fivethirtyeight--2020-01-27--Will The Bolton News Force Republicans To Call Witnesses In The Impeachment Trial?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarahf ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : On Sunday , The New York Times reported a bombshell from former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s unpublished manuscript about his time in the White House : President Trump had , in fact , wanted to withhold $ 391 million in assistance to Ukraine until investigations into Democrats — including Joe Biden and his son Hunter — were agreed to .
Bolton ’ s version of events undermined the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of his defense during the impeachment process , that the decision to freeze aid to Ukraine was independent from requests that Ukraine investigate the Bidens .
The reported contents of the manuscript also gave a snapshot of the kind of testimony Bolton might give if the Senate allows witnesses to be called in the trial .
The White House legal team is back in the Senate today presenting the president ’ s side of the case , but what should we make of Bolton ’ s manuscript ?
Does it change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ameliatd ( Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux , senior writer ) : Well , it certainly amps up the pressure on GOP senators to call witnesses .
Bolton has been the white whale of the impeachment inquiry since last fall , since he seems to have been privy to a lot of key conversations around the Ukraine aid and the investigations .
The NYT reporting just underscores how important his testimony could be .
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : My impression is that Bolton wants this known — he is willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to : The aid was tied to launching investigations .
I didn ’ t find this too shocking — there is ample evidence aside from Bolton ’ s words that the Ukrainians were being asked to investigate the Bidens in exchange for the aid .
But Bolton was in the White House and “ has the receipts , ” as the kids say .
Reactions from Senate Republicans so far also suggest that Bolton ’ s version of events might have some impact .
The senators who were already generally supportive of having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins and Mitt Romney in particular ) are now sounding firmer in that stance .
And other Republicans are also now suggesting that they could be open to calling witnesses , although they are talking about summoning Hunter and Joe Biden as well as Bolton .
ameliatd : Some GOP senators have responded defensively to the Bolton news , and that could be important , too .
One critique is that he ’ s just trying to juice books sales ; another is that he doesn ’ t actually need a subpoena to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true ! )
.
The thing is , if Bolton wants this information to be known , he can make it known at any time by holding a press conference .
But he seems to want permission from his party to share the info , in the form of a subpoena .
sarahf : So as Perry says , we didn ’ t really learn anything new here in Bolton ’ s manuscript .
Rather , Bolton ’ s account essentially corroborates what others from the Trump administration told House investigators last November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the former top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine , William Taylor , and American E.U .
Ambassador Gordon Sondland , Bolton was “ in the room.
” Is that , in and of itself , a game changer ?
I guess at the very least , it probably does shift the vote count on the motion to call new witnesses .
A few days ago , it didn ’ t seem as if Democrats were going to win over enough GOP senators to make that happen .
ameliatd : It ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is different from the witnesses we ’ ve heard from so far in a couple key ways : 1 ) He ’ s a political appointee ( almost all of the people we heard from in November were career officials ) ; 2 ) He ’ s a longtime Republican hawk who should have significant cred if he ’ s saying that what Trump did was out of bounds .
On the other hand , Bolton left the Trump administration on pretty bad terms with the president , who is denying he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigations .
It does feel like if this doesn ’ t shift the vote count for calling new witnesses , nothing will .
perry : One of the big GOP talking points has been that this is all hearsay .
Except now Bolton is suggesting he heard directly from Trump that the goal was to force an investigation of the Bidens or Ukraine would not get aid .
I expect Republicans will eventually just pick a new talking point , though — “ executive privilege ” or “ Bolton was disgruntled ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why I think it ’ s telling , Perry , that GOP senators are already saying this is just a play to sell copies of his book .
perry : Bolton testifying would probably be really bad for Trump — so there is very little incentive for Trump and the Republicans to have him testify .
sarahf : Right , and Trump definitely seems to be busy already sowing seeds for a defense that Bolton is disgruntled/untrustworthy , saying that he never discussed this with Bolton .
perry : As always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we hear from new witnesses are the Republicans from swing states : Cory Gardner of Colorado , Martha McSally of Arizona and Collins , along with Trump-skeptical senators like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Romney .
In my view , they need to find a way to placate Trump and his base but also their state ’ s more centrist voters .
I don ’ t know what that looks like .
ameliatd : Yeah , and even though Republican support for calling new witnesses has gone down since the end of December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , using Ipsos ’ s KnowledgePanel — 41 percent of Republicans still want new witnesses .
( Of course , they could have witnesses other than Bolton in mind , like the Bidens . )
I guess my somewhat cynical take on this is similar to Perry ’ s — except for the people who were already apt to vote for witnesses , Republicans might just find other reasons to avoid calling Bolton .
And frankly , I think the way Bolton has handled this makes that easier for them to do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think this tips the scale in terms of calling new witnesses ?
ameliatd : I mean , I think it ’ s hard to predict right now .
It ’ s totally possible that the balance does tip and we see more senators voting for witnesses .
But GOP senators are already questioning Bolton ’ s motivations from a number of angles , and it ’ s not like their defenses of Trump have been especially consistent or logically cohesive to this point .
sarahf : My thought is that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get for Trump .
This isn ’ t someone with secondhand knowledge alleging he withheld aid for politically motivated reasons .
It ’ s a close former adviser with firsthand knowledge of these conversations .
I think this now forces Republicans ’ hand and they ’ ll have to call him .
Although , to be clear , I think there are still ways Republicans can spin this so it ’ s not a total defeat .
Take Sen. Lindsay Graham .
He ’ s now saying “ all relevant witnesses ” should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requested , which I read as code for Biden .
perry : One of the unknowns is here whether Democrats will agree to one of the Bidens testifying if Bolton and others who will make Trump look bad are asked to testify .
ameliatd : Right , I don ’ t see a world where we only get Bolton , if witnesses are called .
Some GOP senators have been pushing this “ witness reciprocity ” ( Bolton-for-Bidens ) line for a while , so it ’ s not surprising to see that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Bolton .
He is now going to join the likes of James Comey , Robert Mueller , Jeff Flake and others who are fairly conservative and were once in pretty good standing with the Republican Party , but then criticized Trump and were condemned by their former allies .
Bolton was a fixture on Fox News before he joined the administration .
Those days are probably over .
He will be cast as part of “ The Resistance ” now .
And this will be another illustration of where today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support whatever Trump does or you aren ’ t going to remain in good standing at major conservative power centers , like Capitol Hill and Fox News .
We should note two other things : 1 .
The recording that came out last week in which Trump seems to be ordering the firing of Marie Yovanovitch , who was then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , and 2 .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo getting into a tense dispute with an NPR reporter who asked him about Yovanovitch and the circumstances of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of people tied to Trump involved in this Ukraine controversy who are not doing a particularly good job defending Trump , or , in Bolton ’ s case , not defending him at all .
The Democrats can ’ t keep this trial going forever .
But it does look like evidence is going to keep coming out that makes Trump look worse , so they must be trying to figure out how to keep this trial going on beyond this week .
And the Republicans have to be thinking that witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if they get Hunter or Joe Biden to testify .
ameliatd : I will add also that the Republicans/Trump administration have been pushing the idea that Bolton ’ s testimony could be covered by executive privilege , which would snarl things up in the courts .
They could certainly try that tack , but executive privilege claims are on shakier footing legally as more of this information comes out publicly .
And also , if a majority of senators vote to subpoena Bolton and he wants to testify , it could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
sarahf : Tell us a little bit more about how that would work , Amelia .
It seems to me that the administration could do what you ’ re describing , but they risk making a pretty unpopular move .
Because we ’ ve found in our own polling with Ipsos that a majority ( 59 percent ) of Americans still want to hear new witnesses , and ABC News/Washington Post found in their latest poll that 66 percent of Americans favor the Senate calling new witnesses — and that was before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine that number goes up .
ameliatd : Executive privilege is a pretty ill-defined power that presidents use to keep internal communications secret .
In some cases , it has protected senior White House aides from responding to a subpoena .
But those people were also unwilling to testify .
The Trump administration could try to get a court to issue a restraining order preventing Bolton from testifying , but we ’ d be headed into unprecedented legal territory if that happens .
And it ’ s not even clear that what Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege to begin with .
