fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--Where We Saw Red And Blue Mirages On Election Night

Election night 2020 was an election night like no other — and not just because the “ night ” ended up lasting four days .
This election was also unique because of how Americans voted — a record number voted early , either in person or by mail .
Because many states report absentee and Election Day ballots at different times , and absentee voters are disproportionately likely to be Democrats while Election Day voters are disproportionately likely to be Republicans , that made it tricky to follow the vote in real time .
The candidate who led a given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always the one who eventually won it , leading many real-time observers to conclude the presidential race was closer than it actually was .
In some states like North Carolina and Ohio , that meant the initial vote totals included a disproportionate number of Biden votes relative to the final results ; in others , like Michigan and Virginia , the initial totals included a disproportionate number of Trump votes .
And in still others , Trump began to look stronger as more votes were counted on election night , but it became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last few mail-in ballots were counted in the ensuing days .
You can see this in the map below , which shows you where the reported vote totals stood for each candidate 90 minutes , 12 hours and 72 hours after the last polls were scheduled to close in each state .
Let ’ s take a closer look at the states where Trump gained ground as more votes were counted — a phenomenon sometimes referred to as a “ red shift.
” For example , 90 minutes after polls closed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden looked competitive in these three states — he even led in North Carolina and Ohio .
But that changed as officials reported more results , and Trump wound up carrying all three states .
It wasn ’ t just battleground states where this happened either .
Deeply Republican states like Kentucky experienced this same “ red shift ” in their vote margins because of the order in which votes happened to be reported — it just didn ’ t affect who won them because they were already so Republican-leaning .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite direction — the appearance of an early lead for Trump was eventually erased as more votes for Biden were counted .
Sometimes this happened because the state was not allowed to process its absentee ballots before the week of the election and therefore couldn ’ t get a head start on its massive volume of absentee ballots ( see Michigan ) .
In other instances , the state only required absentee ballots to be postmarked , not received , by Election Day and was still accepting and counting ballots for a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And sometimes , the state was just slow to finish counting all its absentee ballots ( see Georgia ) .
Either way , this “ blue shift ” in the vote count often took several days , making it hard to see who was really ahead if you weren ’ t familiar with the ins and outs of vote-counting .
And finally , in some states , it was more of a mix .
The topline results zigged toward Republicans , then zagged toward Democrats as more votes were counted .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for Biden , but most of the votes counted over the next several hours were for Trump , and by Wednesday morning , Trump was ahead .
However , the state spent the next several days counting absentee ballots , which were favorable for Biden .
As it turned out , there were enough absentee ballots outstanding for the Democrat to eventually take the lead at 9 a.m. on Friday morning .
And Pennsylvania was , of course , the key state that eventually handed Biden the presidency .
In sum , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each state and when made for a roller coaster of an election week , and even produced accusations of fraud .
But there was nothing fishy going on ; no additional ballots were being cast after Election Day to influence the result .
It was just the slow wheels of democracy turning .
Indeed , given how the coronavirus pandemic threw our elections into turmoil with only eight months to prepare for the general election , it ’ s actually quite impressive that , the timing of the results notwithstanding , the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Election night 2020 was an election night like no other — and not just because the “night” ended up lasting four days. This election was also unique because of how Americans voted — a record number voted early, either in person or by mail. Because many states report absentee and Election Day ballots at different times, and absentee voters are disproportionately likely to be Democrats while Election Day voters are disproportionately likely to be Republicans, that made it tricky to follow the vote in real time. The candidate who led a given state on Tuesday night wasn’t always the one who eventually won it, leading many real-time observers to conclude the presidential race was closer than it actually was.
How Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won a historic election | FiveThirtyEight
In some states like North Carolina and Ohio, that meant the initial vote totals included a disproportionate number of Biden votes relative to the final results; in others, like Michigan and Virginia, the initial totals included a disproportionate number of Trump votes. And in still others, Trump began to look stronger as more votes were counted on election night, but it became clear that Biden received more votes as the last few mail-in ballots were counted in the ensuing days.
You can see this in the map below, which shows you where the reported vote totals stood for each candidate 90 minutes, 12 hours and 72 hours after the last polls were scheduled to close in each state.
Let’s take a closer look at the states where Trump gained ground as more votes were counted — a phenomenon sometimes referred to as a “red shift.” For example, 90 minutes after polls closed in Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio, Biden looked competitive in these three states — he even led in North Carolina and Ohio. But that changed as officials reported more results, and Trump wound up carrying all three states. It wasn’t just battleground states where this happened either. Deeply Republican states like Kentucky experienced this same “red shift” in their vote margins because of the order in which votes happened to be reported — it just didn’t affect who won them because they were already so Republican-leaning.
In other states, the margins moved in the opposite direction — the appearance of an early lead for Trump was eventually erased as more votes for Biden were counted. Sometimes this happened because the state was not allowed to process its absentee ballots before the week of the election and therefore couldn’t get a head start on its massive volume of absentee ballots (see Michigan). In other instances, the state only required absentee ballots to be postmarked, not received, by Election Day and was still accepting and counting ballots for a few days after (see Virginia). And sometimes, the state was just slow to finish counting all its absentee ballots (see Georgia). Either way, this “blue shift” in the vote count often took several days, making it hard to see who was really ahead if you weren’t familiar with the ins and outs of vote-counting.
And finally, in some states, it was more of a mix. The topline results zigged toward Republicans, then zagged toward Democrats as more votes were counted. For example, Pennsylvania started off election night looking good for Biden, but most of the votes counted over the next several hours were for Trump, and by Wednesday morning, Trump was ahead. However, the state spent the next several days counting absentee ballots, which were favorable for Biden.
As it turned out, there were enough absentee ballots outstanding for the Democrat to eventually take the lead at 9 a.m. on Friday morning. And Pennsylvania was, of course, the key state that eventually handed Biden the presidency.
In sum, the changes in who was leading in each state and when made for a roller coaster of an election week, and even produced accusations of fraud. But there was nothing fishy going on; no additional ballots were being cast after Election Day to influence the result. It was just the slow wheels of democracy turning. Indeed, given how the coronavirus pandemic threw our elections into turmoil with only eight months to prepare for the general election, it’s actually quite impressive that, the timing of the results notwithstanding, the election largely went off without a hitch.
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--How The Pandemic Might Have Affected The Polls In 2020

In this installment of Model Talk on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , editor-in-chief Nate Silver and Galen Druke discuss the @ @ @ @ @ election and why it may have occurred .

How The Pandemic Might Have Affected The Polls In 2020
In this installment of Model Talk on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, editor-in-chief Nate Silver and Galen Druke discuss the polling error in the 2020 election and why it may have occurred.
Related: What Blue And Red ‘Shifts’ Looked Like In Every State


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--Politics Podcast: Why Polls Were Off In 2020, And Why They Weren’t That Bad

The presidential polls were off by somewhere in the range of 4 percentage points , which is notably larger than @ @ @ @ @ 2.3 points .
In this installment of Model Talk on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , @ @ @ @ @ Druke explain why a polling error of even 4 points isn ’ t that unexpected @ @ @ @ @ error occurred , and discuss the usefulness of polling and modeling going forward .

The presidential polls were off by somewhere in the range of 4 percentage points, which is notably larger than the recent average error of 2.3 points. In this installment of Model Talk on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, editor-in-chief Nate Silver and Galen Druke explain why a polling error of even 4 points isn’t that unexpected, offer reasons why the error occurred, and discuss the usefulness of polling and modeling going forward.
Related: The Polls Weren’t Great. But That’s Pretty Normal.


