Dots closer to the line represent tighter races, and wider bars mean more uncertainty about the outcome.
80% of outcomes fall in this range
50 most competitive races Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Incumbent candidate/controlling party


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-07--Our Forecast Thinks Democrats Will Keep The House … And Maybe Even Gain Seats

Today FiveThirtyEight released its third and final forecast of the 2020 election : our forecast for the House .
And while Democrats are slight favorites to flip the Senate and Joe Biden is a solid-but-not-overwhelming front-runner for the presidency , Democrats have between a 92 and 97 percent chance of keeping control of the House .
The reason I ’ m giving a range is that , as in 2018 , there are three versions of our House model .
• The Lite version relies primarily on polling .
It gives Democrats a 97 in 100 chance of winning the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to win 244 seats and Republicans to win 191 seats — an 11-seat gain for Democrats .
• The Classic version blends polls with fundamentals like partisanship , incumbency advantages and candidates ’ fundraising .
It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House .
On average , it projects Democrats to win 238 seats and Republicans to win 197 seats — a smaller five-seat gain for Democrats .
• The Deluxe version has the most bells and whistles : It incorporates polls , fundamentals and expert ratings from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball .
It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House .
On average , it projects Democrats to win 237 seats and Republicans to win 198 seats — a four-seat gain for Democrats .
We consider the Deluxe version to be the default version of our congressional forecast , so all forecast numbers from here on out are from the Deluxe version of the model .
However , you can always explore the other versions by using the magnifying glass icon at the bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to know all the gory details about how the model works , check out our forecast methodology .
All three versions more or less agree , though , that Democrats will essentially stand pat in the House or pick up a few extra seats .
That ’ s an impressive achievement considering the heights they reached in the 2018 midterms , when they scored a 235-199 majority despite a congressional map that favored the GOP .
Now , Democrats must defend 30 seats in districts won by President Trump in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who sit in districts that Hillary Clinton carried ) .
Yet Democrats are on offense once again this year : 28 of the 50 House districts that the Deluxe version of our model considers most likely to change parties are held by Republicans .
There are a few explanations for why Democrats still have room to grow .
The first is that they are virtually guaranteed to flip two seats right off the bat thanks to redistricting .
After a court declared in 2019 that North Carolina ’ s old congressional lines showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the state legislature passed a new map that reconfigured two Republican-held seats as Democratic strongholds : the 2nd District and 6th District .
Their current occupants , Reps. George Holding and Mark Walker , announced they would retire from Congress soon after , and now the seats are Democrats ’ two best pickup opportunities in the entire nation .
Our model gives the party a greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning both races .
Another is that , though Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in 2018 , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left : That is , there are a few Clinton districts still represented by Republicans .
In Texas ’ s 23rd District , Rep. Will Hurd defeated Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by just 0.4 points in 2018 , but this year , Hurd was one of many Texas Republicans who decided to retire .
As a result , Ortiz Jones ( who is running again ) has a 74 in 100 chance to win in 2020 against Republican Tony Gonzales .
And Democrats did win California ’ s 25th District in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill to resign , and Republican Mike Garcia flipped the seat back in a special election .
Our model considers the rubber match to be a toss-up , giving Democrats a 56 in 100 shot .
Finally , Democrats aren ’ t in quite as good a position to defeat Rep. John Katko in New York ’ s 24th District , but Democrat Dana Balter still has a 33 in 100 chance .
( The one Republican in a Clinton district who seems pretty safe is Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 chance to win , he doesn ’ t even make the table above . )
But the biggest factor may be the continued leftward march of American suburbs .
After Democrats cleaned house in the suburbs in 2018 — three-quarters of their 2018 gains came in predominantly suburban congressional districts — they are back this year for the many suburban districts they left on the table .
Their best such pickup opportunity is New York ’ s 2nd , a dense suburban district on Long Island where Republican Rep. Peter King is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 1992 .
Our forecast gives Democrat Jackie Gordon a 59 in 100 chance of victory there .
Republican Rep. Susan Brooks is also retiring from Indiana ’ s 5th District , which covers the northern Indianapolis suburbs and went from voting for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by 17 points in 2012 to narrowly voting for Democrat Joe Donnelly in the state ’ s 2018 Senate election .
The race to replace her is almost a pure toss-up .
Similarly , Georgia ’ s 7th District , a suburban Atlanta district that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the closest House race in the country in 2018 .
Republican Rep .
Rob Woodall opted to retire ( sensing a pattern ? )
, and now Democrats have a 45 in 100 chance to win it in 2020 .
I could go on — Democrats have between a 30 and 40 percent shot in Nebraska ’ s 2nd District in metro Omaha , Texas ’ s 24th District in suburban Dallas-Fort Worth and Ohio ’ s 1st District around Cincinnati — but my editor does put word counts on these things .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
They ’ re favorites to flip just three House seats vs. Democrats ’ five .
And their likeliest win would represent the end of an era in the House : Republican Michelle Fischbach has a 74 in 100 chance to defeat Rep. Collin Peterson , the powerful chair of the House Agriculture Committee .
Peterson represents by far the Trumpiest district currently held by a Democrat — the Minnesota 7th voted for Trump by 31 percentage points in 2016 .
While Peterson ’ s conservative views have helped him survive in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting redder and split-ticket voting is becoming rarer .
Another likely Republican pickup is a seat the party held until July 4 , 2019 , when Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan ’ s 3rd District announced he was leaving the GOP .
Facing a difficult reelection bid as a third-party candidate , Amash has since decided to retire , and Republican Peter Meijer now has a 68 in 100 chance of taking the seat back for the GOP .
( That said , Democrats also have a 32 in 100 chance to flip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans have also set their sights on winning back several House seats they lost in 2018 , although our model thinks they ’ re favored in only one — and even then , just barely .
Oklahoma ’ s 5th District produced the biggest upset of 2018 ( according to the Deluxe version of our 2018 model ) , as Democrat Kendra Horn prevailed in a district that voted for Trump by 13 points in 2016 .
Here in 2020 , Horn ( 49 in 100 ) and Republican Stephanie Bice ( 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same chance of winning the seat .
Also too close to call is California ’ s 21st District , where Republican former Rep. David Valadao is seeking a comeback in a district he lost by just 862 votes in 2018 .
Although Clinton won this district by 16 points , it is more Republican in down-ballot races , and Valadao has a 48 in 100 chance of winning .
Finally , Republicans are almost even money to defeat Rep. Joe Cunningham in South Carolina ’ s 1st District , which also voted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Nancy Mace has a 46 in 100 chance of victory here .
Beyond those seats , Republicans have a fighting chance in several other Democrat-held districts whose names you might recall from 2018 : the Georgia 6th , New York 22nd , Iowa 2nd , California 48th , New Mexico 2nd , Utah 4th , New York 11th , Texas 7th , New Jersey 7th , California 39th , Florida 26th and Nevada 4th , to name ( more than ) a few .
But they are clearer underdogs in these races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the races I have mentioned in the last four paragraphs — without surrendering a single other seat to Democrats — in order to flip the 17 seats they need to attain a House majority .
That , in a nutshell , is why it ’ s exceedingly unlikely that Republicans will take back the House .
Who wins , though , is still extremely important to the governing process in the next two years .
Along with the presidency and Senate , the House is one-third of the federal lawmaking process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valuable prize : It enables a party to pass its agenda without needing to win over any members of the opposite party .