It ’ s also possible that the courts would be less inclined to rule in the executive branch ’ s favor during an impeachment trial .
And then of course , there ’ s the fact that it looks pretty bad if Trump keeps someone with clearly relevant information from testifying .
On the other hand , he ’ s been doing that for months and it hasn ’ t shifted the needle .
But maybe Bolton is different , especially if he ’ s out in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how he wants to share it .
sarahf : Right , and I suppose the other thing here is : say Trump ’ s legal team did go down this path … it doesn ’ t stop Bolton from publishing his memoir , right ?
Though , I suppose the administration could push to exclude certain excerpts during the standard review process .
It just seems as if from a PR point of view , we ’ re past that point , and so now the Trump team ’ s best of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they have tried to do with the other witnesses .
Assuming we do hear from Bolton because the Senate decides to call new witnesses , how could this change things ?
Does it cause some Republicans reconsider their vote to acquit Trump ?
perry : Yeah , Bolton I think is unique in that : 1 .
My impression is that he doesn ’ t like Trump and wants this fight .
2 .
He served in the administration in a very senior-level job and probably knows a lot , some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it came out .
This may not matter for the impeachment trial , but if I were Trump , I would be a little worried about Bolton .
I don ’ t think this affects the bottom line — I don ’ t think Republicans will ever vote to remove Trump .
( There is a very , very small but I think plausible scenario in which they privately urge him to resign . )
But do I think it ’ s possible we have a longer trial with witnesses ?
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher than it was on Friday .
But ultimately I think still it ’ s unlikely that we get witnesses — it ’ s just not in the interests of the GOP , and they probably still have the votes to prevent it .
But a trial with witnesses would be a wild card — you never know what people will say .
ameliatd : Right , and Bolton is a much more well-known figure than any of the other people we ’ ve heard from so far .
Plus , he seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s been missing for Democrats all along : a witness who heard from Trump ’ s mouth that the aid was tied to the investigations .
Hard to see how that wouldn ’ t damage Trump in some way , even if he still gets acquitted .
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight ’ s Democratic primary forecast .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): On Sunday, The New York Times reported a bombshell from former national security adviser John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript about his time in the White House: President Trump had, in fact, wanted to withhold $391 million in assistance to Ukraine until investigations into Democrats — including Joe Biden and his son Hunter — were agreed to.
Bolton’s version of events undermined the president’s claim, which has been an important part of his defense during the impeachment process, that the decision to freeze aid to Ukraine was independent from requests that Ukraine investigate the Bidens. The reported contents of the manuscript also gave a snapshot of the kind of testimony Bolton might give if the Senate allows witnesses to be called in the trial.
The White House legal team is back in the Senate today presenting the president’s side of the case, but what should we make of Bolton’s manuscript? Does it change the calculus of the trial moving forward?
ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): Well, it certainly amps up the pressure on GOP senators to call witnesses. Bolton has been the white whale of the impeachment inquiry since last fall, since he seems to have been privy to a lot of key conversations around the Ukraine aid and the investigations. The NYT reporting just underscores how important his testimony could be.
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): My impression is that Bolton wants this known — he is willing to back up what others have testified to: The aid was tied to launching investigations. I didn’t find this too shocking — there is ample evidence aside from Bolton’s words that the Ukrainians were being asked to investigate the Bidens in exchange for the aid. But Bolton was in the White House and “has the receipts,” as the kids say.
Reactions from Senate Republicans so far also suggest that Bolton’s version of events might have some impact. The senators who were already generally supportive of having witnesses at the impeachment trial (Susan Collins and Mitt Romney in particular) are now sounding firmer in that stance. And other Republicans are also now suggesting that they could be open to calling witnesses, although they are talking about summoning Hunter and Joe Biden as well as Bolton.
ameliatd: Some GOP senators have responded defensively to the Bolton news, and that could be important, too. One critique is that he’s just trying to juice books sales; another is that he doesn’t actually need a subpoena to share what he knows (which is true!).
The thing is, if Bolton wants this information to be known, he can make it known at any time by holding a press conference. But he seems to want permission from his party to share the info, in the form of a subpoena.
sarahf: So as Perry says, we didn’t really learn anything new here in Bolton’s manuscript. Rather, Bolton’s account essentially corroborates what others from the Trump administration told House investigators last November. But unlike those other witnesses, including the former top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, and American E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Bolton was “in the room.”
Is that, in and of itself, a game changer? I guess at the very least, it probably does shift the vote count on the motion to call new witnesses. A few days ago, it didn’t seem as if Democrats were going to win over enough GOP senators to make that happen.
ameliatd: It’s an interesting question, Sarah, because Bolton is different from the witnesses we’ve heard from so far in a couple key ways: 1) He’s a political appointee (almost all of the people we heard from in November were career officials); 2) He’s a longtime Republican hawk who should have significant cred if he’s saying that what Trump did was out of bounds.
On the other hand, Bolton left the Trump administration on pretty bad terms with the president, who is denying he told Bolton that the aid was tied to the investigations.
It does feel like if this doesn’t shift the vote count for calling new witnesses, nothing will.
perry: One of the big GOP talking points has been that this is all hearsay. Except now Bolton is suggesting he heard directly from Trump that the goal was to force an investigation of the Bidens or Ukraine would not get aid. I expect Republicans will eventually just pick a new talking point, though — “executive privilege” or “Bolton was disgruntled” or something.
ameliatd: And that’s why I think it’s telling, Perry, that GOP senators are already saying this is just a play to sell copies of his book.
perry: Bolton testifying would probably be really bad for Trump — so there is very little incentive for Trump and the Republicans to have him testify.
sarahf: Right, and Trump definitely seems to be busy already sowing seeds for a defense that Bolton is disgruntled/untrustworthy, saying that he never discussed this with Bolton.
perry: As always, the key players here on whether we hear from new witnesses are the Republicans from swing states: Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Collins, along with Trump-skeptical senators like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Romney. In my view, they need to find a way to placate Trump and his base but also their state’s more centrist voters. I don’t know what that looks like.
ameliatd: Yeah, and even though Republican support for calling new witnesses has gone down since the end of December — according to our polling with Ipsos, using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel — 41 percent of Republicans still want new witnesses. (Of course, they could have witnesses other than Bolton in mind, like the Bidens.)
I guess my somewhat cynical take on this is similar to Perry’s — except for the people who were already apt to vote for witnesses, Republicans might just find other reasons to avoid calling Bolton. And frankly, I think the way Bolton has handled this makes that easier for them to do.
sarahf: So Amelia, you don’t think this tips the scale in terms of calling new witnesses?
ameliatd: I mean, I think it’s hard to predict right now. It’s totally possible that the balance does tip and we see more senators voting for witnesses. But GOP senators are already questioning Bolton’s motivations from a number of angles, and it’s not like their defenses of Trump have been especially consistent or logically cohesive to this point.
sarahf: My thought is that this is about as bad as news can get for Trump. This isn’t someone with secondhand knowledge alleging he withheld aid for politically motivated reasons. It’s a close former adviser with firsthand knowledge of these conversations. I think this now forces Republicans’ hand and they’ll have to call him.
Although, to be clear, I think there are still ways Republicans can spin this so it’s not a total defeat. Take Sen. Lindsay Graham. He’s now saying “all relevant witnesses” should be called, including ones Trump has requested, which I read as code for Biden.
perry: One of the unknowns is here whether Democrats will agree to one of the Bidens testifying if Bolton and others who will make Trump look bad are asked to testify.
ameliatd: Right, I don’t see a world where we only get Bolton, if witnesses are called. Some GOP senators have been pushing this “witness reciprocity” (Bolton-for-Bidens) line for a while, so it’s not surprising to see that resurfacing.
perry: What a move by Bolton. He is now going to join the likes of James Comey, Robert Mueller, Jeff Flake and others who are fairly conservative and were once in pretty good standing with the Republican Party, but then criticized Trump and were condemned by their former allies. Bolton was a fixture on Fox News before he joined the administration. Those days are probably over. He will be cast as part of “The Resistance” now.
And this will be another illustration of where today’s conservative moment is headed: You either support whatever Trump does or you aren’t going to remain in good standing at major conservative power centers , like Capitol Hill and Fox News.