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--Americans Were Primed To Believe The Current Onslaught Of Disinformation

It started with a drizzle but quickly turned into a downpour : Disinformation about the election , and in particular unfounded claims of election fraud , has flooded the internet over the past week .
And Americans were primed to believe it .
Dozens of false claims shared on social media have kept fact-checkers busy and partisans energized .
Pro-Trump Facebook groups that dispute the election results have attracted tens of thousands of users and become a lively marketplace for exchanging disinformation ( until the social media network shuts them down ) .
And President Trump ’ s supporters have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rail against what they perceive to be election fraud .
Meanwhile , polls show a substantial percentage of the population , particularly Republicans , believe ( without evidence ) that voter fraud has occurred .
According to a poll from YouGov and The Economist conducted Nov. 8-10 among registered voters , 82 percent of Republicans said they did not believe that Joe Biden had legitimately won the presidential election , even though he has .
This followed a Nov. 7 YouGov poll among registered voters that found 79 percent of Republicans believed voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the election .
Similarly , in a Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted Nov. 6-9 among registered voters , 70 percent of Republicans said they didn ’ t believe the 2020 election was free and fair — double the 35 percent of Republicans who answered that way in a poll conducted before the election .
To a certain extent , disinformation about the results of the election was expected .
Experts have been warning about it for weeks .
“ But I do think the volume of the garbage and the inability of social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop the undermining of results of the election is really concerning , ” said Craig Silverman , a journalist at BuzzFeed News who has been tracking disinformation throughout the election .
“ When it became very clear that Trump wasn ’ t going to concede , the machinery of justifying that decision has really kicked into high gear .
I feel like today it was as bad as it was leading up to Election Day.
” A number of factors may have primed the American public to seek out , believe and share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s monthslong allegations of impending fraud , the collective stress and anxiety caused by the pandemic , and the rare delay in learning election results all combined to create a perfect storm of disinformation .
Even before he was president , Trump was alleging election fraud without producing evidence .
During his 2016 campaign he claimed the election was “ rigged ” in favor of Clinton , predicted widespread voter fraud and announced he would accept the results of the election only if he won .
Over the past year , he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seizing in particular on mail-in voting , which he maintained ( again without evidence ) would lead to fraud .
Whether Trump realized it or not , he was engaging in something academics call priming .
“ Priming is where an external source , a sender of information , is trying to prime people to think a certain way , ” said Mark Whitmore , a professor of management and information systems at Kent State University who has studied misinformation and cognitive bias .
“ One of the ways in which priming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens , people have a greater tendency to think along the lines of whatever party they feel they belong to.
” When people are already primed to think about a topic in a certain way , it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs .
A study published in 2016 , for example , primed participants to consider either their political views or personal views on health care before evaluating factual statements about the Affordable Care Act , or “ Obamacare.
” The researchers found that when participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leanings , Democrats were more likely to evaluate positive outcomes of the ACA as based on strong evidence , and Republicans were more likely to evaluate those same outcomes as based on weak evidence .
But when primed to consider their personal views on health care , the gulf between the two groups narrowed .
There ’ s also the illusory truth effect : a phenomenon in which the more times people are exposed to an idea , the more likely they are to perceive it as true , regardless of political leanings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan , has found the illusory truth effect can lead people to be more likely to believe disinformation .
That said , this is probably not the only thing influencing so many people to seek out disinformation around the election , according to Pennycook .
“ I don ’ t think you need to know about illusory truth to be able to explain that the things Trump has said made people ready to accept that fraud was going to happen in the election , ” Pennycook said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that , but for some people , if they only heard Trump say it once , that would probably be enough.
” 2020 has not been a year filled with certainty .
The COVID-19 pandemic upended our way of life , not to mention the economy , and shifted the way the election was executed .
All these factors have contributed to a heightened level of stress and anxiety about the direction of the country in the lead-up to the election .
Some of this anxiety was captured in polling : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-October , 57 percent of likely voters said they were “ very concerned ” that the next generation would be worse off than their own , and 54 percent said they were “ very concerned ” that America would “ no longer [ be ] a democracy.
” When Trump lost , his supporters likely grew more anxious .
“ People are anxious , and so they ’ re looking for answers — and some of those answers [ in this case ] are provided by disinformation , ” said Oliver Robinson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mental Health Group ’ s Anxiety Lab at University College London .
It ’ s natural to want to seek out more information when facing uncertainty .
( I ’ m assuming that ’ s why many of you have been keeping up with our live blogs . )
But when you combine that uncertainty and quest for answers with another cognitive bias , confirmation bias , you create an opportunity for disinformation to seep in , according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson , a professor at the University of Pennsylvania ’ s Annenberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve been primed to believe the election was going to be riddled with fraud , and are anxious about the uncertainty of the results , you might seek out information confirming that belief .
So far , all of that information has turned out to be meritless , but there ’ s plenty of it , and a lot of it is very persuasive .
Take a viral video shared by the president ’ s son Eric Trump that purportedly showed someone burning ballots marked for his father .
The video has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven to be sample ballots , as they lacked the bar code that official ballots have along the edge — but people continue to share it online as “ evidence ” of supposed voter fraud .
“ Different forms of misinformation have different kinds of effects , ” said Jamieson .
“ The video of the supposed burned ballots has a persuasive power that a simple verbal assertion would not have because we tend to trust what we see.
” But because of a growing distrust of the media , people often dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the experts I spoke to said some voters will not see through the disinformation until Trump and other leading Republicans accept the election results .
Until then , the deluge is likely to continue .
Said BuzzFeed ’ s Silverman , “ The results aren ’ t going to be certified in a lot of the key states until later in November , so we could really continue to have weeks of complete ridiculousness and dangerous , democracy-undermining disinformation.
” Biden is set to be president .
What comes next ?
@ @ @ @

