fivethirtyeight--2020-05-28--Why Trump’s Fight With Obama Might Backfire

For the past few weeks , President Trump has been picking a peculiar fight with his predecessor .
The specifics of “ Obamagate ” are messy and hard to follow , but at its core , Trump alleges that former President Barack Obama was part of a deep-state effort to frame him for colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election .
Only there isn ’ t any evidence to support these claims .
This has led many to draw parallels with what fueled Trump ’ s birther movement in 2011 : an obsession with delegitimizing and “ othering ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s citizenship and whether he was actually born in the U.S. Now it ’ s about assigning blame for Trump ’ s political problems while continuing to question the legitimacy of Obama ’ s presidency .
It ’ s also an opportunity for Trump to divert attention from his handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
But continuing to attack Obama is probably not a smart move , given that Obama is far more popular than Trump .
According to four recent polls that asked respondents whether they had a favorable or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Obama consistently got higher marks than Trump .
In fact , of the four recent polls we could find , there wasn ’ t a single one in which the majority of adults had a positive view of Trump .
Obama , on the other hand , had a net positive favorability rating ( the favorable rating minus the unfavorable rating ) in all four polls .
This is , in large part , due to Obama ’ s better standing among independents .
In the four polls we looked at , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they had a favorable view of Obama , whereas only 29 to 39 percent of independents said the same of Trump .
Additionally , in most of these polls , Obama enjoyed greater cross-party appeal than Trump .
In that Harvard/Harris poll , for instance , 27 percent of Republicans said they had a favorable opinion of Obama compared with 14 percent of Democrats who had a favorable opinion of Trump .
In that Emerson College poll , 22 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of Obama compared with 12 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
And in that Monmouth University poll , 19 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of Obama compared with just 5 percent of Democrats who said the same of Trump .
Only in the Economist/YouGov poll was Trump ’ s support among Democrats about equal to — in fact , one point higher than — Obama ’ s support among Republicans , 15 percent to 14 percent .
For sure , some of Obama ’ s popularity has to do with the fact that presidents tend to have higher approval ratings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which might be one reason why Republicans are more likely to give Obama higher marks than Democrats give Trump .
It also might be why Obama tends to lead Trump in hypothetical matchups .
But there ’ s also evidence that Americans think Obama was just a better president than Trump is .
Granted , this poll was conducted in May 2018 , but a CNN/SRSS poll that asked whether Trump was a better president than Obama found that 55 percent of registered voters thought Obama was better compared with 39 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater cross-party appeal than Trump in this poll .
Eighteen percent of respondents who leaned Republican said Obama was the better president compared with 5 percent who leaned Democratic and said Trump was better .
Obama is also just a really popular former president .
A number of recent polls have found that he is many Americans ’ No .
1 president .
A Jan. 2019 Public Policy Polling survey that asked voters who they thought was the best president in the past 40 years found , for instance , that 31 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among any of the seven presidents PPP asked about .
( By contrast , only 15 percent said Trump , although he did come in third , behind Ronald Reagan , who got 26 percent . )
In a June 2018 Pew Research Center poll that asked Americans for their first and second choices for the best president in their lifetimes , Obama led on this metric too .
Thirty-one percent picked Obama as their first choice , which was the most support any president received .
( Trump came in fourth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton , respectively ) .
And a March 2018 Quinnipiac University poll that asked voters to name the best president since World War II found that 24 percent said Obama and just 7 percent said Trump , although in this case , it was Reagan — not Obama — who got the most support overall , at 28 percent .
Trump ’ s latest attacks on Obama ultimately aren ’ t that surprising , though .
Obama has long been a target of Trump ’ s , and with this latest conspiracy theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is trying to rally at least some of his supporters .
But given Obama ’ s continued widespread popularity , Trump might want to rethink his strategy .
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast : Does Trump Really Want A Fight With Obama ?

For the past few weeks, President Trump has been picking a peculiar fight with his predecessor. The specifics of “Obamagate” are messy and hard to follow, but at its core, Trump alleges that former President Barack Obama was part of a deep-state effort to frame him for colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election.
Only there isn’t any evidence to support these claims.