We should note two other things: 1. The recording that came out last week in which Trump seems to be ordering the firing of Marie Yovanovitch, who was then the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and 2. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo getting into a tense dispute with an NPR reporter who asked him about Yovanovitch and the circumstances of her recall from Ukraine. There are a lot of people tied to Trump involved in this Ukraine controversy who are not doing a particularly good job defending Trump, or, in Bolton’s case, not defending him at all.
The Democrats can’t keep this trial going forever. But it does look like evidence is going to keep coming out that makes Trump look worse, so they must be trying to figure out how to keep this trial going on beyond this week. And the Republicans have to be thinking that witnesses are a net negative for them, even if they get Hunter or Joe Biden to testify.
ameliatd: I will add also that the Republicans/Trump administration have been pushing the idea that Bolton’s testimony could be covered by executive privilege, which would snarl things up in the courts. They could certainly try that tack, but executive privilege claims are on shakier footing legally as more of this information comes out publicly. And also, if a majority of senators vote to subpoena Bolton and he wants to testify, it could be very hard for Trump to stop him.
sarahf: Tell us a little bit more about how that would work, Amelia. It seems to me that the administration could do what you’re describing, but they risk making a pretty unpopular move.
Because we’ve found in our own polling with Ipsos that a majority (59 percent) of Americans still want to hear new witnesses, and ABC News/Washington Post found in their latest poll that 66 percent of Americans favor the Senate calling new witnesses — and that was before the Bolton development. I have to imagine that number goes up.
ameliatd: Executive privilege is a pretty ill-defined power that presidents use to keep internal communications secret. In some cases, it has protected senior White House aides from responding to a subpoena. But those people were also unwilling to testify. The Trump administration could try to get a court to issue a restraining order preventing Bolton from testifying, but we’d be headed into unprecedented legal territory if that happens. And it’s not even clear that what Bolton would share would be covered under executive privilege to begin with.
It’s also possible that the courts would be less inclined to rule in the executive branch’s favor during an impeachment trial.
And then of course, there’s the fact that it looks pretty bad if Trump keeps someone with clearly relevant information from testifying. On the other hand, he’s been doing that for months and it hasn’t shifted the needle. But maybe Bolton is different, especially if he’s out in public making a ruckus about what he knows and how he wants to share it.
sarahf: Right, and I suppose the other thing here is: say Trump’s legal team did go down this path … it doesn’t stop Bolton from publishing his memoir, right? Though, I suppose the administration could push to exclude certain excerpts during the standard review process. It just seems as if from a PR point of view, we’re past that point, and so now the Trump team’s best of course action is to discredit Bolton, as they have tried to do with the other witnesses.
Assuming we do hear from Bolton because the Senate decides to call new witnesses, how could this change things? Does it cause some Republicans reconsider their vote to acquit Trump?
perry: Yeah, Bolton I think is unique in that: 1. My impression is that he doesn’t like Trump and wants this fight. 2. He served in the administration in a very senior-level job and probably knows a lot, some of which would be embarrassing for Trump if it came out. This may not matter for the impeachment trial, but if I were Trump, I would be a little worried about Bolton.
I don’t think this affects the bottom line — I don’t think Republicans will ever vote to remove Trump. (There is a very, very small but I think plausible scenario in which they privately urge him to resign.) But do I think it’s possible we have a longer trial with witnesses? Yes, and I think that possibility is much higher than it was on Friday.
But ultimately I think still it’s unlikely that we get witnesses — it’s just not in the interests of the GOP, and they probably still have the votes to prevent it. But a trial with witnesses would be a wild card — you never know what people will say.
ameliatd: Right, and Bolton is a much more well-known figure than any of the other people we’ve heard from so far. Plus, he seems like he could fill in the piece that’s been missing for Democrats all along: a witness who heard from Trump’s mouth that the aid was tied to the investigations.
Hard to see how that wouldn’t damage Trump in some way, even if he still gets acquitted.
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight’s Democratic primary forecast.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-28--Half Of Americans Think Impeachment Is A Bad Use Of Congress’s Time

Two months ago , we set out to track how Americans are responding to President Trump ’ s impeachment in real time .
And what we ’ ve found in our polling with Ipsos , where we interview the same group of respondents every few weeks using Ipsos ’ s KnowledgePanel , is that while a majority of Americans do think Trump committed an impeachable offense , not many are changing their minds on impeachment .
The partisan splits on the impeachment process run deep , and , if anything , the public is only becoming more divided .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for understanding the political stakes for the senators who will soon be voting on whether to acquit or convict the president , don ’ t necessarily tell us much about how Americans are feeling about impeachment .
So to try to capture some of the emotions churning beneath the surface , we asked our respondents whether they thought the impeachment process was a good or bad use of Congress ’ s time and had them give us a few words they would use to describe the impeachment process .
Many Americans don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time on impeachment , but there is a pretty big split between Democrats and Republicans on this question .
Overall , a slight majority ( 51 percent ) of Americans say the process is a bad use of Congress ’ s time , while 45 percent say it ’ s a good use of time .
But only 25 percent of Democrats say the process has been a bad use of time , compared with 85 percent of Republicans who say the same .
Among those who said impeachment was a bad use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ) said that it ’ s because the process distracts Congress from more important issues .
Another 33 percent said it ’ s because Trump didn ’ t commit an impeachable offense .
For those who thought impeachment has been a good use of Congress ’ s time , a majority ( 55 percent ) said it ’ s because it ’ s Congress ’ s job to investigate potential wrongdoing by the president .
We also asked respondents an open-ended question that allowed them to share a few words for how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the most recent wave of our survey , 24 percent of Republicans mentioned “ waste ” in their description of the impeachment process , a notable increase over the last two waves , when around 17 percent of GOP respondents used the word .
The words mentioned by Democrats , meanwhile , have been all over the map , with “ necessary ” and “ Trump ” showing up the most — but not nearly as frequently as “ waste ” did among Republicans .
It is likely not a coincidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a phrase that Trump and his allies frequently use to describe the impeachment process .
The news coverage of the impeachment process may also be driving some of what we see in our data .
For example , respondents in our survey who said they mostly watched Fox News were much likelier than those who got their news from other sources to describe impeachment as a “ waste.
” “ Sham , ” “ witch hunt ” and “ stupid ” — all fixtures of Trump ’ s impeachment vocabulary — appeared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question .
It ’ s hard , of course , to know whether the growing perception among Republicans that impeachment is a “ waste ” is connected to some of the other trends we ’ ve seen in our polling with Ipsos , including the fact that Republicans ’ support for Trump has grown , along with their skepticism about key elements of the Democrats ’ case against the president .
But together , these trends indicate that over the past few months , at least some additional Republicans have fallen into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as the chart below shows , Republicans are increasingly likely to use similar words to describe the impeachment process as compared to Democrats , who remain much less cohesive .
Democrats ’ most common responses are also noteworthy for what they didn ’ t include .
Words linked to the substance of the charges against Trump , like “ Ukraine ” or “ quid pro quo , ” weren ’ t among those that were most frequently mentioned by Democrats .
Instead , common descriptions hinged on the length of the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) , the figure at the center of the drama ( “ Trump ” and “ president ” ) , or the reasons for its existence ( “ necessary ” and “ justice ” ) .
And about 5 percent of Democrats also used the word “ waste ” to describe impeachment , perhaps reflecting the not-insignificant number who think the process has been a bad use of Congress ’ s time .
Polls can only tell us so much , of course , about how people are feeling — even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their own words .
But these findings do give us a window into how people on both sides of the impeachment debate are absorbing the process — and how they might continue to think about it after the final Senate vote is tallied .
If nothing else , the fact that “ waste , ” “ Trump ” and “ partisan ” are the only words that were frequently used by both Republicans and Democrats paints a fairly bleak picture of where Americans can find common ground when it comes to impeachment @

Two months ago, we set out to track how Americans are responding to President Trump’s impeachment in real time. And what we’ve found in our polling with Ipsos, where we interview the same group of respondents every few weeks using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, is that while a majority of Americans do think Trump committed an impeachable offense, not many are changing their minds on impeachment. The partisan splits on the impeachment process run deep, and, if anything, the public is only becoming more divided.