It started with a drizzle but quickly turned into a downpour: Disinformation about the election, and in particular unfounded claims of election fraud, has flooded the internet over the past week. And Americans were primed to believe it.
Dozens of false claims shared on social media have kept fact-checkers busy and partisans energized. Pro-Trump Facebook groups that dispute the election results have attracted tens of thousands of users and become a lively marketplace for exchanging disinformation (until the social media network shuts them down). And President Trump’s supporters have shown up in person as well to rail against what they perceive to be election fraud.
What Trump revealed about America | FiveThirtyEight
Meanwhile, polls show a substantial percentage of the population, particularly Republicans, believe (without evidence) that voter fraud has occurred. According to a poll from YouGov and The Economist conducted Nov. 8-10 among registered voters, 82 percent of Republicans said they did not believe that Joe Biden had legitimately won the presidential election, even though he has. This followed a Nov. 7 YouGov poll among registered voters that found 79 percent of Republicans believed voter fraud had occurred and affected the outcome of the election. Similarly, in a Politico/Morning Consult poll conducted Nov. 6-9 among registered voters, 70 percent of Republicans said they didn’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair — double the 35 percent of Republicans who answered that way in a poll conducted before the election.
[Related: How Trump Changed America ]
To a certain extent, disinformation about the results of the election was expected. Experts have been warning about it for weeks. “But I do think the volume of the garbage and the inability of social media platforms to have effective means to stop the undermining of results of the election is really concerning,” said Craig Silverman, a journalist at BuzzFeed News who has been tracking disinformation throughout the election. “When it became very clear that Trump wasn’t going to concede, the machinery of justifying that decision has really kicked into high gear. I feel like today it was as bad as it was leading up to Election Day.”
A number of factors may have primed the American public to seek out, believe and share disinformation since Election Day. Trump’s monthslong allegations of impending fraud, the collective stress and anxiety caused by the pandemic, and the rare delay in learning election results all combined to create a perfect storm of disinformation.
Trump set the stage
Even before he was president, Trump was alleging election fraud without producing evidence. During his 2016 campaign he claimed the election was “rigged” in favor of Clinton, predicted widespread voter fraud and announced he would accept the results of the election only if he won. Over the past year, he has reiterated many of the same baseless assertions, seizing in particular on mail-in voting, which he maintained (again without evidence) would lead to fraud.
Whether Trump realized it or not, he was engaging in something academics call priming.
“Priming is where an external source, a sender of information, is trying to prime people to think a certain way,” said Mark Whitmore, a professor of management and information systems at Kent State University who has studied misinformation and cognitive bias. “One of the ways in which priming occurs is through partisanship. When that happens, people have a greater tendency to think along the lines of whatever party they feel they belong to.”
When people are already primed to think about a topic in a certain way, it can lead them to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs. A study published in 2016, for example, primed participants to consider either their political views or personal views on health care before evaluating factual statements about the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare.” The researchers found that when participants were primed to think about their partisan leanings, Democrats were more likely to evaluate positive outcomes of the ACA as based on strong evidence, and Republicans were more likely to evaluate those same outcomes as based on weak evidence. But when primed to consider their personal views on health care, the gulf between the two groups narrowed.
There’s also the illusory truth effect: a phenomenon in which the more times people are exposed to an idea, the more likely they are to perceive it as true, regardless of political leanings. Gordon Pennycook, a behavioral scientist at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan, has found the illusory truth effect can lead people to be more likely to believe disinformation. That said, this is probably not the only thing influencing so many people to seek out disinformation around the election, according to Pennycook.
“I don’t think you need to know about illusory truth to be able to explain that the things Trump has said made people ready to accept that fraud was going to happen in the election,” Pennycook said. “Illusory truth is one aspect of that, but for some people, if they only heard Trump say it once, that would probably be enough.”
The pandemic cranked up anxiety levels
2020 has not been a year filled with certainty. The COVID-19 pandemic upended our way of life, not to mention the economy, and shifted the way the election was executed. All these factors have contributed to a heightened level of stress and anxiety about the direction of the country in the lead-up to the election. Some of this anxiety was captured in polling: In a New York Times/Siena College poll from mid-October, 57 percent of likely voters said they were “very concerned” that the next generation would be worse off than their own, and 54 percent said they were “very concerned” that America would “no longer [be] a democracy.” When Trump lost, his supporters likely grew more anxious.
“People are anxious, and so they’re looking for answers — and some of those answers [in this case] are provided by disinformation,” said Oliver Robinson, a neuroscientist who runs the Neuroscience and Mental Health Group’s Anxiety Lab at University College London.
It’s natural to want to seek out more information when facing uncertainty. (I’m assuming that’s why many of you have been keeping up with our live blogs.) But when you combine that uncertainty and quest for answers with another cognitive bias, confirmation bias, you create an opportunity for disinformation to seep in, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication. If you’ve been primed to believe the election was going to be riddled with fraud, and are anxious about the uncertainty of the results, you might seek out information confirming that belief. So far, all of that information has turned out to be meritless, but there’s plenty of it, and a lot of it is very persuasive.
[What To Make Of Pfizer’s Big Vaccine Announcement]
Take a viral video shared by the president’s son Eric Trump that purportedly showed someone burning ballots marked for his father. The video has been debunked — the papers in question were proven to be sample ballots, as they lacked the bar code that official ballots have along the edge — but people continue to share it online as “evidence” of supposed voter fraud.
“Different forms of misinformation have different kinds of effects,” said Jamieson. “The video of the supposed burned ballots has a persuasive power that a simple verbal assertion would not have because we tend to trust what we see.”
But because of a growing distrust of the media, people often dismiss fact-checks as well. In fact, many of the experts I spoke to said some voters will not see through the disinformation until Trump and other leading Republicans accept the election results. Until then, the deluge is likely to continue.
Said BuzzFeed’s Silverman, “The results aren’t going to be certified in a lot of the key states until later in November, so we could really continue to have weeks of complete ridiculousness and dangerous, democracy-undermining disinformation.”
Biden is set to be president. What comes next? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--The Georgia Senate Runoffs Are Already In Full Swing

Galen Druke speaks to senior writer Perry Bacon Jr. about the Senate runoff elections in Georgia , where campaigning is @ @ @ @ @ discuss how Trump , Biden and other politicians in both parties could play a role @ @ @ @ @ to take place on January 5 .

Galen Druke speaks to senior writer Perry Bacon Jr. about the Senate runoff elections in Georgia, where campaigning is already underway. They also discuss how Trump, Biden and other politicians in both parties could play a role in the runoffs, set to take place on January 5.
Related: Georgia’s Runoffs Will Determine Control Of The Senate.


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--Republicans Are On Track To Take Back The House In 2022

2020 was not supposed to be a good year for House Republicans .
The polls pointed to a Democratic-leaning electoral environment , Democratic candidates were outraising Republicans in most competitive seats , and the GOP had to defend a host of open seats that Republican incumbents had abandoned .
Yet , contrary to expectations , including their own , Republicans managed to gain seats even as the Democrats held onto their majority .
Votes are still being counted , but based on contests projected by ABC News , Republicans have netted six seats so far , and they may still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers about seats gained and lost can only tell us so much .
Let ’ s look at some of the major takeaways from the 2020 House elections .
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast Coming into the 2020 election , FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast only gave Republicans about a 1 in 6 shot of picking up six or more seats , and if the GOP gains more as-yet-uncalled seats in the coming days , the party ’ s haul could become even more unlikely .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are impressive , though .
Not a single Republican incumbent has lost in the races where we know the outcomes thus far .
Among the outstanding contests , only California Rep. Mike Garcia , who won a May special election , appears to be in danger of losing .
Open-seat races have also been friendly to Republicans , despite the large number of GOP incumbents who retired or left office ahead of the 2020 election .
The GOP had to defend 35 open seats compared to the Democrats ’ 13 , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far , only three have gone for the Democrats .
And two of those Democratic wins were in North Carolina seats that the GOP had written off after a court-ordered redistricting made the districts heavily Democratic .
While the majority of the Republican caucus will still be men come 2021 , there will be far more Republican women in Congress than there were this year .
So far , it looks like at least 26 GOP women will be in the House next year , surpassing the record of 25 from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part to the record number of non-incumbent Republican women — 15 — who ’ ve won House contests .
And it ’ s also because of how well Republican women did in tight races .
The table below shows the Republican women who ran in Democratic-held House districts that were at least potentially competitive , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast .
As of this writing , seven of them have won .
It ’ s not all bad news for Democrats While it was unquestionably a good night for Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats they won in 2018 and will continue to be the majority party in the House .
That ’ s in part because they retained most of the suburban districts they picked up in 2018 .
Of the 233 seats that Democrats held coming into the election , 186 of them were in districts that were predominantly or partly suburban in nature , according to density categorizations by Bloomberg ’ s CityLab .
( This figure excludes North Carolina because CityLab has not updated its density data to account for North Carolina ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus far , Democrats have lost seven of those seats , but they captured one GOP-held suburban seat around Atlanta .
And thanks to redistricting , they ’ ve also won two formerly Republican seats around Greensboro and Raleigh in North Carolina , which reflect the party ’ s strength in more populous areas .
( ABC News hasn ’ t projected a winner yet in 11 suburban races — eight Democratic-held districts and three Republican-held districts . )
Because of their relative success in the suburbs , Democrats kept many seats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coming into the election , Democrats held 30 seats in districts Trump carried in 2016 , and they would ’ ve lost their majority if they ’ d lost more than half of them ( assuming they didn ’ t offset the losses by gaining seats elsewhere ) .
But they ’ ve won 18 of them so far and picked up one from the GOP ( Georgia ’ s 7th Congressional District ) .
In fact , more than half of Republicans ’ gains have come in seats representing places that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
We ’ ll have to wait a bit before data can tell us how congressional districts voted in 2020 , but for now it seems many Republican gains were made by picking off the lowest-hanging fruit .
Republicans are well positioned to take the House in 2022 Although we don ’ t yet know the winners of some House races , we can already look ahead to the 2022 midterms and see a fairly straightforward path for the GOP to capture the House .
Midterm elections historically go well for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House , and the out-of-power party is especially likely to do well in the House , since every seat is up for election ( the Senate is a more complicated story ) .
Since the end of World War II , the presidential party has lost an average of 27 House seats in midterm elections , as the chart below shows .
No matter how many seats Democrats end up with after 2020 ’ s election — at this point , they will probably end up somewhere in the low 220s — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be enough for Republicans to retake the House .
The recent history of midterms in a Democratic president ’ s first term seems especially promising for the GOP , too .
Following Bill Clinton ’ s election in 1992 , Democrats lost more than 50 seats in 1994 , and after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 , Democrats lost more than 60 seats .
If Democrats had added five to 10 seats this year , they could have survived a 20-seat loss in the midterms .
Instead , Republicans will probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gain a slender majority in 2022 .
On top of this , Republicans could very well benefit from the new district lines that will be drawn ahead of the 2022 midterm elections .
The GOP is set to fully control redistricting for about two-fifths of all House seats , while Democrats will only hold sway over one-tenth of them , with the remaining seats are in states with divided governments or where redistricting is done by a commission system .
The Republican line-drawing advantage should help the party draw favorable maps that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than we might otherwise expect .
Biden is set to be president .
What comes next ?
| FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast

2020 was not supposed to be a good year for House Republicans. The polls pointed to a Democratic-leaning electoral environment, Democratic candidates were outraising Republicans in most competitive seats, and the GOP had to defend a host of open seats that Republican incumbents had abandoned.
Yet, contrary to expectations, including their own, Republicans managed to gain seats even as the Democrats held onto their majority. Votes are still being counted, but based on contests projected by ABC News, Republicans have netted six seats so far, and they may still flip a few more.
But top-line numbers about seats gained and lost can only tell us so much. Let’s look at some of the major takeaways from the 2020 House elections.
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Republicans outperformed expectations
Coming into the 2020 election, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast only gave Republicans about a 1 in 6 shot of picking up six or more seats, and if the GOP gains more as-yet-uncalled seats in the coming days, the party’s haul could become even more unlikely.
It’s not just the flipped seats that are impressive, though. Not a single Republican incumbent has lost in the races where we know the outcomes thus far. Among the outstanding contests, only California Rep. Mike Garcia, who won a May special election, appears to be in danger of losing.
[Related: The Polls Weren’t Great. But That’s Pretty Normal.]
Open-seat races have also been friendly to Republicans, despite the large number of GOP incumbents who retired or left office ahead of the 2020 election. The GOP had to defend 35 open seats compared to the Democrats’ 13, but of the 33 Republican-held open seats projected so far, only three have gone for the Democrats. And two of those Democratic wins were in North Carolina seats that the GOP had written off after a court-ordered redistricting made the districts heavily Democratic.
GOP women made big gains
While the majority of the Republican caucus will still be men come 2021, there will be far more Republican women in Congress than there were this year. So far, it looks like at least 26 GOP women will be in the House next year, surpassing the record of 25 from the 109th Congress. That’s thanks in part to the record number of non-incumbent Republican women — 15 — who’ve won House contests. And it’s also because of how well Republican women did in tight races. The table below shows the Republican women who ran in Democratic-held House districts that were at least potentially competitive, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast. As of this writing, seven of them have won.
GOP women have flipped several Democratic seats Republican women running for potentially competitive Democratic-held House seats and the status of their race as of 4:30 p.m Eastern on Nov. 11 District Candidate Current Margin Projected GOP flip MN-07 Michelle Fischbach R+13.2 ✓ ✓ NM-02 Yvette Herrell R+7.8 ✓ ✓ OK-05 Stephanie Bice R+4.1 ✓ ✓ FL-27 Maria Elvira Salazar R+2.7 ✓ ✓ IA-01 Ashley Hinson R+2.6 ✓ ✓ CA-48 Michelle Steel R+2.0 ✓ ✓ SC-01 Nancy Mace R+1.3 ✓ ✓ NY-11 Nicole Malliotakis R+15.8 NY-22 Claudia Tenney R+11.0 CA-39 Young Kim R+1.3 IA-02 Mariannette Miller-Meeks 0 NY-18 Chele Farley D+3.0 TX-15 Monica De La Cruz-Hernandez D+2.9 ✓ AZ-01 Tiffany Shedd D+3.4 ✓ PA-07 Lisa Scheller D+3.7 ✓ IL-17 Esther Joy King D+3.8 ✓ TX-32 Genevieve Collins D+6.0 ✓ FL-13 Anna Paulina Luna D+6.1 ✓ IL-06 Jeanne Ives D+6.6 ✓ OR-05 Amy Ryan Courser D+6.7 ✓ OH-13 Christina Hagan D+7.5 ✓ NC-01 Sandy Smith D+8.3 ✓ GA-06 Karen Handel D+9.2 ✓ KS-03 Amanda Adkins D+9.7 ✓ NJ-11 Rosemary Becchi D+9.8 ✓ CA-03 Tamika Hamilton D+10.9 ✓ PA-04 Kathy Barnette D+18.8 ✓ CA-36 Erin Cruz D+22.1 ✓ Results are unofficial. Races are counted as projected only if the projection comes from ABC News. Excludes races in which the Republican candidate has either a less than 1 in 100 chance or greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning. Source: ABC News
It’s not all bad news for Democrats
While it was unquestionably a good night for Republicans, Democrats still held onto most of the seats they won in 2018 and will continue to be the majority party in the House. That’s in part because they retained most of the suburban districts they picked up in 2018.
Of the 233 seats that Democrats held coming into the election, 186 of them were in districts that were predominantly or partly suburban in nature, according to density categorizations by Bloomberg’s CityLab. (This figure excludes North Carolina because CityLab has not updated its density data to account for North Carolina’s court-ordered redistricting in 2019.) Thus far, Democrats have lost seven of those seats, but they captured one GOP-held suburban seat around Atlanta. And thanks to redistricting, they’ve also won two formerly Republican seats around Greensboro and Raleigh in North Carolina, which reflect the party’s strength in more populous areas. (ABC News hasn’t projected a winner yet in 11 suburban races — eight Democratic-held districts and three Republican-held districts.)
Because of their relative success in the suburbs, Democrats kept many seats in places President Trump won in 2016. Coming into the election, Democrats held 30 seats in districts Trump carried in 2016, and they would’ve lost their majority if they’d lost more than half of them (assuming they didn’t offset the losses by gaining seats elsewhere). But they’ve won 18 of them so far and picked up one from the GOP (Georgia’s 7th Congressional District). In fact, more than half of Republicans’ gains have come in seats representing places that Trump won by a pretty sizable margin in 2016. We’ll have to wait a bit before data can tell us how congressional districts voted in 2020, but for now it seems many Republican gains were made by picking off the lowest-hanging fruit.
Republicans are well positioned to take the House in 2022
Although we don’t yet know the winners of some House races, we can already look ahead to the 2022 midterms and see a fairly straightforward path for the GOP to capture the House. Midterm elections historically go well for the party that’s not in the White House, and the out-of-power party is especially likely to do well in the House, since every seat is up for election (the Senate is a more complicated story).
Since the end of World War II, the presidential party has lost an average of 27 House seats in midterm elections, as the chart below shows. No matter how many seats Democrats end up with after 2020’s election — at this point, they will probably end up somewhere in the low 220s — a loss of that magnitude would easily be enough for Republicans to retake the House.
The recent history of midterms in a Democratic president’s first term seems especially promising for the GOP, too. Following Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, Democrats lost more than 50 seats in 1994, and after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, Democrats lost more than 60 seats.
If Democrats had added five to 10 seats this year, they could have survived a 20-seat loss in the midterms. Instead, Republicans will probably need to win fewer than 10 seats to gain a slender majority in 2022.
[Related: Politics Podcast: Why Polls Were Off In 2020, And Why They Weren’t That Bad]
On top of this, Republicans could very well benefit from the new district lines that will be drawn ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. The GOP is set to fully control redistricting for about two-fifths of all House seats, while Democrats will only hold sway over one-tenth of them, with the remaining seats are in states with divided governments or where redistricting is done by a commission system. The Republican line-drawing advantage should help the party draw favorable maps that could help the GOP win more seats than we might otherwise expect.
Biden is set to be president. What comes next? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
CORRECTION (Feb. 18, 2021, 2:52 p.m.): The chart in this article originally showed Democrats losing four House seats in the 1998 midterms; they actually gained four seats.