And now that we have a House forecast , we can combine it with our Senate and presidential forecasts to determine the odds that either Democrats or Republicans will have full control of the federal government .
As you can see in the table , the likeliest scenario is that Democrats will win full control of the federal government : There ’ s a 63 in 100 chance of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for policy , too , as it would open the door for Democrats to pass party priorities such as a public option for health insurance , police reform , election reforms like those in H.R .
1 , and even statehood for Washington , D.C. , and Puerto Rico — assuming they can overcome internal divisions over things like abolishing the Senate filibuster .
But there is also a good chance ( 31 in 100 ) that we will once again have a divided government in Washington , in which case little will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided-government scenario involves Biden as president , a Democratic House and a Republican Senate . )
However , because of their long odds in our House forecast , Republicans have only a 5 in 100 chance of winning a trifecta of their own .
And that ’ s a fairly stunning reversal of fortune considering that Republicans enjoyed full control of the federal government as recently as 2018 .

Today FiveThirtyEight released its third and final forecast of the 2020 election: our forecast for the House. And while Democrats are slight favorites to flip the Senate and Joe Biden is a solid-but-not-overwhelming front-runner for the presidency, Democrats have between a 92 and 97 percent chance of keeping control of the House.
The reason I’m giving a range is that, as in 2018, there are three versions of our House model.
The Lite version relies primarily on polling. It gives Democrats a 97 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 244 seats and Republicans to win 191 seats — an 11-seat gain for Democrats.
version relies primarily on polling. It gives Democrats a 97 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 244 seats and Republicans to win 191 seats — an 11-seat gain for Democrats. The Classic version blends polls with fundamentals like partisanship, incumbency advantages and candidates’ fundraising. It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 238 seats and Republicans to win 197 seats — a smaller five-seat gain for Democrats.
version blends polls with fundamentals like partisanship, incumbency advantages and candidates’ fundraising. It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 238 seats and Republicans to win 197 seats — a smaller five-seat gain for Democrats. The Deluxe version has the most bells and whistles: It incorporates polls, fundamentals and expert ratings from The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. It gives Democrats a 93 in 100 chance of winning the House. On average, it projects Democrats to win 237 seats and Republicans to win 198 seats — a four-seat gain for Democrats.
We consider the Deluxe version to be the default version of our congressional forecast, so all forecast numbers from here on out are from the Deluxe version of the model. However, you can always explore the other versions by using the magnifying glass icon at the bottom of our forecast page. And if you want to know all the gory details about how the model works, check out our forecast methodology.
All three versions more or less agree, though, that Democrats will essentially stand pat in the House or pick up a few extra seats. That’s an impressive achievement considering the heights they reached in the 2018 midterms, when they scored a 235-199 majority despite a congressional map that favored the GOP.
Now, Democrats must defend 30 seats in districts won by President Trump in 2016 (as opposed to only six Republicans who sit in districts that Hillary Clinton carried). Yet Democrats are on offense once again this year: 28 of the 50 House districts that the Deluxe version of our model considers most likely to change parties are held by Republicans.
Democrats have a lot of chances to pick up seats The 50 House seats most likely to change parties in the 2020 election, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast as of 5 p.m. Eastern on Oct. 6 Chance of Winning District Incumbent Party Dem. GOP Chance of Flipping MI-03 OPEN L 32% 68% 100% NC-02 OPEN R >99 <1 >99 NC-06 OPEN R >99 <1 >99 MN-07 Collin Peterson D 26 74 74 TX-23 OPEN R 74 26 74 NY-02 OPEN R 59 41 59 CA-25 Mike Garcia R 56 44 56 OK-05 Kendra Horn D 49 51 51 CA-21 TJ Cox D 52 48 48 IN-05 OPEN R 48 52 48 SC-01 Joe Cunningham D 54 46 46 CO-03 OPEN R 46 54 46 GA-07 OPEN R 45 55 45 VA-05 OPEN R 45 55 45 NJ-02 Jeff Van Drew R 43 57 43 PA-10 Scott Perry R 41 59 41 GA-06 Lucy McBath D 62 38 38 NE-02 Don Bacon R 37 63 37 NY-22 Anthony Brindisi D 63 37 37 TX-24 OPEN R 37 63 37 IA-02 OPEN D 63 37 37 CA-48 Harley Rouda D 64 36 36 NM-02 Xochitl Torres Small D 66 34 34 NY-24 John Katko R 33 67 33 UT-04 Ben McAdams D 67 33 33 OH-01 Steve Chabot R 32 68 32 IL-13 Rodney Davis R 30 70 30 NY-11 Max Rose D 70 30 30 AZ-06 David Schweikert R 29 71 29 TX-07 Lizzie Pannill Fletcher D 71 29 29 TX-22 OPEN R 29 71 29 NJ-07 Tom Malinowski D 71 29 29 MI-06 Fred Upton R 29 71 29 CA-39 Gil Cisneros D 72 28 28 TX-21 Chip Roy R 28 72 28 FL-26 Debbie Mucarsel-Powell D 72 28 28 NV-04 Steven Horsford D 72 28 28 AK-AL Don Young R 27 73 27 IA-03 Cindy Axne D 73 27 27 MN-01 Jim Hagedorn R 26 74 26 NC-08 Richard Hudson R 26 74 26 MT-AL OPEN R 26 74 26 AR-02 French Hill R 24 76 24 VA-07 Abigail Spanberger D 77 23 23 NC-11 OPEN R 23 77 23 MO-02 Ann Wagner R 23 77 23 WI-03 Ron Kind D 78 22 22 FL-15 OPEN R 21 79 21 OR-04 Peter DeFazio D 79 21 21 TX-32 Colin Allred D 79 21 21
There are a few explanations for why Democrats still have room to grow. The first is that they are virtually guaranteed to flip two seats right off the bat thanks to redistricting. After a court declared in 2019 that North Carolina’s old congressional lines showed signs of “extreme partisan gerrymandering,” the state legislature passed a new map that reconfigured two Republican-held seats as Democratic strongholds: the 2nd District and 6th District. Their current occupants, Reps. George Holding and Mark Walker, announced they would retire from Congress soon after, and now the seats are Democrats’ two best pickup opportunities in the entire nation. Our model gives the party a greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning both races.
Another is that, though Democrats picked most of the low-hanging fruit in 2018, there are still a few easy pickup opportunities left: That is, there are a few Clinton districts still represented by Republicans. In Texas’s 23rd District, Rep. Will Hurd defeated Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones by just 0.4 points in 2018, but this year, Hurd was one of many Texas Republicans who decided to retire. As a result, Jones (who is running again) has a 74 in 100 chance to win in 2020 against Republican Tony Gonzales. And Democrats did win California’s 25th District in 2018, but a sex scandal forced Rep. Katie Hill to resign, and Republican Mike Garcia flipped the seat back in a special election. Our model considers the rubber match to be a toss-up, giving Democrats a 56 in 100 shot. Finally, Democrats aren’t in quite as good a position to defeat Rep. John Katko in New York’s 24th District, but Democrat Dana Balter still has a 33 in 100 chance. (The one Republican in a Clinton district who seems pretty safe is Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania’s 1st District; with an 89 in 100 chance to win, he doesn’t even make the table above.)