But those top line results, while helpful for understanding the political stakes for the senators who will soon be voting on whether to acquit or convict the president, don’t necessarily tell us much about how Americans are feeling about impeachment. So to try to capture some of the emotions churning beneath the surface, we asked our respondents whether they thought the impeachment process was a good or bad use of Congress’s time and had them give us a few words they would use to describe the impeachment process.
Americans say impeachment is a bad use of time Share of respondents in a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll who said they thought the impeachment process is a bad use of Congress’s time, by party party Share All 51.2% – Democratic 24.6 – Republican 85.4 – From a poll with 1,587 respondents, conducted Jan. 17-20, 2020.
Many Americans don’t think Congress should be spending its time on impeachment, but there is a pretty big split between Democrats and Republicans on this question. Overall, a slight majority (51 percent) of Americans say the process is a bad use of Congress’s time, while 45 percent say it’s a good use of time. But only 25 percent of Democrats say the process has been a bad use of time, compared with 85 percent of Republicans who say the same.
Among those who said impeachment was a bad use of time, a plurality (39 percent) said that it’s because the process distracts Congress from more important issues. Another 33 percent said it’s because Trump didn’t commit an impeachable offense. For those who thought impeachment has been a good use of Congress’s time, a majority (55 percent) said it’s because it’s Congress’s job to investigate potential wrongdoing by the president.
Some believe impeachment is a distraction Why respondents in a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll said the impeachment process is a good or bad use of Congress’s time Reason it’s a good use of time (among 45 percent who said it’s good) share Congress’s job to investigate potential wrongdoing 55.3% Necessary response to Trump committing an impeachable offense 31.7 Brought important information about Trump to light 10.8 Might strengthen Trump’s reelection chances 1.4 reason it’s a Bad Use of time (among 51 percent who said it’s bad) share Distracts Congress from more important issues 38.7% Trump didn’t commit an impeachable offense 33.3 Trump was always unlikely to be removed by the Senate 15.2 The 2020 election is so soon 12.2 From a poll with 1,587 respondents, conducted Jan. 17-20, 2020.
We also asked respondents an open-ended question that allowed them to share a few words for how they’d describe the impeachment process. In the most recent wave of our survey, 24 percent of Republicans mentioned “waste” in their description of the impeachment process, a notable increase over the last two waves, when around 17 percent of GOP respondents used the word. The words mentioned by Democrats, meanwhile, have been all over the map, with “necessary” and “Trump” showing up the most — but not nearly as frequently as “waste” did among Republicans.
Republicans use similar words to talk about impeachment Share of respondents, by party, who used a given word in response to an open-ended question about how they’d describe the impeachment process, in a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll Democrats Republicans Word times used Percentage Word times used Percentage trump 70 8.6% waste 187 23.6% necessary 57 7.4 time 113 17.4 long 43 7.0 money 80 11.8 time 40 6.4 partisan 78 9.5 waste 34 4.5 political 78 9.2 slow 25 4.3 stupid 52 7.6 partisan 39 4.2 democrats 53 7.5 president 35 3.9 witch hunt 51 7.2 trial 24 3.5 trump 42 5.8 justice 23 3.3 sham 34 5.1 From a poll conducted Jan. 17-20, 2020, with 1,587 respondents.
It is likely not a coincidence that “waste of time” is a phrase that Trump and his allies frequently use to describe the impeachment process. The news coverage of the impeachment process may also be driving some of what we see in our data. For example, respondents in our survey who said they mostly watched Fox News were much likelier than those who got their news from other sources to describe impeachment as a “waste.” “Sham,” “witch hunt” and “stupid” — all fixtures of Trump’s impeachment vocabulary — appeared with some regularity in Republicans’ responses to the question.
It’s hard, of course, to know whether the growing perception among Republicans that impeachment is a “waste” is connected to some of the other trends we’ve seen in our polling with Ipsos, including the fact that Republicans’ support for Trump has grown, along with their skepticism about key elements of the Democrats’ case against the president. But together, these trends indicate that over the past few months, at least some additional Republicans have fallen into line behind Trump. In fact, and as the chart below shows, Republicans are increasingly likely to use similar words to describe the impeachment process as compared to Democrats, who remain much less cohesive.
Democrats’ most common responses are also noteworthy for what they didn’t include. Words linked to the substance of the charges against Trump, like “Ukraine” or “quid pro quo,” weren’t among those that were most frequently mentioned by Democrats. Instead, common descriptions hinged on the length of the process (“long” and “slow”), the figure at the center of the drama (“Trump” and “president”), or the reasons for its existence (“necessary” and “justice”). And about 5 percent of Democrats also used the word “waste” to describe impeachment, perhaps reflecting the not-insignificant number who think the process has been a bad use of Congress’s time.
Polls can only tell us so much, of course, about how people are feeling — even when respondents are allowed to describe their perspective in their own words. But these findings do give us a window into how people on both sides of the impeachment debate are absorbing the process — and how they might continue to think about it after the final Senate vote is tallied. If nothing else, the fact that “waste,” “Trump” and “partisan” are the only words that were frequently used by both Republicans and Democrats paints a fairly bleak picture of where Americans can find common ground when it comes to impeachment.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-28--The 2020 Endorsement Race Is Getting Interesting

If you ’ ve been following endorsements of the 2020 Democratic primary field , the biggest thing that stands out is the lack of them , as my colleague Geoffrey Skelley wrote recently .
Joe Biden has far more endorsement points than any other candidate , per FiveThirtyEight ’ s endorsement tracker , but the majority of major figures in the Democratic Party haven ’ t gotten behind anyone .
But as more and more endorsements have trickled in , some interesting patterns have begun to emerge .
The Democratic Party has fissures along generational , ideological and racial lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see those in whom officials are aligning themselves with .
Moreover , we have enough endorsements now to start making some tentative hypotheses about how this year ’ s candidates are viewed by the party elite .
So here are some interesting trends I ’ ve noticed in the endorsement race so far : 1 .
Iowa and New Hampshire ’ s political classes aren ’ t excited about Biden or Bernie Sanders Among the Democratic state legislators in Iowa who have endorsed a candidate , Amy Klobuchar ( 17 ) and Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Biden ( 11 ) , Pete Buttigieg ( 6 ) and Sanders ( 1 ) , according to Iowa Starting Line .
Warren has the most endorsements among state legislators in New Hampshire , per a list compiled by University of Houston political scientist Boris Shor .
And the biggest papers in those states have endorsed one of the two female senators too — the Des Moines Register backed Warren ; the Manchester Union-Leader backed Klobuchar .
What ’ s going on here ?
After all , Biden and Sanders lead in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New Hampshire polls too .
Warren is fourth in polls of the first two states , and Klobuchar is fifth .
But the strength of Klobuchar and Warren among elected officials and political power brokers in Iowa and New Hampshire is another illustration of what seems to have happened more broadly in the 2020 Democratic primary : Voters have essentially foisted Biden and Sanders onto the party — basically the reverse of what ( arguably ) happened in 2016 , when the Democratic Party establishment mobilized behind Hillary Clinton but the voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The huge field of candidates at the start of the 2020 process reflected the wariness of Democratic elites of both Biden and Sanders .
These Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic officials probably both expected and hoped that the party ’ s voters would eventually move away from Biden and Sanders .
That sentiment is also reflected in the New York Times ’ s recent decision to endorse both Klobuchar and Warren — essentially a rejection of Biden and Sanders , the two frontrunners .
There ’ s “ less drive to pick a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year who the winner actually will be ” in Iowa , said Pat Rynard , managing editor of Iowa Starting Line , explaining why officials in Iowa might feel free to back candidates who aren ’ t polling that high .
Perhaps these endorsements are capturing something that polls aren ’ t , and either Klobuchar or Warren , or both , will finish in the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire .
Maybe one will win one or both of the states .
Both races are still wide open .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like a big bloc of Democratic voters in Iowa and nationally don ’ t see anything wrong with Biden and Sanders — even if some party elites are hinting that they should .
2 .