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--Which States Counted Biden’s Votes First, And Which Counted Trump’s First?

Election night 2020 was an election night like no other — and not just because the “ night ” ended up lasting four days .
This election was also unique because of how Americans voted — a record number voted early , either in person or by mail .
Because many states report absentee and Election Day ballots at different times , and absentee voters are disproportionately likely to be Democrats while Election Day voters are disproportionately likely to be Republicans , that made it tricky to follow the vote in real time .
The candidate who led a given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always the one who eventually won it , leading many real-time observers to conclude the presidential race was closer than it actually was .
In some states like North Carolina and Ohio , that meant the initial vote totals included a disproportionate number of Biden votes relative to the final results ; in others , like Michigan and Virginia , the initial totals included a disproportionate number of Trump votes .
And in still others , Trump began to look stronger as more votes were counted on election night , but it became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last few mail-in ballots were counted in the ensuing days .
You can see this in the map below , which shows you where the reported vote totals stood for each candidate 90 minutes , 12 hours and 72 hours after the last polls were scheduled to close in each state .
Let ’ s take a closer look at the states where Trump gained ground as more votes were counted — a phenomenon sometimes referred to as a “ red shift.
” For example , 90 minutes after polls closed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden looked competitive in these three states — he even led in North Carolina and Ohio .
But that changed as officials reported more results , and Trump wound up carrying all three states .
It wasn ’ t just battleground states where this happened either .
Deeply Republican states like Kentucky experienced this same “ red shift ” in their vote margins because of the order in which votes happened to be reported — it just didn ’ t affect who won them because they were already so Republican-leaning .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite direction — the appearance of an early lead for Trump was eventually erased as more votes for Biden were counted .
Sometimes this happened because the state was not allowed to process its absentee ballots before the week of the election and therefore couldn ’ t get a head start on its massive volume of absentee ballots ( see Michigan ) .
In other instances , the state only required absentee ballots to be postmarked , not received , by Election Day and was still accepting and counting ballots for a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And sometimes , the state was just slow to finish counting all its absentee ballots ( see Georgia ) .
Either way , this “ blue shift ” in the vote count often took several days , making it hard to see who was really ahead if you weren ’ t familiar with the ins and outs of vote-counting .
And finally , in some states , it was more of a mix .
The topline results zigged toward Republicans , then zagged toward Democrats as more votes were counted .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for Biden , but most of the votes counted over the next several hours were for Trump , and by Wednesday morning , Trump was ahead .
However , the state spent the next several days counting absentee ballots , which were favorable for Biden .
As it turned out , there were enough absentee ballots outstanding for the Democrat to eventually take the lead at 9 a.m. on Friday morning .
And Pennsylvania was , of course , the key state that eventually handed Biden the presidency .
In sum , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each state and when made for a roller coaster of an election week , and even produced accusations of fraud .
But there was nothing fishy going on ; no additional ballots were being cast after Election Day to influence the result .
It was just the slow wheels of democracy turning .
Indeed , given how the coronavirus pandemic threw our elections into turmoil with only eight months to prepare for the general election , it ’ s actually quite impressive that , the timing of the results notwithstanding , the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-13--What The 2020 House Elections Could Mean For The 2022 Midterms

Democrats did not do as well as expected in House elections this year .
FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast host Galen Druke @ @ @ @ @ discuss the record number of Republican women who will serve in the next Congress and @ @ @ @ @ back the House in the 2022 midterms .

Democrats did not do as well as expected in House elections this year. FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast host Galen Druke and elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley discuss the record number of Republican women who will serve in the next Congress and whether the GOP could win back the House in the 2022 midterms.
Related: How The Pandemic Might Have Affected The Polls In 2020


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-12--What Blue And Red ‘Shifts’ Looked Like In Every State


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-16--Americans Became More Divided By Class In 2020

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew explores the demographic and geographic trends that divided America @ @ @ @ @ discuss how President Trump ’ s refusal to concede the election will affect the nation @

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew explores the demographic and geographic trends that divided America in 2020. They also discuss how President Trump’s refusal to concede the election will affect the nation.
[Related: What Trump’s Refusal To Concede Says About American Democracy]


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-16--Politics Podcast: What Divided The Electorate In 2020

The 2020 election proved that the country is still divided .
Though Democrats retained control of the House , they @ @ @ @ @ of the clear mandate they had wanted .
Meanwhile , in the past eight elections @ @ @ @ @ popular vote seven times and the fourth time in a row .
In this installment @ @ @ @ @ , the crew explores the demographic and geographic trends that split Americans and discuss how @ @ @ @ @ to concede will affect the nation .
You can listen to the episode by clicking @ @ @ @ @ in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App @ @ @ @ @ .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight @ @ @ @ @ and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and @ @ @ @ @ a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ , on Twitter or in the comments .

The 2020 election proved that the country is still divided. Though Democrats retained control of the House, they lost seats, falling short of the clear mandate they had wanted. Meanwhile, in the past eight elections, Republicans have lost the popular vote seven times and the fourth time in a row. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew explores the demographic and geographic trends that split Americans and discuss how President Trump’s refusal to concede will affect the nation.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-16--How A Record Number Of Republican Women Will — And Won’t — Change Congress