But the biggest factor may be the continued leftward march of American suburbs. After Democrats cleaned house in the suburbs in 2018 — three-quarters of their 2018 gains came in predominantly suburban congressional districts — they are back this year for the many suburban districts they left on the table. Their best such pickup opportunity is New York’s 2nd, a dense suburban district on Long Island where Republican Rep. Peter King is retiring after surviving his closest electoral call since 1992. Our forecast gives Democrat Jackie Gordon a 59 in 100 chance of victory there. Republican Rep. Susan Brooks is also retiring from Indiana’s 5th District, which covers the northern Indianapolis suburbs and went from voting for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by 17 points in 2012 to narrowly voting for Democrat Joe Donnelly in the state’s 2018 Senate election. The race to replace her is almost a pure toss-up.
Similarly, Georgia’s 7th District, a suburban Atlanta district that Romney carried by 22 points, hosted the closest House race in the country in 2018. Republican Rep. Rob Woodall opted to retire (sensing a pattern?), and now Democrats have a 45 in 100 chance to win it in 2020. I could go on — Democrats have between a 30 and 40 percent shot in Nebraska’s 2nd District in metro Omaha, Texas’s 24th District in suburban Dallas-Fort Worth and Ohio’s 1st District around Cincinnati — but my editor does put word counts on these things.
Of course, Republicans have pickup opportunities too. They’re favorites to flip just three House seats vs. Democrats’ five. And their likeliest win would represent the end of an era in the House: Republican Michelle Fischbach has a 74 in 100 chance to defeat Rep. Collin Peterson, the powerful chair of the House Agriculture Committee. Peterson represents by far the Trumpiest district currently held by a Democrat — the Minnesota 7th voted for Trump by 31 percentage points in 2016. While Peterson’s conservative views have helped him survive in recent election cycles, the district is getting redder and split-ticket voting is becoming rarer.
Another likely Republican pickup is a seat the party held until July 4, 2019, when Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan’s 3rd District announced he was leaving the GOP. Facing a difficult reelection bid as a third-party candidate, Amash has since decided to retire, and Republican Peter Meijer now has a 68 in 100 chance of taking the seat back for the GOP. (That said, Democrats also have a 32 in 100 chance to flip the seat into their column.)
Republicans have also set their sights on winning back several House seats they lost in 2018, although our model thinks they’re favored in only one — and even then, just barely. Oklahoma’s 5th District produced the biggest upset of 2018 (according to the Deluxe version of our 2018 model), as Democrat Kendra Horn prevailed in a district that voted for Trump by 13 points in 2016. Here in 2020, Horn (49 in 100) and Republican Stephanie Bice (51 in 100) have almost the exact same chance of winning the seat. Also too close to call is California’s 21st District, where Republican former Rep. David Valadao is seeking a comeback in a district he lost by just 862 votes in 2018. Although Clinton won this district by 16 points, it is more Republican in down-ballot races, and Valadao has a 48 in 100 chance of winning. Finally, Republicans are almost even money to defeat Rep. Joe Cunningham in South Carolina’s 1st District, which also voted for Trump by 13 points in 2016. Republican Nancy Mace has a 46 in 100 chance of victory here.
Beyond those seats, Republicans have a fighting chance in several other Democrat-held districts whose names you might recall from 2018: the Georgia 6th, New York 22nd, Iowa 2nd, California 48th, New Mexico 2nd, Utah 4th, New York 11th, Texas 7th, New Jersey 7th, California 39th, Florida 26th and Nevada 4th, to name (more than) a few. But they are clearer underdogs in these races. And they would need to win all of the races I have mentioned in the last four paragraphs — without surrendering a single other seat to Democrats — in order to flip the 17 seats they need to attain a House majority.
That, in a nutshell, is why it’s exceedingly unlikely that Republicans will take back the House. Who wins, though, is still extremely important to the governing process in the next two years. Along with the presidency and Senate, the House is one-third of the federal lawmaking process, and controlling all three is a valuable prize: It enables a party to pass its agenda without needing to win over any members of the opposite party. And now that we have a House forecast, we can combine it with our Senate and presidential forecasts to determine the odds that either Democrats or Republicans will have full control of the federal government.
Democrats will likely control the federal government The chance of every combination of party control of the presidency, Senate and House, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast Control of … Presidency Senate House Chance D D D 63% D R D 18 R R D 9 R R R 5 R D D 2 D R R 1 D D R 0 R D R 0
As you can see in the table, the likeliest scenario is that Democrats will win full control of the federal government: There’s a 63 in 100 chance of that happening. That could have big consequences for policy, too, as it would open the door for Democrats to pass party priorities such as a public option for health insurance, police reform, election reforms like those in H.R. 1, and even statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico — assuming they can overcome internal divisions over things like abolishing the Senate filibuster.
But there is also a good chance (31 in 100) that we will once again have a divided government in Washington, in which case little will probably get done. (The likeliest divided-government scenario involves Biden as president, a Democratic House and a Republican Senate.)
However, because of their long odds in our House forecast, Republicans have only a 5 in 100 chance of winning a trifecta of their own. And that’s a fairly stunning reversal of fortune considering that Republicans enjoyed full control of the federal government as recently as 2018.
CORRECTION (Oct. 8, 2020, 10:27 a.m.): A previous version of this article incorrectly included “Ortiz” as part of Gina Ortiz Jones’s last name. Her last name is just Jones.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-08--How Did Lindsey Graham End Up In Such A Close Race?

Recent polls of the U.S. Senate race in South Carolina have found third-term Sen. Lindsey Graham effectively tied in his contest against Democrat Jaime Harrison , a former top aide to longtime South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn and a one-time South Carolina Democratic Party chair .
This is pretty surprising at first glance — Graham cruised to victory in 2014 , winning by 15 percentage points .
And Harrison isn ’ t some political juggernaut ; in fact , he ’ s never before won any elective office .
So what ’ s going on here ?
Is Graham actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s look at this from both sides : first , the reasons Harrison has a real chance , and then some factors that make Democrats ousting Graham unlikely .
South Carolina is not that Republican-leaning The polls suggest that at least 45 percent of voters in South Carolina back Harrison , and that ’ s not an usually high number for a Democrat running in the Palmetto State .
Forty-five percent of South Carolinians voted for Barack Obama in 2008 , and 44 percent did in 2012 .
In 2018 , the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the vote , and the Democratic attorney general candidate 45 percent .
Joe Biden seems likely to get at least 45 percent of the state ’ s vote too .
The reason : The makeup of South Carolina ’ s electorate is relatively good for Democrats ( up to a point ) .
The electorate is about 28 percent Black — a higher percentage than every other state save Georgia , Louisiana , Maryland and Mississippi .
( About 28 percent of Alabama ’ s voters are Black too . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of white voters with college degrees ( 27 percent ) than all of those states but Maryland ( 29 percent ) .
Put those two groups together and you have the conditions for a sizable Democratic vote .
Also , President Trump is slightly less popular in South Carolina than he was in 2016 .
His net job approval rating in South Carolina was +7 at the start of his term ( 50 percent approval , 43 disapproval ) compared to +2 now ( 50 percent approval , 48 percent disapproval ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift , and the unpopularity of the Trump-led GOP with college-educated white people in cities and surrounding suburbs , gives Democrats more of a chance .
Democrat Joe Cunningham won the congressional district in the Charleston area two years ago , becoming the first Democrat to do so since 1978 .