In Washington , centrist Democrats really don ’ t want Warren or Sanders … or Buttigieg or Klobuchar In the U.S. House , Democrats have three main ideological blocs : the Congressional Progressive Caucus , with 95 House members ( representing the party ’ s most liberal wing ) ; the center-left New Democratic Coalition , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dogs , with 25 members ( Democrats ’ most conservative bloc ) .
I ’ ve also been keeping an eye on the 51-member Congressional Black Caucus , the 34-member Hispanic Caucus and the 30 Democratic House members who represent districts that President Trump won in 2016 .
Unsurprisingly , Biden is leading among the New Democrats ( 20 of 34 ) and the Blue Dogs ( 4 of 7 ) who have chosen a candidate .
Reflecting the ideological split in the party , Sanders and Warren have just one endorsement from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns of center-left Democrats that Sanders and Warren ’ s liberalism would hurt the party electorally , none of the Trump-district House Democrats have endorsed Sanders or Warren .
( Six are with Biden , one with Michael Bloomberg , another with Buttigieg . )
Warren ( 11 ) has the most endorsements among the 26 Progressive Caucus members who have backed a candidate .
But seven progressives , including the group ’ s two leaders , Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin , are supporting Sanders .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether decidedly-liberal-but-still-establishment Democratic Party figures , including members of the Progressive Caucus , will mobilize behind Warren or Sanders if either wins Iowa and New Hampshire — or if they would echo the concerns of more centrist Democrats that the policy visions of those two are too electorally risky .
Somewhat surprisingly , Biden also has seven endorsements from the progressives .
That might be a sign that Biden is more a consensus candidate among the party ’ s powerbrokers than Sanders or Warren , since they have so little support from more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinforces the argument of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who has suggested that the Progressive Caucus is too ideologically diverse , and that she and very liberal Democrats should create their own bloc .
Third , five of the seven progressives behind Biden are black or Latino , which illustrates how race is playing a bigger role than ideology in this race in some ways .
Speaking of … Biden has by far the most endorsements from CBC House members ( 15 of 19 ) , and also leads among Hispanic members ( 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is generally considered the fourth top-tier candidate in this race , isn ’ t doing particularly well with any of the House factions : He doesn ’ t have a single endorsement from the Hispanic Caucus members or the Blue Dogs ; he has one from a Progressive Caucus member , one from the CBC , one from a member in a Trump district and four among the New Democrats .
Klobuchar is doing even worse — she doesn ’ t have a single House endorsement outside of her colleagues in the Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking pretty good When Bloomberg entered the race on Nov. 24 , it seemed a bit odd at the time : Buttigieg seemed to be successfully filling the space for a candidate to the right of Sanders or Warren but also not Biden .
But perhaps Bloomberg was savvy to jump in .
Despite starting nine months after the South Bend mayor entered the race , the Bloomberg campaign has shown signs of life nationally .
That ’ s showing up in the polls and endorsements .
Bloomberg is essentially tied in national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been able to match his relatively strong polling numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire outside of those states .
And while Bloomberg doesn ’ t have a lot of endorsements , neither does Buttigieg .
Bloomberg is running neck-and-neck with the former South Bend mayor , per the FiveThirtyEight tracker , and he ’ s not that far behind Sanders and Klobuchar .
Similarly , Tom Steyer is making some noise in Nevada and South Carolina .
Steyer is in fourth place in both states , according to our forecasts — ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count from the Charleston-based Post and Courier , has the backing of six state legislators in South Carolina — significantly more than Warren ( 2 ) or Buttigieg ( 0 ) .
The results in Iowa and New Hampshire might lift Buttigieg or Warren , or maybe the first two states will cement Biden ’ s frontrunner status .
In that world , Bloomberg and Steyer would regret not competing harder in the first two states .
But right now , the two billionaires ’ strategy is working — no doubt aided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are spending way more than the other candidates on television ads , and all of those commercials may be boosting their standings .
Secondly , if you are a Democratic official considering which candidate to endorse , it ’ s hard to ignore the obvious : If Bloomberg or Steyer is not elected president , they will still have millions of dollars and a demonstrated interest in spending it on politics .
It ’ s probably smart to get on their good sides .
Several of the cities run by mayors who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s various philanthropic projects , , some of which invest millions of dollars in initiatives at the city level .
“ The fact is Steyer has invested a ton of resources in South Carolina , not just on TV and digital ( though it is impossible to turn on a TV or YouTube in South Carolina these days without seeing his face ) , but also with a huge and well-paid staff , including a lot of field organizers , ” said Jamie Lovegrove , a political reporter at the Post and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic coalition are divided or on the sidelines Finally , I just want to return to the point we started with : The absence of consensus in the Democratic Party .
The black left is anti-Biden but also not unified behind someone .
The broader Democratic left is also anti-Biden , but split between Warren and Sanders .
The anti-Trump resistance groups like Indivisible can ’ t agree on a candidate , so they haven ’ t endorsed anyone .
Sanders has the most labor unions backing him , but many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or are supporting Biden .
For good measure , Never Trump Republicans willing to back a Democrat haven ’ t really gotten behind a single candidate , although they are largely unified against one ( Sanders . )
Again , my colleague Geoff wrote about this point in more detail , but it ’ s worth emphasizing : Most parts of the Democratic coalition have been unable to reach a real consensus on a candidate , basically leaving it up to the voters .
To conclude , as the pre-voting endorsement period winds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important takeaway : the struggles of Buttigieg and Warren to build broader support among party elites .
Sanders has been essentially running a campaign against the Democratic Party establishment for five years , so it ’ s not surprising at all that party officials are not rushing to endorse him .
Many party elites have doubts about Biden , which is why the party ’ s ex-vice president wasn ’ t able to clear the field at the start .
Accordingly , there was an opening for a candidate to be embraced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Buttigieg and Warren in particular have been trying to position themselves as fresher faces who could appeal to a broad range of groups .
But so far , some blocs in the party have rejected them aggressively — in ways that likely convinced other blocs of Democrats that those candidates could not unify the party .
When Warren nearly caught up in polls with Biden in late October , centrist figures in the party emphasized their concerns about her leftism and ability to win the general election .
Buttigieg surged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black Democrats blasted him so hard that it would have been difficult for many prominent white Democrats to endorse him without being viewed as racially insensitive .
And they did not .
The party hasn ’ t really chosen Biden , but it definitely hasn ’ t chosen Sanders , Buttigieg or Warren either .
So the race is likely to be wide open as voting gets underway .
The polls suggest that ’ s a good thing for Sanders and especially Biden .

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

If you’ve been following endorsements of the 2020 Democratic primary field, the biggest thing that stands out is the lack of them, as my colleague Geoffrey Skelley wrote recently. Joe Biden has far more endorsement points than any other candidate, per FiveThirtyEight’s endorsement tracker, but the majority of major figures in the Democratic Party haven’t gotten behind anyone.
But as more and more endorsements have trickled in, some interesting patterns have begun to emerge. The Democratic Party has fissures along generational, ideological and racial lines, and you’re beginning to see those in whom officials are aligning themselves with. Moreover, we have enough endorsements now to start making some tentative hypotheses about how this year’s candidates are viewed by the party elite.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
So here are some interesting trends I’ve noticed in the endorsement race so far:
1. Iowa and New Hampshire’s political classes aren’t excited about Biden or Bernie Sanders
Among the Democratic state legislators in Iowa who have endorsed a candidate, Amy Klobuchar (17) and Elizabeth Warren (12) lead, followed by Biden (11), Pete Buttigieg (6) and Sanders (1), according to Iowa Starting Line. Warren has the most endorsements among state legislators in New Hampshire, per a list compiled by University of Houston political scientist Boris Shor. And the biggest papers in those states have endorsed one of the two female senators too — the Des Moines Register backed Warren; the Manchester Union-Leader backed Klobuchar.
What’s going on here? After all, Biden and Sanders lead in national polls. They lead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls too. Warren is fourth in polls of the first two states, and Klobuchar is fifth.
But the strength of Klobuchar and Warren among elected officials and political power brokers in Iowa and New Hampshire is another illustration of what seems to have happened more broadly in the 2020 Democratic primary: Voters have essentially foisted Biden and Sanders onto the party — basically the reverse of what (arguably) happened in 2016, when the Democratic Party establishment mobilized behind Hillary Clinton but the voters weren’t totally on board.