More women will serve in the 117th Congress than ever before : At least 142 will take their seats in the next Congress , according to ABC News race projections , and that number could continue to grow as we don ’ t yet know who will win several competitive House races featuring women .
But regardless of how many more women win , the 2018 record of 127 women in Congress has already been shattered .
What ’ s more , the incoming class of women in Congress is not almost exclusively Democrats , as was the case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35 Republican women are expected to join the 117th Congress , up from 22 in 2018 , with some races still too close to call .
Polls were off for the 2020 election , but not by much | FiveThirtyEight There are , unsurprisingly , still far more Democratic women than Republican women in the next Congress ( 106 vs. 35 in races projected so far ) , and we ’ re still far from reaching gender parity in either chamber , but it does seem as if more women are running — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are On Track To Take Back The House In 2022 ] Tipping the gender balance in Congress was always going to be hard if only one party was electing large numbers of women , and as you can see in the chart below , that has largely been the case so far , with Democrats electing far more women than Republicans .
The GOP made strides this year , but it still has a lot of catching up to do .
In fact , the last time the GOP sent at least 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a record-breaking year then , too .
So why are there still so many fewer Republican congresswomen than Democratic ones ?
One reason is simply that more women identify as Democrats than as Republicans .
But it ’ s also true that Democratic women have long been better positioned to run for political office because they are more likely to have social , recruitment and fundraising networks that support those ambitions than Republican women .
Plus , Democratic voters are more likely than Republican voters to say more women should be serving in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rocky start , Republicans invested early in Republican women , as I wrote this summer .
Groups like Winning for Women and New York Rep. Elise Stefanik ’ s Elevate-PAC made a concerted effort to recruit strong female candidates to run in competitive seats , and it seems to have paid off , often at the expense of Democratic women who won in red-leaning districts in 2018 — notably Donna Shalala in Florida ’ s 27th District ( defeated by Maria Elvira Salazar ) , Kendra Horn in Oklahoma ’ s 5th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Xochitl Torres Small in New Mexico ’ s 2nd District ( defeated by Yvette Herrell ) and Abby Finkenauer in Iowa ’ s 1st District ( defeated by Ashley Hinson ) .
Historically , women in both parties ( but especially Republicans ) have been recruited to run as “ sacrificial lambs ” in races that the party knew it couldn ’ t win .
And as the chart above shows , that was true this year as well .
But many GOP women also ran in more competitive places , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s less clear , though , what this uptick in female representation will mean for the future of the legislative branch .
Many of the new and returning senators and representatives have very different — and perhaps competing — visions for what it means to be a woman in Congress , which is why , for example , a number of female candidates ran to unseat a female incumbent .
There is some evidence that institutions that have more women in their ranks are perceived as more legitimate .
As University of South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me via email , “ [ W ] hen individuals believe women are included they express more efficacy , trust , and approval and believe the institution is more competent to create policy.
” This could be especially important for Congress , considering most Americans have a poor opinion of it .
But while many people believe that women in political leadership positions are more compassionate and better at building compromise , it ’ s a relatively open question whether that actually happens in Congress .
Women in Congress report spending more time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and studies suggest that women in Congress are more collegial , but their legislative activity ( such as cosponsoring bills ) is actually pretty similar to men ’ s .
It seems clear that the growing partisan divide in the U.S. has created fairly strong disincentives for engaging in bipartisan compromise for men — and women .
So will electing more women to Congress help curb the polarization between the two parties ?
The most likely answer is : No .
Take the studies that have found that , women in both parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , children and families once in office .
These areas could be a real opportunity for bipartisanship , but an analysis of Senate bill cosponsorship found that these issues are no longer core to the Republican Party and , as a result , Republican women in the Senate did not really advocate for these policies , while Democratic women did .
In other words , today ’ s GOP women and Democratic women might simply view their roles in Congress very differently due to their party allegiance , so they champion very different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican women may not see eye-to-eye on a number of issues , but getting more women in politics should create an environment where women ’ s distinctive concerns ( and voices ) are prioritized , especially once women are 30 or 40 percent of a group that makes decisions by majority rule , as research by political scientists Tali Mendelberg and Christopher F. Karpowitz shows .
That said , there is still a ways to go before we reach that critical mass .
Women will still make up just one-quarter of Congress come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this election .
But if the 2018 and 2020 elections are any indication , and the Republican Party stays committed to recruiting women to run , that number is only going to grow .
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast

More women will serve in the 117th Congress than ever before: At least 142 will take their seats in the next Congress, according to ABC News race projections, and that number could continue to grow as we don’t yet know who will win several competitive House races featuring women.
But regardless of how many more women win, the 2018 record of 127 women in Congress has already been shattered. What’s more, the incoming class of women in Congress is not almost exclusively Democrats, as was the case in 2018); instead, at least 35 Republican women are expected to join the 117th Congress, up from 22 in 2018, with some races still too close to call.
Polls were off for the 2020 election, but not by much | FiveThirtyEight
There are, unsurprisingly, still far more Democratic women than Republican women in the next Congress (106 vs. 35 in races projected so far), and we’re still far from reaching gender parity in either chamber, but it does seem as if more women are running — and winning.
[Related: Republicans Are On Track To Take Back The House In 2022]
Tipping the gender balance in Congress was always going to be hard if only one party was electing large numbers of women, and as you can see in the chart below, that has largely been the case so far, with Democrats electing far more women than Republicans. The GOP made strides this year, but it still has a lot of catching up to do.
In fact, the last time the GOP sent at least 30 women to Congress was in 2004, a record-breaking year then, too. So why are there still so many fewer Republican congresswomen than Democratic ones? One reason is simply that more women identify as Democrats than as Republicans. But it’s also true that Democratic women have long been better positioned to run for political office because they are more likely to have social, recruitment and fundraising networks that support those ambitions than Republican women. Plus, Democratic voters are more likely than Republican voters to say more women should be serving in government.
But this cycle, despite a rocky start, Republicans invested early in Republican women, as I wrote this summer. Groups like Winning for Women and New York Rep. Elise Stefanik’s Elevate-PAC made a concerted effort to recruit strong female candidates to run in competitive seats, and it seems to have paid off, often at the expense of Democratic women who won in red-leaning districts in 2018 — notably Donna Shalala in Florida’s 27th District (defeated by Maria Elvira Salazar), Kendra Horn in Oklahoma’s 5th District (defeated by Stephanie Bice), Xochitl Torres Small in New Mexico’s 2nd District (defeated by Yvette Herrell) and Abby Finkenauer in Iowa’s 1st District (defeated by Ashley Hinson).
Historically, women in both parties (but especially Republicans) have been recruited to run as “sacrificial lambs” in races that the party knew it couldn’t win. And as the chart above shows, that was true this year as well. But many GOP women also ran in more competitive places, and most of them won.
It’s less clear, though, what this uptick in female representation will mean for the future of the legislative branch. Many of the new and returning senators and representatives have very different — and perhaps competing — visions for what it means to be a woman in Congress, which is why, for example, a number of female candidates ran to unseat a female incumbent. There is some evidence that institutions that have more women in their ranks are perceived as more legitimate. As University of South Carolina political science professor Katelyn Stauffer told me via email, “[W]hen individuals believe women are included they express more efficacy, trust, and approval and believe the institution is more competent to create policy.” This could be especially important for Congress, considering most Americans have a poor opinion of it.
But while many people believe that women in political leadership positions are more compassionate and better at building compromise, it’s a relatively open question whether that actually happens in Congress. Women in Congress report spending more time engaging in across-party coalitions than men, and studies suggest that women in Congress are more collegial, but their legislative activity (such as cosponsoring bills) is actually pretty similar to men’s. It seems clear that the growing partisan divide in the U.S. has created fairly strong disincentives for engaging in bipartisan compromise for men — and women. So will electing more women to Congress help curb the polarization between the two parties?
[Related: How Trump Changed America]
The most likely answer is: No. Take the studies that have found that, women in both parties tend to prioritize issues related to women, children and families once in office. These areas could be a real opportunity for bipartisanship, but an analysis of Senate bill cosponsorship found that these issues are no longer core to the Republican Party and, as a result, Republican women in the Senate did not really advocate for these policies, while Democratic women did. In other words, today’s GOP women and Democratic women might simply view their roles in Congress very differently due to their party allegiance, so they champion very different causes as a result.
Democratic and Republican women may not see eye-to-eye on a number of issues, but getting more women in politics should create an environment where women’s distinctive concerns (and voices) are prioritized, especially once women are 30 or 40 percent of a group that makes decisions by majority rule, as research by political scientists Tali Mendelberg and Christopher F. Karpowitz shows. That said, there is still a ways to go before we reach that critical mass. Women will still make up just one-quarter of Congress come January, despite all the gains made in this election. But if the 2018 and 2020 elections are any indication, and the Republican Party stays committed to recruiting women to run, that number is only going to grow.
Where the rest of the 2020 races stand | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-17--What Trump’s Refusal To Concede Says About American Democracy