This has led many to draw parallels with what fueled Trump’s birther movement in 2011: an obsession with delegitimizing and “othering” Obama. Then it was about questioning Obama’s citizenship and whether he was actually born in the U.S. Now it’s about assigning blame for Trump’s political problems while continuing to question the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency.
It’s also an opportunity for Trump to divert attention from his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. But continuing to attack Obama is probably not a smart move, given that Obama is far more popular than Trump.
According to four recent polls that asked respondents whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of a variety of politicians, Obama consistently got higher marks than Trump. In fact, of the four recent polls we could find, there wasn’t a single one in which the majority of adults had a positive view of Trump. Obama, on the other hand, had a net positive favorability rating (the favorable rating minus the unfavorable rating) in all four polls.
Obama is far more popular than Trump Net favorability rating (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating) of Obama and Trump in recent polls Net favorability Poll Obama Trump Economist/YouGov +14 -6 Harvard/Harris +22 -9 Monmouth University +23 -13 Emerson College +23 -14 The Economist/YouGov poll was conducted May 17-19, 2020; the Harvard/Harris poll was conducted May 13-14; the Monmouth poll was conducted April 30-May 4; and the Emerson poll was conducted April 26-28. Source: Polls
This is, in large part, due to Obama’s better standing among independents. In the four polls we looked at, between 45 and 58 percent of independents said they had a favorable view of Obama, whereas only 29 to 39 percent of independents said the same of Trump. Additionally, in most of these polls, Obama enjoyed greater cross-party appeal than Trump. In that Harvard/Harris poll, for instance, 27 percent of Republicans said they had a favorable opinion of Obama compared with 14 percent of Democrats who had a favorable opinion of Trump. In that Emerson College poll, 22 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of Obama compared with 12 percent of Democrats who said the same of Trump. And in that Monmouth University poll, 19 percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion of Obama compared with just 5 percent of Democrats who said the same of Trump. Only in the Economist/YouGov poll was Trump’s support among Democrats about equal to — in fact, one point higher than — Obama’s support among Republicans, 15 percent to 14 percent.
For sure, some of Obama’s popularity has to do with the fact that presidents tend to have higher approval ratings once they’re out of office, which might be one reason why Republicans are more likely to give Obama higher marks than Democrats give Trump. It also might be why Obama tends to lead Trump in hypothetical matchups.
But there’s also evidence that Americans think Obama was just a better president than Trump is. Granted, this poll was conducted in May 2018, but a CNN/SRSS poll that asked whether Trump was a better president than Obama found that 55 percent of registered voters thought Obama was better compared with 39 percent who said Trump. Obama also enjoyed greater cross-party appeal than Trump in this poll. Eighteen percent of respondents who leaned Republican said Obama was the better president compared with 5 percent who leaned Democratic and said Trump was better.
Obama is also just a really popular former president. A number of recent polls have found that he is many Americans’ No. 1 president. A Jan. 2019 Public Policy Polling survey that asked voters who they thought was the best president in the past 40 years found, for instance, that 31 percent said Obama — the most support received among any of the seven presidents PPP asked about. (By contrast, only 15 percent said Trump, although he did come in third, behind Ronald Reagan, who got 26 percent.) In a June 2018 Pew Research Center poll that asked Americans for their first and second choices for the best president in their lifetimes, Obama led on this metric too. Thirty-one percent picked Obama as their first choice, which was the most support any president received. (Trump came in fourth, at 10 percent, after Reagan and Clinton, respectively). And a March 2018 Quinnipiac University poll that asked voters to name the best president since World War II found that 24 percent said Obama and just 7 percent said Trump, although in this case, it was Reagan — not Obama — who got the most support overall, at 28 percent.
Trump’s latest attacks on Obama ultimately aren’t that surprising, though. Obama has long been a target of Trump’s, and with this latest conspiracy theory, it’s clear that the president is trying to rally at least some of his supporters. But given Obama’s continued widespread popularity, Trump might want to rethink his strategy.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Does Trump Really Want A Fight With Obama?