Do Parties Or Voters Choose Presidential Nominees?
The huge field of candidates at the start of the 2020 process reflected the wariness of Democratic elites of both Biden and Sanders. These Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic officials probably both expected and hoped that the party’s voters would eventually move away from Biden and Sanders. That sentiment is also reflected in the New York Times’s recent decision to endorse both Klobuchar and Warren — essentially a rejection of Biden and Sanders, the two frontrunners.
There’s “less drive to pick a winner since it’s so unclear this year who the winner actually will be” in Iowa, said Pat Rynard, managing editor of Iowa Starting Line, explaining why officials in Iowa might feel free to back candidates who aren’t polling that high.
Perhaps these endorsements are capturing something that polls aren’t, and either Klobuchar or Warren, or both, will finish in the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire. Maybe one will win one or both of the states. Both races are still wide open. But at least right now, it looks like a big bloc of Democratic voters in Iowa and nationally don’t see anything wrong with Biden and Sanders — even if some party elites are hinting that they should.
2. In Washington, centrist Democrats really don’t want Warren or Sanders … or Buttigieg or Klobuchar
In the U.S. House, Democrats have three main ideological blocs: the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with 95 House members (representing the party’s most liberal wing); the center-left New Democratic Coalition, which has 102 members; and the Blue Dogs, with 25 members (Democrats’ most conservative bloc). I’ve also been keeping an eye on the 51-member Congressional Black Caucus, the 34-member Hispanic Caucus and the 30 Democratic House members who represent districts that President Trump won in 2016.
Unsurprisingly, Biden is leading among the New Democrats (20 of 34) and the Blue Dogs (4 of 7) who have chosen a candidate. Reflecting the ideological split in the party, Sanders and Warren have just one endorsement from those groups combined. And illustrating the concerns of center-left Democrats that Sanders and Warren’s liberalism would hurt the party electorally, none of the Trump-district House Democrats have endorsed Sanders or Warren. (Six are with Biden, one with Michael Bloomberg, another with Buttigieg.)
Warren (11) has the most endorsements among the 26 Progressive Caucus members who have backed a candidate. But seven progressives, including the group’s two leaders, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, are supporting Sanders. One of the big questions in this race is whether decidedly-liberal-but-still-establishment Democratic Party figures, including members of the Progressive Caucus, will mobilize behind Warren or Sanders if either wins Iowa and New Hampshire — or if they would echo the concerns of more centrist Democrats that the policy visions of those two are too electorally risky.
Somewhat surprisingly, Biden also has seven endorsements from the progressives. That might be a sign that Biden is more a consensus candidate among the party’s powerbrokers than Sanders or Warren, since they have so little support from more centrist figures. Secondly, it probably reinforces the argument of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has suggested that the Progressive Caucus is too ideologically diverse, and that she and very liberal Democrats should create their own bloc. Third, five of the seven progressives behind Biden are black or Latino, which illustrates how race is playing a bigger role than ideology in this race in some ways.
Speaking of … Biden has by far the most endorsements from CBC House members (15 of 19), and also leads among Hispanic members (4 of 9).
Buttigieg, who is generally considered the fourth top-tier candidate in this race, isn’t doing particularly well with any of the House factions: He doesn’t have a single endorsement from the Hispanic Caucus members or the Blue Dogs; he has one from a Progressive Caucus member, one from the CBC, one from a member in a Trump district and four among the New Democrats. Klobuchar is doing even worse — she doesn’t have a single House endorsement outside of her colleagues in the Minnesota delegation.
3. The billionaires are looking pretty good
When Bloomberg entered the race on Nov. 24, it seemed a bit odd at the time: Buttigieg seemed to be successfully filling the space for a candidate to the right of Sanders or Warren but also not Biden. But perhaps Bloomberg was savvy to jump in. Despite starting nine months after the South Bend mayor entered the race, the Bloomberg campaign has shown signs of life nationally. That’s showing up in the polls and endorsements.
Bloomberg is essentially tied in national polls with Buttigieg, who has not been able to match his relatively strong polling numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire outside of those states. And while Bloomberg doesn’t have a lot of endorsements, neither does Buttigieg. Bloomberg is running neck-and-neck with the former South Bend mayor, per the FiveThirtyEight tracker, and he’s not that far behind Sanders and Klobuchar.
Similarly, Tom Steyer is making some noise in Nevada and South Carolina. Steyer is in fourth place in both states, according to our forecasts — ahead of Buttigieg. Steyer, according to a count from the Charleston-based Post and Courier, has the backing of six state legislators in South Carolina — significantly more than Warren (2) or Buttigieg (0).
The results in Iowa and New Hampshire might lift Buttigieg or Warren, or maybe the first two states will cement Biden’s frontrunner status. In that world, Bloomberg and Steyer would regret not competing harder in the first two states.
But right now, the two billionaires’ strategy is working — no doubt aided by their money. Both Bloomberg and Steyer are spending way more than the other candidates on television ads, and all of those commercials may be boosting their standings.
Secondly, if you are a Democratic official considering which candidate to endorse, it’s hard to ignore the obvious: If Bloomberg or Steyer is not elected president, they will still have millions of dollars and a demonstrated interest in spending it on politics. It’s probably smart to get on their good sides. Several of the cities run by mayors who have endorsed Bloomberg have received money from Bloomberg’s various philanthropic projects, , some of which invest millions of dollars in initiatives at the city level.
“The fact is Steyer has invested a ton of resources in South Carolina, not just on TV and digital (though it is impossible to turn on a TV or YouTube in South Carolina these days without seeing his face), but also with a huge and well-paid staff, including a lot of field organizers,” said Jamie Lovegrove, a political reporter at the Post and Courier.
4. Many key parts of the Democratic coalition are divided or on the sidelines
Finally, I just want to return to the point we started with: The absence of consensus in the Democratic Party.
The black left is anti-Biden but also not unified behind someone. The broader Democratic left is also anti-Biden, but split between Warren and Sanders. The anti-Trump resistance groups like Indivisible can’t agree on a candidate, so they haven’t endorsed anyone. Sanders has the most labor unions backing him, but many big unions are either not endorsing anyone or are supporting Biden. For good measure, Never Trump Republicans willing to back a Democrat haven’t really gotten behind a single candidate, although they are largely unified against one (Sanders.)
Again, my colleague Geoff wrote about this point in more detail, but it’s worth emphasizing: Most parts of the Democratic coalition have been unable to reach a real consensus on a candidate, basically leaving it up to the voters.
To conclude, as the pre-voting endorsement period winds down, I think there is one important takeaway: the struggles of Buttigieg and Warren to build broader support among party elites.
Sanders has been essentially running a campaign against the Democratic Party establishment for five years, so it’s not surprising at all that party officials are not rushing to endorse him. Many party elites have doubts about Biden, which is why the party’s ex-vice president wasn’t able to clear the field at the start. Accordingly, there was an opening for a candidate to be embraced by a lot of factions in the party, and Buttigieg and Warren in particular have been trying to position themselves as fresher faces who could appeal to a broad range of groups.
But so far, some blocs in the party have rejected them aggressively — in ways that likely convinced other blocs of Democrats that those candidates could not unify the party. When Warren nearly caught up in polls with Biden in late October, centrist figures in the party emphasized their concerns about her leftism and ability to win the general election. Buttigieg surged in Iowa a few weeks later, and black Democrats blasted him so hard that it would have been difficult for many prominent white Democrats to endorse him without being viewed as racially insensitive. And they did not.
The party hasn’t really chosen Biden, but it definitely hasn’t chosen Sanders, Buttigieg or Warren either. So the race is likely to be wide open as voting gets underway. The polls suggest that’s a good thing for Sanders and especially Biden.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-28--The Senate Trial Will Likely Be The Least Important Part Of Impeachment Today

Today is the third and probably final day of presentations by President Trump ’ s defense in the U.S. Senate impeachment trial .