At nearly 2:30 a.m. Wednesday , the morning after Election Day 2016 , the Associated Press declared Donald Trump the winner of the presidential election .
Around the same time , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Trump to concede , a call she made at the urging of then-President Barack Obama .
That Thursday , less than 48 hours after the election results , Obama met with his successor to help him prepare for the transition to the presidency .
Four years later , nothing like that has happened .
More than a week has passed since major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Trump has refused to concede .
Instead , his legal team is pushing efforts to invalidate the results , and his administration won ’ t work with Biden officials on the transition of power .
Top Republicans in Congress and around the country aren ’ t openly acknowledging Biden ’ s victory either .
That some Republicans won ’ t go along with the traditional niceties following a presidential election ( like congratulating the victor from the opposing party ) isn ’ t that important .
But the sitting president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worrisome , as it raises the prospect that he will not uphold a core tenet of democracy : Elections determine who is in power , and those who lose surrender power peacefully .
The behavior of top Republican Party officials — subtly acknowledging that Trump must leave office on Jan. 20 but not openly rebuking his conduct — in some ways also violates that core value .
And the combination of Trump ’ s and his party ’ s behavior raises a serious question : Is America ’ s democracy in trouble ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and values both in the United States and abroad say that the behavior of Trump and the Republican Party over the past week deeply concerns them .
Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan says it ’ s important not to think of democracy in binary terms — that either a nation is or is not a democracy .
Instead , Nyhan argues , democracy falls more on a spectrum , and based on how Trump broke with democratic values as president and how he is handling the end of his presidency , America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is somewhat less democratic than it was pre-Trump .
This tweet from The New York Times ’ s Max Fisher , who has written extensively about the erosion of democracies abroad , is particularly apt : Not respecting the election results is problematic on its own .
But considering the crisis the nation is facing now — a new surge in coronavirus cases — Trump ’ s actions are particularly dangerous .
Now more than ever , an effective transition of power is of the utmost importance .
Not only is Trump blocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration get ready to deal with the pandemic , but the defeated president has largely disengaged from the COVID-19 crisis himself .
In terms of managing the virus , America will be functionally without a president for two months .
We can ’ t totally rule out the most alarming possibility either — that Trump is going to try to stay in office past Jan. 20 .
After all , he has mobilized some key parts of the federal government and the Republican Party behind his efforts to question and undermine the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said at a State Department press conference last week that “ there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
” Attorney General William Barr announced that U.S. attorneys could start investigating potential voter fraud ( even though there is no evidence of such fraud ) before the election results are certified — rather than after certification , which is the Justice Department ’ s normal policy .
That move resulted in the department ’ s leading official on election crimes resigning from his post in protest .
And , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esper , while the rest of the department ’ s senior leaders either resigned or were replaced with people considered more loyal to the president .
A leader of a nation losing an election and then consolidating control of the military is far from ideal .
As Nyhan notes regularly on his Twitter feed when discussing Trump ’ s moves , “ What would you say if you saw it in another country ?
” But whatever Trump ’ s intentions , it seems far-fetched for him to stay in power .
Courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims , and even Republican officials in key swing states are unwilling to support outlandish proposals to hand Trump electoral votes in states that he lost .
Republican senators are saying that Biden should start receiving classified intelligence briefings , a de facto acknowledgement that the former vice president needs to be prepared to take over on Jan 20 .
So , it seems that America ’ s democracy has survived mostly intact for now .
An election was held , the opposition party defeated the ruling party , and the opposition party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That said , the last week has been far from reassuring .
If the election had come down to just one state , would Trump be even more recalcitrant ?
If it were a closer election , would the broader GOP more openly support Trump ’ s efforts to stay in power ?
Would the Supreme Court , which includes six justices appointed by Republican presidents and some justices who seem strongly aligned with the party ’ s goals , have interjected in a way that boosted Trump ?
It ’ s hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democratic values are almost certain to be upheld this time — that is , the election determined who will be in charge , and the transfer of power will ultimately be peaceful .
But it ’ s not totally clear that these values will be upheld the next time a Trump-like figure emerges .
American democracy is likely to survive Trump , but his tenure has raised important questions about the state of America ’ s democracy and whether it will endure in perpetuity .

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

At nearly 2:30 a.m. Wednesday, the morning after Election Day 2016, the Associated Press declared Donald Trump the winner of the presidential election. Around the same time, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Trump to concede, a call she made at the urging of then-President Barack Obama. That Thursday, less than 48 hours after the election results, Obama met with his successor to help him prepare for the transition to the presidency.
What Trump revealed about America | FiveThirtyEight
Four years later, nothing like that has happened. More than a week has passed since major news outlets declared Joe Biden the winner, but Trump has refused to concede. Instead, his legal team is pushing efforts to invalidate the results, and his administration won’t work with Biden officials on the transition of power. Top Republicans in Congress and around the country aren’t openly acknowledging Biden’s victory either.
[Related: Americans Were Primed To Believe The Current Onslaught Of Disinformation]
That some Republicans won’t go along with the traditional niceties following a presidential election (like congratulating the victor from the opposing party) isn’t that important. But the sitting president’s refusal to acknowledge electoral defeat is worrisome, as it raises the prospect that he will not uphold a core tenet of democracy: Elections determine who is in power, and those who lose surrender power peacefully. The behavior of top Republican Party officials — subtly acknowledging that Trump must leave office on Jan. 20 but not openly rebuking his conduct — in some ways also violates that core value. And the combination of Trump’s and his party’s behavior raises a serious question: Is America’s democracy in trouble?
Maybe. People who study democratic norms and values both in the United States and abroad say that the behavior of Trump and the Republican Party over the past week deeply concerns them. Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan says it’s important not to think of democracy in binary terms — that either a nation is or is not a democracy. Instead, Nyhan argues, democracy falls more on a spectrum, and based on how Trump broke with democratic values as president and how he is handling the end of his presidency, America does remain a democracy, but it is somewhat less democratic than it was pre-Trump.
This tweet from The New York Times’s Max Fisher, who has written extensively about the erosion of democracies abroad, is particularly apt:
“Whatever happens now, we may spend the rest of our lives dealing with the party-wide normalization of: Refusal to concede losses
Refusal to transfer power
Efforts to overturn election results
Delegitimation of outparty governance Very hard to unring this bell.”
Not respecting the election results is problematic on its own. But considering the crisis the nation is facing now — a new surge in coronavirus cases — Trump’s actions are particularly dangerous. Now more than ever, an effective transition of power is of the utmost importance.
Not only is Trump blocking his advisers from helping the incoming Biden administration get ready to deal with the pandemic, but the defeated president has largely disengaged from the COVID-19 crisis himself. In terms of managing the virus, America will be functionally without a president for two months.
We can’t totally rule out the most alarming possibility either — that Trump is going to try to stay in office past Jan. 20. After all, he has mobilized some key parts of the federal government and the Republican Party behind his efforts to question and undermine the election results.
[Related: Biden Won — But The Deep Partisan Divide In America Remains]
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at a State Department press conference last week that “there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” Attorney General William Barr announced that U.S. attorneys could start investigating potential voter fraud (even though there is no evidence of such fraud) before the election results are certified — rather than after certification, which is the Justice Department’s normal policy. That move resulted in the department’s leading official on election crimes resigning from his post in protest. And, most alarmingly, Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper, while the rest of the department’s senior leaders either resigned or were replaced with people considered more loyal to the president. A leader of a nation losing an election and then consolidating control of the military is far from ideal. As Nyhan notes regularly on his Twitter feed when discussing Trump’s moves, “What would you say if you saw it in another country?”
But whatever Trump’s intentions, it seems far-fetched for him to stay in power. Courts are rejecting his legal team’s claims, and even Republican officials in key swing states are unwilling to support outlandish proposals to hand Trump electoral votes in states that he lost. Republican senators are saying that Biden should start receiving classified intelligence briefings, a de facto acknowledgement that the former vice president needs to be prepared to take over on Jan 20.
So, it seems that America’s democracy has survived mostly intact for now. An election was held, the opposition party defeated the ruling party, and the opposition party will take control of the government. That said, the last week has been far from reassuring. If the election had come down to just one state, would Trump be even more recalcitrant? If it were a closer election, would the broader GOP more openly support Trump’s efforts to stay in power? Would the Supreme Court, which includes six justices appointed by Republican presidents and some justices who seem strongly aligned with the party’s goals, have interjected in a way that boosted Trump?
It’s hard to know the answers to these questions. Democratic values are almost certain to be upheld this time — that is, the election determined who will be in charge, and the transfer of power will ultimately be peaceful. But it’s not totally clear that these values will be upheld the next time a Trump-like figure emerges. American democracy is likely to survive Trump, but his tenure has raised important questions about the state of America’s democracy and whether it will endure in perpetuity.
Polls were off for the 2020 election, but not by much | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-11-18--Republicans Won Almost Every Election Where Redistricting Was At Stake