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-28--The Voters Who Don’t Like Trump Or Biden

Four years ago , when President Trump was the Republican nominee , he won over voters who didn ’ t like him or his Democratic opponent , Hillary Clinton , which gave him a boost in a general election that featured the two most disliked major-party nominees in history .
According to exit polls , 18 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of both Trump and Clinton , but when they cast their ballots , they broke 47 percent to 30 percent in favor of Trump .
The president ’ s advantage among these voters was pivotal , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21 and 37 percentage points in Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , the three states that put him over the top in the Electoral College .
But now , in 2020 , Trump may have lost his edge among the “ haters ” — that is , the voters who hold an unfavorable view of both presidential candidates .
Two recent national surveys found that former Vice President Joe Biden has a big lead over Trump among those who have unfavorable views of them both .
An April survey from NBC News/Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent to 10 percent , and an early May survey from Morning Consult gave Biden a lead of 46 percent to 14 percent .
However , there are a couple of things to keep in mind when talking about the “ hater ” vote .
First , this voting bloc is probably not as big as it was in 2016 .
According to the RealClearPolitics average of favorability polls , the two nominees aren ’ t as disliked this time around .
As you can see in the table below , the net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfavorable rating ) for both Trump and Biden is around 10 points higher than the figures for Trump and Clinton in November 2016 .
It ’ s possible that Biden ’ s and Trump ’ s favorability will deteriorate the closer we get to Election Day , but there ’ s also evidence that Trump really has made gains since 2016 , thanks to his improved position among Republicans .
For example , take the last poll from The Economist/YouGov before the 2016 election and its most recent 2020 survey : In November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had a favorable impression of Trump , whereas in the latest iteration of the poll , 84 percent of Republicans said they had a favorable view of him .
Other polls show a similar sort of increase .
We know less about Biden ’ s net favorability and how it might change , but it is higher than Clinton ’ s .
And , based on the polling we have so far , Biden ’ s net favorability among Democrats is comparable to Clinton ’ s , although his standing among independents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Second , the makeup of the hater vote likely differs from that of 2016 .
With Trump ’ s higher favorability among Republicans , fewer Republican-leaning voters are likely to fall into this group ; instead , there ’ s probably a larger share of voters who lean Democratic than in 2016 .
For instance , it ’ s possible that a disproportionate share of left-leaning voters who backed a Biden rival in the Democratic presidential primary , such as Sen. Bernie Sanders , falls in this group .
The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t like either candidate .
The question is whether these haters will disproportionately vote for one candidate , as they did in 2016 .
It ’ s possible that these voters will break for Biden , as the NBC News/Wall Street Journal and Morning Consult polls suggest , because they view the election as a referendum on Trump .
Yet it ’ s also possible that these voters will be more divided on whom they back by Election Day — 41 percent said they were still undecided or had no opinion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent didn ’ t back Biden or Trump in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll .
The share of haters in the electorate could grow or shrink in the coming months , too .
In fact , we already have one poll from Monmouth University released earlier this month that suggests the percentage of voters who don ’ t like either candidate might be as large as ( or larger than ) what we saw in 2016 .
( Monmouth put the share at nearly a quarter of registered voters ; the share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent . )
Granted , this is only one poll , but any group that makes up 15 to 25 percent of the electorate could have a significant effect on the election .
It ’ s also possible that Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s net favorability ratings change .
In 2016 , for instance , Hillary Clinton ’ s net favorability got a slight boost after the Democratic convention in late July , likely because some Democrats came home to roost .
So if some Democrats with unfavorable views of Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this August , that could reduce the share of voters who dislike both candidates ( as most Democrats have an unfavorable impression of Trump ) .
Conversely , Trump ’ s ratings could slide further if the country can ’ t get out of a coronavirus-induced economic tailspin .
This scenario could sour even a few Republicans on Trump and increase the share of voters who don ’ t like both candidates ( as most Republicans have an unfavorable view of Biden ) .
But , as was the case in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election boils down to a choice between the lesser of two evils .
We ’ ll be keeping an eye on just how many voters view both candidates unfavorably and what their preferences are .

Four years ago, when President Trump was the Republican nominee, he won over voters who didn’t like him or his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, which gave him a boost in a general election that featured the two most disliked major-party nominees in history.