The first two days of legal arguments by Trump ’ s team — on Saturday and Monday — haven ’ t offered anything particularly new if you ’ ve been following this story ; Trump ’ s defense has largely echoed the talking points made by fellow Republicans over the last few months .
So I ’ m not expecting anything especially noteworthy to happen on camera on the Senate floor on Tuesday .
Instead , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like among Republicans on cable news and online , and looking for any news coming out of private discussions among elected GOP officials .
The New York Times reported on Sunday night that Bolton , Trump ’ s former national security adviser , says in a manuscript for his forthcoming book that Trump directly told him that military aid to Ukraine was being withheld unless the Ukrainians committed to investigate the Bidens .
Republicans had seemed on track to vote against allowing witness testimony in the Senate trial as soon as Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquittal of Trump .
The Bolton news has thrown a wrench into all that .
On Monday , some Republican senators mused privately and even publicly about allowing some witnesses and sounded reluctant to end the trial without any such testimony in light of Bolton ’ s manuscript and potential information .
By Monday night , Fox News was blasting Bolton , who used to be a regular on-air guest at the network .
Prominent Republicans were hinting on Twitter that Bolton leaked the book ’ s contents to damage Trump at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story published by the New York Times , on Monday night , said that Bolton ’ s book also details his concerns that the president was , “ granting personal favors to the autocratic leaders of Turkey and China , ” according to the paper .
Bolton thought Trump was making foreign policy decisions to help his business properties .
And Bolton , while in government , brought his concerns to Attorney General William Barr , according to The Times .
So Republicans will have to decide whether and how to alter their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That decision-making won ’ t take place at the trial , but it ’ s really the next big potential inflection point in this process .
Either way , the trial might get more interesting once Trump ’ s defense finishes .
There is a 16-hour session that will likely take place on Wednesday and Thursday in which senators can ask questions of both the House impeachment managers and Trump ’ s defense team .
Then , potentially on Friday , senators will vote on whether there should be more witnesses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they vote “ no , ” then it ’ s likely that a final vote on Trump ’ s removal from office would take place on Friday too .
So John Bolton is the story of the impeachment process right now .
I expect Republicans will start in earnest on Tuesday trying to find ways to both ensure he doesn ’ t end up testifying , while also trying to avoid Republican senators in swing states having to directly vote against him testifying .
Voting against witness testimony is likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the information that Bolton seems to have .
Watch for Democrats to focus on Bolton , in the hopes that either he testifies , or that Republicans look really bad if they prevent it .
This is the first in a series of regular , short updates on the impeachment process .
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight ’ s Democratic primary forecast .

Today is the third and probably final day of presentations by President Trump’s defense in the U.S. Senate impeachment trial. The first two days of legal arguments by Trump’s team — on Saturday and Monday — haven’t offered anything particularly new if you’ve been following this story; Trump’s defense has largely echoed the talking points made by fellow Republicans over the last few months.
So I’m not expecting anything especially noteworthy to happen on camera on the Senate floor on Tuesday. Instead, I’ll be watching what the conversation looks like among Republicans on cable news and online, and looking for any news coming out of private discussions among elected GOP officials.
The reason: John Bolton.
The New York Times reported on Sunday night that Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, says in a manuscript for his forthcoming book that Trump directly told him that military aid to Ukraine was being withheld unless the Ukrainians committed to investigate the Bidens. Republicans had seemed on track to vote against allowing witness testimony in the Senate trial as soon as Friday, and then proceed towards an immediate acquittal of Trump. The Bolton news has thrown a wrench into all that.
On Monday, some Republican senators mused privately and even publicly about allowing some witnesses and sounded reluctant to end the trial without any such testimony in light of Bolton’s manuscript and potential information.
By Monday night, Fox News was blasting Bolton, who used to be a regular on-air guest at the network. Prominent Republicans were hinting on Twitter that Bolton leaked the book’s contents to damage Trump at the worst possible time. Meanwhile, another story published by the New York Times, on Monday night, said that Bolton’s book also details his concerns that the president was, “granting personal favors to the autocratic leaders of Turkey and China,” according to the paper. Bolton thought Trump was making foreign policy decisions to help his business properties. And Bolton, while in government, brought his concerns to Attorney General William Barr, according to The Times.
So Republicans will have to decide whether and how to alter their strategy in light of the Bolton news. That decision-making won’t take place at the trial, but it’s really the next big potential inflection point in this process.
Either way, the trial might get more interesting once Trump’s defense finishes. There is a 16-hour session that will likely take place on Wednesday and Thursday in which senators can ask questions of both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team. Then, potentially on Friday, senators will vote on whether there should be more witnesses and additional documents provided for the trial. If they vote “no,” then it’s likely that a final vote on Trump’s removal from office would take place on Friday too.
So John Bolton is the story of the impeachment process right now. I expect Republicans will start in earnest on Tuesday trying to find ways to both ensure he doesn’t end up testifying, while also trying to avoid Republican senators in swing states having to directly vote against him testifying. Voting against witness testimony is likely to be unpopular with the public in light of the information that Bolton seems to have. Watch for Democrats to focus on Bolton, in the hopes that either he testifies, or that Republicans look really bad if they prevent it.
This is the first in a series of regular, short updates on the impeachment process.
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight’s Democratic primary forecast.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-28--Why These Might Be The Most Competitive Iowa Caucuses Ever

We ’ re now less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses , and the contest there can best be described as a four-way race .
As of Tuesday morning , former Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren were all clustered within about 8 percentage points of each other in our average of the state ’ s polls , with Sanders and Biden at 22 percent , Buttigieg at 17 percent and Warren at 14 percent .
Given just how close things are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t give anyone more than a 36 percent chance of winning the caucuses next week .
This got us thinking : How unusual is it for the field to have this many candidates within a few points of each other ?
Answer : It ’ s pretty unusual .
[ Our Latest Forecast : Who will win the Iowa caucuses ? ]
Using our forecast ’ s historical Iowa polling averages from the week before the caucuses in each presidential election since 1980 , we found that the 2020 contest not only has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points of the polling leader , but also is tied for the most candidates polling at or above 15 percent , with one candidate polling just under that threshold .
As you can see in this table , while there were three candidates within 10 points of the Iowa leader ( counting the leader themselves ) in both the 2008 Democratic primary and the 2012 GOP primary , there ’ s never been a primary where four candidates were clustered so tightly until 2020 .
This isn ’ t to say the 2008 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their own right .
In the 2008 Democratic contest , then-Sen. Hillary Clinton was in first , averaging 30 percent in the polls a week before the caucuses , while then-Sen. Barack Obama had 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards had 22 percent .
And four years later in the 2012 GOP race , Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov .
Mitt Romney were essentially tied at about 21 percent each , while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had about 15 percent .
But even setting aside that there are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever before , there are two other things that make the 2020 Democratic race in Iowa especially close .
First , Sanders , whose Iowa polling average is just a hair ahead of Biden ’ s , isn ’ t polling that high for a front-runner .
At 22.6 percent , he has the second-lowest polling average for a leading candidate one week before the caucuses .
( Paul sat at 21.5 percent in 2012 . )
Second , there are three contenders polling above 15 percent , which is tied for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a fourth candidate , Warren , is just short of the 15 percent mark , so this year ’ s caucuses could produce a historic result : Since the start of the modern primary era there ’ s never been a major-party contest in Iowa where more than three candidates won at least 15 percent of the vote statewide .
Moreover , since 1992 , when the Democratic Party implemented some of the rules that continue to define its nomination races , there has not been a single Democratic primary or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which more than three candidates have won at least 15 percent of the vote statewide .
Although Warren has fallen slightly below the 15 percent mark , she also just got an endorsement from the Des Moines Register , which might help her reverse her polling slide in the state .
So if Sanders , Biden , Buttigieg and Warren all go on to finish above 15 percent , it would be a first .
However , the Democrats ’ caucus rules could make it tough for four candidates to clear that 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates must clear a “ viability ” threshold , typically 15 percent of the votes at the caucus site , in order to advance .
If they aren ’ t able to clear that bar , their backers are asked to “ realign ” themselves to candidates who do .
Which Democratic Candidate Had The Biggest Surge In Popularity This Year ?