Recent polls show Trump near or above 50 percent in South Carolina , but the state ’ s senior senator only in the mid-to-high 40s .
So there is almost certainly a small bloc of South Carolinians currently backing Trump but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University poll , the senator has a -8 net negative approval rating in the state ; Trump is at +0 in that poll .
( So an equal number of voters had favorable and unfavorable views . )
A recent Morning Consult survey found that 84 percent of South Carolina Republican voters backed Graham , compared to 93 percent who supported the president .
Similarly , according to a recent Data for Progress poll , 95 percent of South Carolina Republicans supported Trump , compared to 89 percent who backed Graham .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of self-identified conservative voters were backing Trump , compared to 76 percent supporting Graham .
We are talking about fairly small differences here , so I don ’ t think there is a clear and obvious explanation for why Graham is running behind Trump .
But here is some semi-informed speculation about why some Republicans and conservative-leaning independents who like Trump might be wary of Graham .
In the past , Graham has aligned himself with decidedly un-Trumpy causes and people , from Graham ’ s close relationship with the late Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP to adopt more lenient policies toward undocumented immigrants .
Having served in Congress since 1995 , Graham at this point is the definition of a Washington insider .
Also , Graham spent much of the 2016 campaign blasting Trump in very harsh terms , including calling him a “ complete idiot.
” ( Graham ran for president himself , remember . )
So Republican voters might remember those comments and not trust Graham ’ s post-2016 conversion to Trump diehard .
Indeed , Jordan Ragusa , a political science professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some voters skeptical of Graham , including Republicans , might view him as an “ opportunist.
” “ The joke in South Carolina is Lindsey Graham can count to six … His voting behavior changes when he is up for reelection , ” Ragusa said .
( Senators are up for reelection every six years . )
“ There are some strong conservatives who are not convinced Graham is a strong conservative , ” Ragusa added .
Graham , as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee , will have a high-profile role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court .
But it ’ s not clear that will be a big electoral boost .
On the one hand , Graham will likely be defending Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , perhaps getting praise from the president along the way .
On the other hand , the Supreme Court process could reinforce the idea that Graham isn ’ t particularly consistent in his political beliefs and positions — he was perhaps the Republican most explicit in saying , repeatedly , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a seat on the Supreme Court in the last year of a president ’ s term , a position he has of course now abandoned .
In a recent debate between the two , Harrison aggressively attacked Graham for flip-flopping on this issue , saying Graham should “ just be a man of it and stand up and say , ‘ You know what , I changed my mind.
’ ” According to the YouGov poll , the Supreme Court issue isn ’ t likely to help either candidate much .
In that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in South Carolina said they would be more likely to back Graham if he voted in favor of Trump ’ s nominee ( the poll was conducted before Barrett was announced as the choice ) , 27 percent said they would be less likely but 45 percent said it would not affect their vote .
Finally , Harrison may have more of a chance of winning simply because he doesn ’ t present much of a target for Republicans .
He ’ s never held office before and doesn ’ t have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , his positions are similar to the center-left approach of Biden .
For example , Harrison is not pushing the Green New Deal or Medicare for All .
All that said , Graham is still the favorite to win .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s Senate model gives him about a 3-in-4 chance of winning .
And there are reasons why Democrats often get oh-so-close to winning in the Palmetto State but almost always fall short .
Most white voters in South Carolina don ’ t vote for Democrats … ever We in the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write a lot about demographic groups , particularly the education divide : white voters without a college degree increasingly lean Republican and white voters with college degrees lean Democratic .
But those two blocs vote much differently depending on the state and region .
Both groups are more Republican-leaning in the South than in other regions .
That conservatism probably has something to do with religion ( white voters in Southern states are more likely to be evangelical Protestants ) and race ( white voters in Southern states are more likely to express @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
White voters in the South also tend to be consistently Republican .
That is , they don ’ t really swing between the two parties as they do in a state like Iowa , where Biden could do 6 to 9 percentage points better than Hillary Clinton did four years ago .
At FiveThirtyEight , we call this phenomenon “ elasticity ” — basically , how many voters in a state are persuadable vs. always vote for one party or the other .
And South Carolina is one of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous Democrats who have run in South Carolina , had a fairly easy path to 45 percent ( combining the state ’ s black voters and its white Democrats ) but has a much , much harder time getting to 50 percent .
In the YouGov poll , Graham leads by 26 percentage points among white voters overall , by 31 points among white voters without a college degree and by 20 points among white voters with degrees .
( Trump leads Biden by even more among these three groups . )
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat in South Carolina or a Black candidate like Harrison .
Similar to Harrison in South Carolina , polls suggest that Mississippi Democrat Mike Espy ( facing Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith ) and Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff ( facing Sen. David Purdue ) are in competitive races .
( Ossoff is white , Espy is black . )
But Mississippi and Georgia are also fairly inelastic states .
Espy and Hyde-Smith also faced off in 2018 , and the Republican won fairly narrowly by Mississippi standards ( 54-46 ) .
So the closeness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harrison and Ossoff ’ s chances of actually winning .
They may all be running in states where a virtually all-white bloc of more than 50 percent of the electorate will almost never vote for a Democratic candidate .
Maybe Harrison can be defined negatively The Quinnipiac poll suggests that Harrison ’ s unfavorable ratings are fairly low in part because a lot of South Carolina voters don ’ t know much about him .
In that survey , 48 percent of likely South Carolina voters viewed Harrison favorably , 35 percent viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hadn ’ t heard enough about him to have an opinion .
I would expect Graham and South Carolina Republicans to spend the next month linking Harrison to Clinton , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Sen. Bernie Sanders and other figures likely to be unpopular with South Carolina Republicans and independents .
Harrison doesn ’ t have many connections to those figures , but that likely won ’ t stop Republicans from suggesting that he is a socialist and favors very liberal policies .
I wouldn ’ t want to rule out a Harrison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really big margin , carrying states like Georgia and Texas and only loses South Carolina by 3 points .
In that scenario , maybe Graham runs slightly behind Trump and Harrison wins .
But the more likely scenario is that Harrison gets around 45-47 percent of the vote — but comes up a bit short .
At least , that ’ s what usually happens in South Carolina .

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

Recent polls of the U.S. Senate race in South Carolina have found third-term Sen. Lindsey Graham effectively tied in his contest against Democrat Jaime Harrison, a former top aide to longtime South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn and a one-time South Carolina Democratic Party chair. This is pretty surprising at first glance — Graham cruised to victory in 2014, winning by 15 percentage points. And Harrison isn’t some political juggernaut; in fact, he’s never before won any elective office.
Model Talk: Trump’s position worsens | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
So what’s going on here? Is Graham actually in danger of losing? Let’s look at this from both sides: first, the reasons Harrison has a real chance, and then some factors that make Democrats ousting Graham unlikely.
South Carolina is not that Republican-leaning
The polls suggest that at least 45 percent of voters in South Carolina back Harrison, and that’s not an unusually high number for a Democrat running in the Palmetto State. Forty-five percent of South Carolinians voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and 44 percent did in 2012. In 2018, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in South Carolina received 46 percent of the vote, and the Democratic attorney general candidate 45 percent. Joe Biden seems likely to get at least 45 percent of the state’s vote too.