Joe Biden may have won the White House , but down-ballot races were much better for Republicans .
In fact , the GOP ’ s victories in state-level elections could pay dividends long after Biden leaves office , thanks to their influence over next year ’ s redistricting process .
Every 10 years , after the census , congressional and state legislature districts are redrawn to account for population changes .
This gives whoever is drawing the maps the power to maximize the number of districts that favor their party — a tactic known as gerrymandering .
And as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represented the last chance for voters to weigh in on who would draw those maps .
Both parties went into the election with a chance to draw more congressional districts than the other , but the end result was just about the best-case scenario for Republicans .
As the map below shows , Republicans are set to control the redistricting of 188 congressional seats — or 43 percent of the entire House of Representatives .
By contrast , Democrats will control the redistricting of , at most , 73 seats , or 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off ?
By winning almost every 2020 election in which control of redistricting was at stake : • The GOP kept control of the redistricting process in Texas by holding the state House .
Given that Election Data Services estimates Texas will have 39 congressional seats for the next decade , this was arguably Republicans ’ single biggest win of the 2020 election .
• Republicans successfully defended the Pennsylvania legislature from a Democratic takeover , although they ’ ll still need to share redistricting power over its projected 17 congressional districts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veto power .
• Republicans held the majority in both chambers of the North Carolina legislature , which will enable them to draw an expected 14 congressional districts all by themselves .
• Amendment 1 passed in Virginia , taking the power to draw the state ’ s 11 congressional districts out of the hands of the all-Democratic state government and investing it in a bipartisan commission made up of a mix of citizens and legislators .
• In Missouri ( home to eight congressional districts ) , Gov .
Mike Parson was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redistricting control in Republican hands .
• In an upset , Republicans managed to keep their majority in the Minnesota state Senate , thus ensuring Democrats wouldn ’ t have the unfettered ability to draw the state ’ s projected seven congressional districts .
The parties will share redistricting responsibilities there .
• The GOP kept control of the state House in Iowa , with its four congressional districts .
• Republicans maintained their supermajorities in the Kansas Legislature , enabling them to pass a new congressional map ( worth four districts ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s veto .
• Finally , Republicans surprisingly flipped both the state Senate and state House in New Hampshire ( worth two congressional districts ) , seizing full control of both the state government and the redistricting process .
The one state where Republicans may not have gotten their preferred outcome is New York , where we still don ’ t know who will control the redistricting process because the state is taking so long to count absentee ballots .
If Democrats win a supermajority in the state Senate , they will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s projected 26 congressional districts .
Democrats are close to clearing that bar , but we won ’ t know if they make it for , potentially , weeks .
Regardless of the outcome in New York , the overall redistricting picture is the same : The GOP is in almost as good a position as it enjoyed in the last redistricting process , when Republicans controlled the drawing of 55 percent of congressional districts and Democrats controlled only 10 percent after 2010 ’ s GOP wave .
As a result , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans this decade than at any point since the 1970s ( and Republicans have been able to win multiple chambers in state legislatures despite losing the statewide popular vote ) .
It now looks as if we ’ re headed for another 10 years of Republican-favoring maps .
Democrats were able to win the House and several state legislatures in 2018 thanks to shifting vote patterns in the suburbs in particular , but Republicans in many states will now have the opportunity to draw new gerrymanders that account for this realignment .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still be less biased in the 2020s than it was in the 2010s .
While it ’ s true that Republicans are set to draw many more congressional districts than Democrats , they will still draw fewer than they did in 2011 .
In addition , at least 167 districts , or 38 percent of the House , will be drawn by independent commissions or by both parties sharing power .
That ’ s up from 145 ( 33 percent ) in 2011 , in part because states such as Colorado , Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent years .
These reforms should translate into fewer gerrymandered seats overall — by either party .
Furthermore , some redistricting processes still controlled by one party — think Ohio ’ s or Utah ’ s — have new rules in place designed to encourage more neutral maps .
So ultimately , we ’ ll have to wait and see what the often-messy redistricting process produces in each state — and you can rest assured that will be a major focus of FiveThirtyEight ’ s coverage in 2021 .

Joe Biden may have won the White House, but down-ballot races were much better for Republicans. In fact, the GOP’s victories in state-level elections could pay dividends long after Biden leaves office, thanks to their influence over next year’s redistricting process.
[Related: Republicans Are On Track To Take Back The House In 2022]
Every 10 years, after the census, congressional and state legislature districts are redrawn to account for population changes. This gives whoever is drawing the maps the power to maximize the number of districts that favor their party — a tactic known as gerrymandering. And as we wrote last month, the 2020 election represented the last chance for voters to weigh in on who would draw those maps. Both parties went into the election with a chance to draw more congressional districts than the other, but the end result was just about the best-case scenario for Republicans. As the map below shows, Republicans are set to control the redistricting of 188 congressional seats — or 43 percent of the entire House of Representatives. By contrast, Democrats will control the redistricting of, at most, 73 seats, or 17 percent.
How did Republicans pull that off? By winning almost every 2020 election in which control of redistricting was at stake:
The one state where Republicans may not have gotten their preferred outcome is New York, where we still don’t know who will control the redistricting process because the state is taking so long to count absentee ballots. If Democrats win a supermajority in the state Senate, they will have total veto power over the state’s projected 26 congressional districts. Democrats are close to clearing that bar, but we won’t know if they make it for, potentially, weeks.
Polls were off for the 2020 election, but not by much | FiveThirtyEight
Regardless of the outcome in New York, the overall redistricting picture is the same: The GOP is in almost as good a position as it enjoyed in the last redistricting process, when Republicans controlled the drawing of 55 percent of congressional districts and Democrats controlled only 10 percent after 2010’s GOP wave. As a result, the House map has been more biased toward Republicans this decade than at any point since the 1970s (and Republicans have been able to win multiple chambers in state legislatures despite losing the statewide popular vote ). It now looks as if we’re headed for another 10 years of Republican-favoring maps. Democrats were able to win the House and several state legislatures in 2018 thanks to shifting vote patterns in the suburbs in particular, but Republicans in many states will now have the opportunity to draw new gerrymanders that account for this realignment.
That said, the House map overall might still be less biased in the 2020s than it was in the 2010s. While it’s true that Republicans are set to draw many more congressional districts than Democrats, they will still draw fewer than they did in 2011. In addition, at least 167 districts, or 38 percent of the House, will be drawn by independent commissions or by both parties sharing power. That’s up from 145 (33 percent) in 2011, in part because states such as Colorado, Michigan and Virginia passed redistricting-related ballot measures in recent years. These reforms should translate into fewer gerrymandered seats overall — by either party.
Furthermore, some redistricting processes still controlled by one party — think Ohio’s or Utah’s — have new rules in place designed to encourage more neutral maps. So ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see what the often-messy redistricting process produces in each state — and you can rest assured that will be a major focus of FiveThirtyEight’s coverage in 2021.