So you could imagine a situation where a candidate polling around 15 percent in Iowa ( Buttigieg , Warren ) doesn ’ t actually earn 15 percent of the vote statewide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the viability threshold at a number of caucus sites , causing their supporters to move to other candidates and their overall numbers to fall .
Yet despite that hurdle , it ’ s still plausible that Biden , Buttigieg , Sanders and Warren all have enough second-choice support to end up above 15 percent statewide — a New York Times Upshot/Siena College poll of Iowa released on Saturday found that all four candidates surpassed 15 percent when respondents had to choose among just that quartet of candidates .
Remember , though , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race .
And some of them , especially someone like Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who ’ s polling at just shy of 9 percent in Iowa , could throw an interesting curveball in the realignment process .
Of course , Klobuchar ( or another candidate ) could also surge here in the last week , throwing a real wrench in our analysis .
This kind of surprise , last-minute surge has actually happened before .
In 2012 , former Sen. Rick Santorum averaged only 7 percent in the polls a week before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been steadily ticking upward in the preceding month — yet he not only surpassed 15 percent statewide , he won Iowa by a handful of votes .
Another challenge in our analysis is that some older election cycles just don ’ t have that much data to work with .
For example , there were only two polls from the 1996 GOP race that were conducted between one and five weeks before the caucuses .
And we don ’ t have a polling average for the 1992 Democratic race because there weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1992 caucuses were also kind of unusual because they weren ’ t considered competitive — Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin had a massive home-field advantage ( he won in a landslide ) .
But despite those caveats , the data we do have suggests that this year ’ s caucuses may be the most competitive and crowded Iowa has ever had .
There are more candidates polling within 10 points of the leading contender than in any race since 1980 and a record-tying number of candidates polling above 15 percent , with another just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will get a late boom or bust remains to be seen , but with a week to go , no candidate is close to being a clear favorite .
That makes for an exciting and potentially unpredictable finish , so get ready for the final sprint .

We’re now less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses, and the contest there can best be described as a four-way race. As of Tuesday morning, former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren were all clustered within about 8 percentage points of each other in our average of the state’s polls, with Sanders and Biden at 22 percent, Buttigieg at 17 percent and Warren at 14 percent.
Given just how close things are in Iowa, our forecast doesn’t give anyone more than a 36 percent chance of winning the caucuses next week. This got us thinking: How unusual is it for the field to have this many candidates within a few points of each other? Answer: It’s pretty unusual.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who will win the Iowa caucuses?]
Iowa is tighter than ever Number of candidates (including the leader) within 10 points of the lead in Iowa a week before the caucuses, in FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages Cycle Party Caucus Date CANDIDATES WITHIN 10 PTS. 2020 D Feb. 3 4 2016 D Feb. 1 2 2016 R Feb. 1 2 2012 R Jan. 3 3 2008 D Jan. 3 3 2008 R Jan. 3 2 2004 D Jan. 19 2 2000 D Jan. 24 1 2000 R Jan. 24 1 1996 R Feb. 12 1 1988 D Feb. 8 2 1988 R Feb. 8 1 1984 D Feb. 20 1 1980 D Jan. 21 1 1980 R Jan. 21 1 Excludes cycles for which we have insufficient polling data. Source: Polls
Using our forecast’s historical Iowa polling averages from the week before the caucuses in each presidential election since 1980, we found that the 2020 contest not only has the largest number of contenders within 10 points of the polling leader, but also is tied for the most candidates polling at or above 15 percent, with one candidate polling just under that threshold. As you can see in this table, while there were three candidates within 10 points of the Iowa leader (counting the leader themselves) in both the 2008 Democratic primary and the 2012 GOP primary, there’s never been a primary where four candidates were clustered so tightly until 2020.
This isn’t to say the 2008 and 2012 contests weren’t nail-biters in their own right. In the 2008 Democratic contest, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton was in first, averaging 30 percent in the polls a week before the caucuses, while then-Sen. Barack Obama had 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards had 22 percent. And four years later in the 2012 GOP race, Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Mitt Romney were essentially tied at about 21 percent each, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had about 15 percent.
Three candidates are above 15 percent in Iowa The top Iowa polling average and the number of candidates polling ≥15 percent a week before the caucuses, in FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages Cycle Party Leader’s average Candidates polling ≥15% 2020 D 22.6% 3 2016 D 47.2 2 2016 R 29.5 2 2012 R 21.5 2 2008 D 30.0 3 2008 R 30.1 2 2004 D 28.7 3 2000 D 55.5 2 2000 R 47.1 2 1996 R 34.0 2 1988 D 26.2 3 1988 R 41.6 2 1984 D 52.1 1 1980 D 48.5 2 1980 R 42.1 1 Excludes cycles for which we have insufficient polling data. Source: Polls
But even setting aside that there are more competitive candidates in Iowa this year than ever before, there are two other things that make the 2020 Democratic race in Iowa especially close. First, Sanders, whose Iowa polling average is just a hair ahead of Biden’s, isn’t polling that high for a front-runner. At 22.6 percent, he has the second-lowest polling average for a leading candidate one week before the caucuses. (Paul sat at 21.5 percent in 2012.) Second, there are three contenders polling above 15 percent, which is tied for the most candidates in any presidential election cycle.
But a fourth candidate, Warren, is just short of the 15 percent mark, so this year’s caucuses could produce a historic result: Since the start of the modern primary era there’s never been a major-party contest in Iowa where more than three candidates won at least 15 percent of the vote statewide. Moreover, since 1992, when the Democratic Party implemented some of the rules that continue to define its nomination races, there has not been a single Democratic primary or caucus in any state or territory in which more than three candidates have won at least 15 percent of the vote statewide. Although Warren has fallen slightly below the 15 percent mark, she also just got an endorsement from the Des Moines Register, which might help her reverse her polling slide in the state. So if Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg and Warren all go on to finish above 15 percent, it would be a first.
However, the Democrats’ caucus rules could make it tough for four candidates to clear that 15 percent bar. In each precinct, candidates must clear a “viability” threshold, typically 15 percent of the votes at the caucus site, in order to advance. If they aren’t able to clear that bar, their backers are asked to “realign” themselves to candidates who do.
Could Sanders Sweep Iowa and New Hampshire?
So you could imagine a situation where a candidate polling around 15 percent in Iowa (Buttigieg, Warren) doesn’t actually earn 15 percent of the vote statewide next Monday because they fall short of the viability threshold at a number of caucus sites, causing their supporters to move to other candidates and their overall numbers to fall. Yet despite that hurdle, it’s still plausible that Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren all have enough second-choice support to end up above 15 percent statewide — a New York Times Upshot/Siena College poll of Iowa released on Saturday found that all four candidates surpassed 15 percent when respondents had to choose among just that quartet of candidates. Remember, though, that there are many more candidates in the race. And some of them, especially someone like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who’s polling at just shy of 9 percent in Iowa, could throw an interesting curveball in the realignment process.
Of course, Klobuchar (or another candidate) could also surge here in the last week, throwing a real wrench in our analysis. This kind of surprise, last-minute surge has actually happened before. In 2012, former Sen. Rick Santorum averaged only 7 percent in the polls a week before the Republican caucuses — granted, he had been steadily ticking upward in the preceding month — yet he not only surpassed 15 percent statewide, he won Iowa by a handful of votes.
Another challenge in our analysis is that some older election cycles just don’t have that much data to work with. For example, there were only two polls from the 1996 GOP race that were conducted between one and five weeks before the caucuses. And we don’t have a polling average for the 1992 Democratic race because there weren’t enough polls available, although the 1992 caucuses were also kind of unusual because they weren’t considered competitive — Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin had a massive home-field advantage (he won in a landslide).
But despite those caveats, the data we do have suggests that this year’s caucuses may be the most competitive and crowded Iowa has ever had. There are more candidates polling within 10 points of the leading contender than in any race since 1980 and a record-tying number of candidates polling above 15 percent, with another just below that mark. Whether one candidate will get a late boom or bust remains to be seen, but with a week to go, no candidate is close to being a clear favorite. That makes for an exciting and potentially unpredictable finish, so get ready for the final sprint.
Which Democratic candidate had the biggest surge in popularity?