The reason: The makeup of South Carolina’s electorate is relatively good for Democrats (up to a point). The electorate is about 28 percent Black — a higher percentage than every other state save Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and Mississippi. (About 28 percent of Alabama’s voters are Black too.) And South Carolina has a higher percentage of white voters with college degrees (27 percent) than all of those states but Maryland (29 percent). Put those two groups together and you have the conditions for a sizable Democratic vote.
Also, President Trump is slightly less popular in South Carolina than he was in 2016. His net job approval rating in South Carolina was +7 at the start of his term (50 percent approval, 43 disapproval) compared to +2 now (50 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval), according to Civiqs data. And that shift, and the unpopularity of the Trump-led GOP with college-educated white people in cities and surrounding suburbs, gives Democrats more of a chance. Democrat Joe Cunningham won the congressional district in the Charleston area two years ago, becoming the first Democrat to do so since 1978.
Graham is running slightly behind Trump
Recent polls show Trump near or above 50 percent in South Carolina, but the state’s senior senator only in the mid-to-high 40s. So there is almost certainly a small bloc of South Carolinians currently backing Trump but not Graham. According to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, the senator has a -8 net negative approval rating in the state; Trump is at +0 in that poll. (So an equal number of voters had favorable and unfavorable views.) A recent Morning Consult survey found that 84 percent of South Carolina Republican voters backed Graham, compared to 93 percent who supported the president. Similarly, according to a recent Data for Progress poll, 95 percent of South Carolina Republicans supported Trump, compared to 89 percent who backed Graham. A recent CBS News/YouGov poll found that 88 percent of self-identified conservative voters were backing Trump, compared to 76 percent supporting Graham.
We are talking about fairly small differences here, so I don’t think there is a clear and obvious explanation for why Graham is running behind Trump. But here is some semi-informed speculation about why some Republicans and conservative-leaning independents who like Trump might be wary of Graham. In the past, Graham has aligned himself with decidedly un-Trumpy causes and people, from Graham’s close relationship with the late Sen. John McCain to his pre-Trump call for the GOP to adopt more lenient policies toward undocumented immigrants. Having served in Congress since 1995, Graham at this point is the definition of a Washington insider. Also, Graham spent much of the 2016 campaign blasting Trump in very harsh terms, including calling him a “complete idiot.” (Graham ran for president himself, remember.) So Republican voters might remember those comments and not trust Graham’s post-2016 conversion to Trump diehard.
Indeed, Jordan Ragusa, a political science professor at the College of Charleston, said that some voters skeptical of Graham, including Republicans, might view him as an “opportunist.”
“The joke in South Carolina is Lindsey Graham can count to six … His voting behavior changes when he is up for reelection,” Ragusa said. (Senators are up for reelection every six years.)
“There are some strong conservatives who are not convinced Graham is a strong conservative,” Ragusa added.
Graham, as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will have a high-profile role in the process for replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. But it’s not clear that will be a big electoral boost. On the one hand, Graham will likely be defending Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, perhaps getting praise from the president along the way. On the other hand, the Supreme Court process could reinforce the idea that Graham isn’t particularly consistent in his political beliefs and positions — he was perhaps the Republican most explicit in saying, repeatedly, that his party would not try to fill a seat on the Supreme Court in the last year of a president’s term, a position he has of course now abandoned. In a recent debate between the two, Harrison aggressively attacked Graham for flip-flopping on this issue, saying Graham should “just be a man of it and stand up and say, ‘You know what, I changed my mind.’”
According to the YouGov poll, the Supreme Court issue isn’t likely to help either candidate much. In that poll, 28 percent of registered voters in South Carolina said they would be more likely to back Graham if he voted in favor of Trump’s nominee (the poll was conducted before Barrett was announced as the choice), 27 percent said they would be less likely but 45 percent said it would not affect their vote.
Harrison doesn’t give Republicans much to attack
Finally, Harrison may have more of a chance of winning simply because he doesn’t present much of a target for Republicans. He’s never held office before and doesn’t have a record of controversial votes. On policy, his positions are similar to the center-left approach of Biden. For example, Harrison is not pushing the Green New Deal or Medicare for All.
All that said, Graham is still the favorite to win. FiveThirtyEight’s Senate model gives him about a 3-in-4 chance of winning. And there are reasons why Democrats often get oh-so-close to winning in the Palmetto State but almost always fall short.
Most white voters in South Carolina don’t vote for Democrats … ever
We in the political media (myself included) talk and write a lot about demographic groups, particularly the education divide: white voters without a college degree increasingly lean Republican and white voters with college degrees lean Democratic. But those two blocs vote much differently depending on the state and region. Both groups are more Republican-leaning in the South than in other regions. That conservatism probably has something to do with religion (white voters in Southern states are more likely to be evangelical Protestants) and race (white voters in Southern states are more likely to express more negative attitudes towards people of color).
White voters in the South also tend to be consistently Republican. That is, they don’t really swing between the two parties as they do in a state like Iowa, where Biden could do 6 to 9 percentage points better than Hillary Clinton did four years ago. At FiveThirtyEight, we call this phenomenon “elasticity” — basically, how many voters in a state are persuadable vs. always vote for one party or the other. And South Carolina is one of the most inelastic states.
So Harrison, like previous Democrats who have run in South Carolina, had a fairly easy path to 45 percent (combining the state’s black voters and its white Democrats) but has a much, much harder time getting to 50 percent. In the YouGov poll, Graham leads by 26 percentage points among white voters overall, by 31 points among white voters without a college degree and by 20 points among white voters with degrees. (Trump leads Biden by even more among these three groups.)
And this is not a problem just for a Democrat in South Carolina or a Black candidate like Harrison. Similar to Harrison in South Carolina, polls suggest that Mississippi Democrat Mike Espy (facing Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith) and Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff (facing Sen. David Purdue) are in competitive races. (Ossoff is white, Espy is black.) But Mississippi and Georgia are also fairly inelastic states. Espy and Hyde-Smith also faced off in 2018, and the Republican won fairly narrowly by Mississippi standards (54-46).
So the closeness in the polls may overstate Espy, Harrison and Ossoff’s chances of actually winning. They may all be running in states where a virtually all-white bloc of more than 50 percent of the electorate will almost never vote for a Democratic candidate.
Maybe Harrison can be defined negatively
The Quinnipiac poll suggests that Harrison’s unfavorable ratings are fairly low in part because a lot of South Carolina voters don’t know much about him. In that survey, 48 percent of likely South Carolina voters viewed Harrison favorably, 35 percent viewed him unfavorably and 14 percent said they hadn’t heard enough about him to have an opinion.
I would expect Graham and South Carolina Republicans to spend the next month linking Harrison to Clinton, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other figures likely to be unpopular with South Carolina Republicans and independents. Harrison doesn’t have many connections to those figures, but that likely won’t stop Republicans from suggesting that he is a socialist and favors very liberal policies.
I wouldn’t want to rule out a Harrison victory. Perhaps Biden wins by a really big margin, carrying states like Georgia and Texas and only loses South Carolina by 3 points. In that scenario, maybe Graham runs slightly behind Trump and Harrison wins. But the more likely scenario is that Harrison gets around 45-47 percent of the vote — but comes up a bit short. At least, that’s what usually happens in South Carolina.
Trump has 3 big problems heading toward Election Day | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-07--What Went Down During The Vice Presidential Debate

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-08--Does Trump Need The Next Debate?

Does Trump Need The Next Debate?

UPDATE ( Oct. 8 , 2020 , 12:45 p.m. ) : President Trump has now agreed to participate in an in-person presidential debate on Oct. 22 , an idea that the Biden campaign had initially proposed after Trump said he would not participate in the virtual debate scheduled for Oct. 15 .
The third presidential debate will take place Oct. 29 , according to Trump ’ s campaign manager , Bill Stepien .
Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarah ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : On Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that next week ’ s presidential debate would be held virtually .
President Trump , however , has said that he isn ’ t going to waste his time with a virtual debate , promising instead to hold a rally .
Trump is down 9.8 points in national polls and is steadily losing ground each day in our forecast to Biden , as we inch ever closer to the election .
Refusing then to participate in the debate when he could use it as an opportunity to mount a comeback against former vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Doesn ’ t Trump need the debates to mount a comeback ?
Let ’ s talk Trump ’ s case for — and the case against — needing the debates .
OK , what ’ s the case for him needing them ?
geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : He needs something .
# analysis But seriously , the debates are among the few , regularly scheduled major moments in the fall campaign , so they do present an opportunity to shake things up , even if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natesilver ( Nate Silver , editor in chief ) : To a first approximation , I agree with that , although it ’ s overstated .
Our research on primary debates suggested that a debate is equivalent to something like six to 10 days of normal campaigning and news , in terms of how much they move the polls .
So it ’ s as if Trump is taking a week off the clock in an election in which he trails by 10 points .
With that said , maybe this ups the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is one .
geoffrey.skelley : But we also can ’ t know given Trump ’ s COVID-19 diagnosis whetherif Trump is really up for a two-hour debate right now , so perhaps he ’ s avoiding something that could be even more damaging .
sarah : One thing we talked about a lot going into the first presidential debate , is how much that first debate ( more than the others ) can really shake things up , but as former FiveThirtyEighter Harry Enten has also written , the second debate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s no reason to believe that the person who didn ’ t do well in the first debate rebounds in the second .
Isn ’ t it possible then , that Trump , holding his own rally in which he doesn ’ t have to play by any moderator rules , isn ’ t necessarily a terrible move ?
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : The problem is that he ’ s been holding campaign rallies all year long , and they haven ’ t helped him overtake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when cable news would air his rallies nationally are over .
Maybe they get some nice local earned media , but that simply isn ’ t gon na measure up to a debate , as Nate mentioned .
geoffrey.skelley : It depends on the coverage .
If it ’ s “ Trump hasn ’ t recovered from COVID-19 and it ’ s irresponsible to be holding rallies , ” I can ’ t imagine that helps him when 60 percent of the country said Trump was wrong to say we shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said if he ’ d taken the coronavirus more seriously , he probably wouldn ’ t have gotten sick .
natesilver : Yeah , Trump is a fairly bad debater to begin with and it ’ s fairly likely that he would still be experiencing physical or mental ailments by next week thanks to his COVID-19 diagnosis .
So the CPD gives him an excuse to pull out rather than him looking like a 🐔 .
geoffrey.skelley : And what if his rally is sparsely attended or looks that way in pictures ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ over again .
natesilver : Nobody will give a shit about the rally either way , I don ’ t think .
Unless , again , Trump appears sick or something .
sarah : OK , but from Biden ’ s POV , a skipped second debate is … fine by him ?
If anything , he would have more to lose than Trump in the second debate ?
nrakich : Right .
Traditionally , the front-runner wants fewer debates and the underdog wants more .
That ’ s why you always see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 Lincoln-Douglas-style debates or whatever .
natesilver : Unless Biden thinks Trump would be so bad that it would be worth debating him even if he ’ s being risk averse .
Like if Biden ’ s up by 10 points now , and on average he ’ d gain 2 points by debating Trump , you might do that even if there ’ s a chance you ’ d decline instead .
It depends on what the variance is .
geoffrey.skelley : A town-hall format would probably play better to Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly , etc .
But the debate wouldn ’ t be in-person , so maybe that ’ s less relevant .
nrakich : That strikes me as overconfident , Nate .
Biden could screw up too .
I don ’ t think you can just assume he ’ d gain an average of 2 points by debating Trump .
natesilver : I ’ m not assuming he ’ d gain 2 points , I ’ m saying conditional on that assumption , it might be worth debating .
But also : Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s conducted , per post-debate polling .
And he has COVID-19 and is on steroids and is acting erratically , even for him .
geoffrey.skelley : Who knows how a virtual town hall debate would go , but Trump was seen as the main cause of the disruption and chaos at the first debate , so it wouldn ’ t shock me if he did the same thing in that format — if the debate were held .
nrakich : That would be so awkward with the potential lag .
Imagine all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you thought the interruptions were bad when they were in the same room !
sarah : Yeah , Trump really doesn ’ t seem to like debates , he skipped some in the primaries in 2016 , too .
But this brings us back to the original question : Trump is really far behind Biden in the polls , and Biden just got some of his best polls of the campaign this week .
His margin over Trump is growing .
What — if not a debate –- is going to shake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Trump is going to shake up the race without the debates , he needs something external to happen — for example , a major Biden gaffe or crisis .
There is some evidence that politicians in trouble try to stir up international conflict to create a rally-around-the-flag effect .
Or there could be a Comey letter redux ; the Department of Justice just changed its policies to allow prosecutors to continue their investigations even close to an election .
sarah : Nate , Trump is losing a little ground each day in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls doesn ’ t improve , right ?
Tell us more about that , and what that means for Trump ’ s ability to close the gap between him and Biden at this point .
natesilver : Trump ’ s chances are at 15 percent in our forecast now , but my guess is that he ’ d be at something like 5 percent if the election were held today .
He ’ d need a VERY large polling error to win if Biden is up 10 points nationally and 7 points or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of his comeback chances still stem from being able to turn the race around somehow , and debates are one way to do that … maybe the best way at this stage .
geoffrey.skelley : Right , in terms of predictable events , things you know are coming , the debates are really it .
sarah : On that note , in the unpredictableness that is 2020 , do we actually think Trump actually pulls out or is this just a publicity stunt ?
Something our colleague Perry Bacon Jr. had mentioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate , was how he was skeptical that the CPD could stop Trump from participating in a debate if he wanted to .
Do you think Trump is just trying to negotiate the terms of the second debate ?
nrakich : I think he ’ d actually pull out .
Our colleague Kaleigh Rogers said something smart in our office Slack this morning , so I ’ ll just quote her : “ Trump knows the last debate didn ’ t go well for him and this is a way for him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base.
” geoffrey.skelley : Well , there is a little bit of precedent for presidents threatening to withdraw from a debate in order to change their terms .
President George H.W .
Bush refused to debate under the commission ’ s plans in 1992 .
But he eventually agreed to some debates .
And Jimmy Carter refused to participate in the first debate in 1980 because it included independent John Anderson .
I would say , though , in both the 1980 and 1992 cases , neither incumbent was rewarded for their intransigence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go for Jimmy Carter ?
nrakich : Either way , I don ’ t think we will get an in-person debate .
I think if Trump successfully negotiates them back to an in-person debate , I think Biden will be the one to say he won ’ t attend .
geoffrey.skelley : The commission is in danger of losing face in any of these situations , but I ’ d think holding an in-person event with Trump fresh off of COVID-19 ( or still suffering lingering effects ) would be pretty terrible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ debated just Anderson at the first debate .
Does Biden get to hold a solo “ debate ” with Trump not participating ?
I assume it would just be canceled .
nrakich : Interesting .
The town-hall style does make that easier .
… sarah : What do Americans think about holding the debate next week ?
As we ’ ve said before , there just aren ’ t that many undecided voters this year , so is it possible that many Americans don ’ t need the debates to help them make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to vote ?
nrakich : Two polls conducted before today ’ s announcement actually had contradictory findings about whether Americans think the rest of the debates should go forward .
Reuters/Ipsos found that 59 percent of Americans thought that the debates should be postponed until Trump recovers .
But Americans told CNN/SSRS , 59 percent to 36 percent , that the debates should be held .
But regardless of whether people want to see more debates , I agree that it ’ s unlikely to change their votes .
Our polling with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either absolutely positive they ’ re going to vote for Trump or absolutely positive they ’ re going to vote for Biden .
geoffrey.skelley : What format the debate should take seemed to really affect how people responded , too .
Pluralities have told pollsters that they wanted the next debate if it was virtual .
sarah : Yeah , and with a split screen … it wouldn ’ t necessarily feel all that different than if Biden and Trump were in the same room .
geoffrey.skelley : 100 percent .
Look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before .
John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon ’ s third debate in 1960 took place with the candidates in different studios .
Kennedy was in New York City , Nixon was in Los Angeles .
natesilver : I don ’ t know about that .
The conventions produced very little in the way of bounces this year , which could be evidence that virtual vs. in-person matters .
nrakich : How do we tease that out from polarization , though , Nate ?
To be honest , I feel like if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been virtual , they ’ d have still produced pretty big bounces .
Maybe just not as big as they were .
natesilver : Well , we got a decent-sized bounce from the Democratic convention four years ago .
McCain/Palin got a pretty big one in 2008 .
They can still happen .
nrakich : But there were also more undecided voters in 2016 .
Everyone already has an opinion of Trump and Biden this year .
natesilver : The virtual conventions were well-produced , but fairly boring and I ’ m not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
nrakich : “ Well-produced but fairly boring ” kind of applies to every political convention , though !
At least if you ’ re watching from home .
natesilver : Ratings were down .
The polls didn ’ t move .
In person matters .
nrakich : Eh .
I ’ m not convinced .
( There are other reasons the ratings might have been down , like people switching their viewing habits from network TV to online streaming . )
natesilver : The thing , though , is that you like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite covering it for a living .
So I ’ m more like a typical American in those ways .
🇺🇸 sarah : OK , final thoughts — it sounds as if we all agree on this one — the case for Trump skipping the debate next week … doesn ’ t hold a lot of upside for him ?
geoffrey.skelley : Skipping the debate isn ’ t likely to help Trump , although it ’ s unclear if it will hurt him .
At the same time , not knowing Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his COVID-19 diagnosis , means it ’ s possible he ’ d have had a bad showing at the virtual debate and hurt his standing more .
In other words , the move to a virtual debate may have given him the out he was seeking because of that — or he just doesn ’ t want to debate anymore .
But I do think if he skips the debate and holds a rally instead , it could end up damaging him , considering how many voters don ’ t think he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Such an event would seem to play right into that narrative .
nrakich : Yeah , Sarah , I think skipping the debate would be the latest in a long line of poor political decisions by Trump .
Although to Nate ’ s point , I ’ m not sure he would be able to take advantage of the debate to turn his numbers around anyway .
It ’ s just increasingly hard to find any political upside for Trump .

UPDATE (Oct. 8, 2020, 12:45 p.m.): President Trump has now agreed to participate in an in-person presidential debate on Oct. 22, an idea that the Biden campaign had initially proposed after Trump said he would not participate in the virtual debate scheduled for Oct. 15. The third presidential debate will take place Oct. 29, according to Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien.
Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): On Thursday, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that next week’s presidential debate would be held virtually. President Trump, however, has said that he isn’t going to waste his time with a virtual debate, promising instead to hold a rally.
Trump is down 9.8 points in national polls and is steadily losing ground each day in our forecast to Biden, as we inch ever closer to the election. Refusing then to participate in the debate when he could use it as an opportunity to mount a comeback against former vice president Joe Biden is a curious choice. Doesn’t Trump need the debates to mount a comeback?
Let’s talk Trump’s case for — and the case against — needing the debates.
OK, what’s the case for him needing them?
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): He needs something. #analysis
But seriously, the debates are among the few, regularly scheduled major moments in the fall campaign, so they do present an opportunity to shake things up, even if they’re not certain to do so.
natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): To a first approximation, I agree with that, although it’s overstated. Our research on primary debates suggested that a debate is equivalent to something like six to 10 days of normal campaigning and news, in terms of how much they move the polls. So it’s as if Trump is taking a week off the clock in an election in which he trails by 10 points.
With that said, maybe this ups the importance of the third debate — if there is one.
geoffrey.skelley: But we also can’t know given Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis whetherif Trump is really up for a two-hour debate right now, so perhaps he’s avoiding something that could be even more damaging.
sarah: One thing we talked about a lot going into the first presidential debate, is how much that first debate (more than the others) can really shake things up, but as former FiveThirtyEighter Harry Enten has also written, the second debate is not necessarily a game changer, and there’s no reason to believe that the person who didn’t do well in the first debate rebounds in the second.
Isn’t it possible then, that Trump, holding his own rally in which he doesn’t have to play by any moderator rules, isn’t necessarily a terrible move?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): The problem is that he’s been holding campaign rallies all year long, and they haven’t helped him overtake Biden in the polls.
The days when cable news would air his rallies nationally are over. Maybe they get some nice local earned media, but that simply isn’t gonna measure up to a debate, as Nate mentioned.
geoffrey.skelley: It depends on the coverage. If it’s “Trump hasn’t recovered from COVID-19 and it’s irresponsible to be holding rallies,” I can’t imagine that helps him when 60 percent of the country said Trump was wrong to say we shouldn’t be afraid of COVID-19, and two-thirds said if he’d taken the coronavirus more seriously, he probably wouldn’t have gotten sick.
natesilver: Yeah, Trump is a fairly bad debater to begin with and it’s fairly likely that he would still be experiencing physical or mental ailments by next week thanks to his COVID-19 diagnosis. So the CPD gives him an excuse to pull out rather than him looking like a 🐔.
geoffrey.skelley: And what if his rally is sparsely attended or looks that way in pictures? It’s his Tulsa rally all over again.
natesilver: Nobody will give a shit about the rally either way, I don’t think.
Unless, again, Trump appears sick or something.
sarah: OK, but from Biden’s POV, a skipped second debate is … fine by him? If anything, he would have more to lose than Trump in the second debate?
nrakich: Right. Traditionally, the front-runner wants fewer debates and the underdog wants more. That’s why you always see hopeless Senate candidates challenging their opponent to 10 Lincoln-Douglas-style debates or whatever.
natesilver: Unless Biden thinks Trump would be so bad that it would be worth debating him even if he’s being risk averse. Like if Biden’s up by 10 points now, and on average he’d gain 2 points by debating Trump, you might do that even if there’s a chance you’d decline instead. It depends on what the variance is.
geoffrey.skelley: A town-hall format would probably play better to Biden’s style, too, answering people directly, etc.
But the debate wouldn’t be in-person, so maybe that’s less relevant.
nrakich: That strikes me as overconfident, Nate. Biden could screw up too. I don’t think you can just assume he’d gain an average of 2 points by debating Trump.
natesilver: I’m not assuming he’d gain 2 points, I’m saying conditional on that assumption, it might be worth debating.
But also: Trump has lost every general election debate he’s conducted, per post-debate polling.
And he has COVID-19 and is on steroids and is acting erratically, even for him.
geoffrey.skelley: Who knows how a virtual town hall debate would go, but Trump was seen as the main cause of the disruption and chaos at the first debate, so it wouldn’t shock me if he did the same thing in that format — if the debate were held.
nrakich: That would be so awkward with the potential lag. Imagine all the stops and starts!
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, you thought the interruptions were bad when they were in the same room!
sarah: Yeah, Trump really doesn’t seem to like debates, he skipped some in the primaries in 2016, too. But this brings us back to the original question: Trump is really far behind Biden in the polls, and Biden just got some of his best polls of the campaign this week. His margin over Trump is growing. What — if not a debate –- is going to shake things up for Trump?
nrakich: If Trump is going to shake up the race without the debates, he needs something external to happen — for example, a major Biden gaffe or crisis. There is some evidence that politicians in trouble try to stir up international conflict to create a rally-around-the-flag effect. Or there could be a Comey letter redux; the Department of Justice just changed its policies to allow prosecutors to continue their investigations even close to an election.
sarah: Nate, Trump is losing a little ground each day in our forecast if his standing in the polls doesn’t improve, right? Tell us more about that, and what that means for Trump’s ability to close the gap between him and Biden at this point.
natesilver: Trump’s chances are at 15 percent in our forecast now, but my guess is that he’d be at something like 5 percent if the election were held today.
He’d need a VERY large polling error to win if Biden is up 10 points nationally and 7 points or so in the tipping-point states. So most of his comeback chances still stem from being able to turn the race around somehow, and debates are one way to do that … maybe the best way at this stage.
geoffrey.skelley: Right, in terms of predictable events, things you know are coming, the debates are really it.
sarah: On that note, in the unpredictableness that is 2020, do we actually think Trump actually pulls out or is this just a publicity stunt? Something our colleague Perry Bacon Jr. had mentioned in our chat Wednesday before the VP debate, was how he was skeptical that the CPD could stop Trump from participating in a debate if he wanted to. Do you think Trump is just trying to negotiate the terms of the second debate?
nrakich: I think he’d actually pull out. Our colleague Kaleigh Rogers said something smart in our office Slack this morning, so I’ll just quote her: “Trump knows the last debate didn’t go well for him and this is a way for him to not participate while saving face with his base.”
geoffrey.skelley: Well, there is a little bit of precedent for presidents threatening to withdraw from a debate in order to change their terms.
President George H.W. Bush refused to debate under the commission’s plans in 1992. But he eventually agreed to some debates.
In September 1992, the first scheduled debate was canceled when President Bush rejected the commission’s plans. Hecklers dressed as chickens began showing up at his rallies, and Bush would occasionally engage them: pic.twitter.com/kAhK1Vj9DW — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) October 8, 2020
And Jimmy Carter refused to participate in the first debate in 1980 because it included independent John Anderson. I would say, though, in both the 1980 and 1992 cases, neither incumbent was rewarded for their intransigence.
natesilver: How’d that go for Jimmy Carter?
geoffrey.skelley: Exactly.
nrakich: Either way, I don’t think we will get an in-person debate. I think if Trump successfully negotiates them back to an in-person debate, I think Biden will be the one to say he won’t attend.
geoffrey.skelley: The commission is in danger of losing face in any of these situations, but I’d think holding an in-person event with Trump fresh off of COVID-19 (or still suffering lingering effects) would be pretty terrible.
Now, in 1980, Ronald Reagan debated just Anderson at the first debate. Does Biden get to hold a solo “debate” with Trump not participating? I assume it would just be canceled.
nrakich: Interesting. The town-hall style does make that easier. …
sarah: What do Americans think about holding the debate next week? As we’ve said before, there just aren’t that many undecided voters this year, so is it possible that many Americans don’t need the debates to help them make their decision on how they’re going to vote?
nrakich: Two polls conducted before today’s announcement actually had contradictory findings about whether Americans think the rest of the debates should go forward. Reuters/Ipsos found that 59 percent of Americans thought that the debates should be postponed until Trump recovers. But Americans told CNN/SSRS, 59 percent to 36 percent, that the debates should be held.
But regardless of whether people want to see more debates, I agree that it’s unlikely to change their votes. Our polling with Ipsos has shown that most voters are either absolutely positive they’re going to vote for Trump or absolutely positive they’re going to vote for Biden.
geoffrey.skelley: What format the debate should take seemed to really affect how people responded, too. Pluralities have told pollsters that they wanted the next debate if it was virtual.
sarah: Yeah, and with a split screen … it wouldn’t necessarily feel all that different than if Biden and Trump were in the same room.
geoffrey.skelley: 100 percent. Look, a presidential debate has been held remotely before. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon’s third debate in 1960 took place with the candidates in different studios. Kennedy was in New York City, Nixon was in Los Angeles.
natesilver: I don’t know about that. The conventions produced very little in the way of bounces this year, which could be evidence that virtual vs. in-person matters.
nrakich: How do we tease that out from polarization, though, Nate?
To be honest, I feel like if the conventions in, say, 1988 had been virtual, they’d have still produced pretty big bounces.
Maybe just not as big as they were.
natesilver: Well, we got a decent-sized bounce from the Democratic convention four years ago. McCain/Palin got a pretty big one in 2008. They can still happen.
nrakich: But there were also more undecided voters in 2016. Everyone already has an opinion of Trump and Biden this year.
natesilver: The virtual conventions were well-produced, but fairly boring and I’m not sure why people tried to pretend otherwise.
nrakich: “Well-produced but fairly boring” kind of applies to every political convention, though!
At least if you’re watching from home.
natesilver: More boring than usual.
natesilver: Ratings were down. The polls didn’t move. In person matters.
nrakich: Eh. I’m not convinced. (There are other reasons the ratings might have been down, like people switching their viewing habits from network TV to online streaming.)
natesilver: The thing, though, is that you like politics and I don’t, despite covering it for a living. So I’m more like a typical American in those ways. 🇺🇸
nrakich: 😂
sarah: OK, final thoughts — it sounds as if we all agree on this one — the case for Trump skipping the debate next week … doesn’t hold a lot of upside for him?
geoffrey.skelley: Skipping the debate isn’t likely to help Trump, although it’s unclear if it will hurt him. At the same time, not knowing Trump’s current health condition in the wake of his COVID-19 diagnosis, means it’s possible he’d have had a bad showing at the virtual debate and hurt his standing more. In other words, the move to a virtual debate may have given him the out he was seeking because of that — or he just doesn’t want to debate anymore.
But I do think if he skips the debate and holds a rally instead, it could end up damaging him, considering how many voters don’t think he’s taken the coronavirus seriously enough. Such an event would seem to play right into that narrative.
nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, I think skipping the debate would be the latest in a long line of poor political decisions by Trump. Although to Nate’s point, I’m not sure he would be able to take advantage of the debate to turn his numbers around anyway.
It’s just increasingly hard to find any political upside for Trump.