According to exit polls, 18 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of both Trump and Clinton, but when they cast their ballots, they broke 47 percent to 30 percent in favor of Trump. The president’s advantage among these voters was pivotal, too. Trump carried these voters by between 21 and 37 percentage points in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the three states that put him over the top in the Electoral College.
But now, in 2020, Trump may have lost his edge among the “haters” — that is, the voters who hold an unfavorable view of both presidential candidates. Two recent national surveys found that former Vice President Joe Biden has a big lead over Trump among those who have unfavorable views of them both. An April survey from NBC News/Wall Street Journal put Biden ahead of Trump 60 percent to 10 percent, and an early May survey from Morning Consult gave Biden a lead of 46 percent to 14 percent.
However, there are a couple of things to keep in mind when talking about the “hater” vote. First, this voting bloc is probably not as big as it was in 2016. According to the RealClearPolitics average of favorability polls, the two nominees aren’t as disliked this time around. As you can see in the table below, the net favorability (the favorable rating minus the unfavorable rating) for both Trump and Biden is around 10 points higher than the figures for Trump and Clinton in November 2016.
The 2020 candidates are better liked … for now Presidential candidates’ average favorable and unfavorable ratings the day before the 2016 election versus May 27, 2020 Republican favorability Democratic favorability Year Fav. Unfav. Net Fav. Unfav. Net 2020 41.8% 53.9% -12.1 43.7% 46.2% -2.5 2016 37.5 58.5 -21.0 41.8 54.4 -12.6 Source: RealClearPolitics
It’s possible that Biden’s and Trump’s favorability will deteriorate the closer we get to Election Day, but there’s also evidence that Trump really has made gains since 2016, thanks to his improved position among Republicans. For example, take the last poll from The Economist/YouGov before the 2016 election and its most recent 2020 survey: In November 2016, 75 percent of Republicans said they had a favorable impression of Trump, whereas in the latest iteration of the poll, 84 percent of Republicans said they had a favorable view of him. Other polls show a similar sort of increase. We know less about Biden’s net favorability and how it might change, but it is higher than Clinton’s. And, based on the polling we have so far, Biden’s net favorability among Democrats is comparable to Clinton’s, although his standing among independents is notably better (though still negative).
Second, the makeup of the hater vote likely differs from that of 2016. With Trump’s higher favorability among Republicans, fewer Republican-leaning voters are likely to fall into this group; instead, there’s probably a larger share of voters who lean Democratic than in 2016. For instance, it’s possible that a disproportionate share of left-leaning voters who backed a Biden rival in the Democratic presidential primary, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, falls in this group. The same could be said for independents who don’t like either candidate. The question is whether these haters will disproportionately vote for one candidate, as they did in 2016.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Questions about Biden and Trump’s bases
It’s possible that these voters will break for Biden, as the NBC News/Wall Street Journal and Morning Consult polls suggest, because they view the election as a referendum on Trump. Yet it’s also possible that these voters will be more divided on whom they back by Election Day — 41 percent said they were still undecided or had no opinion in the Morning Consult poll, and 30 percent didn’t back Biden or Trump in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
The share of haters in the electorate could grow or shrink in the coming months, too. In fact, we already have one poll from Monmouth University released earlier this month that suggests the percentage of voters who don’t like either candidate might be as large as (or larger than) what we saw in 2016. (Monmouth put the share at nearly a quarter of registered voters; the share in the 2016 exit polls was 18 percent.) Granted, this is only one poll, but any group that makes up 15 to 25 percent of the electorate could have a significant effect on the election.
It’s also possible that Trump’s and Biden’s net favorability ratings change. In 2016, for instance, Hillary Clinton’s net favorability got a slight boost after the Democratic convention in late July, likely because some Democrats came home to roost. So if some Democrats with unfavorable views of Biden warm up to him at the convention this August, that could reduce the share of voters who dislike both candidates (as most Democrats have an unfavorable impression of Trump). Conversely, Trump’s ratings could slide further if the country can’t get out of a coronavirus-induced economic tailspin. This scenario could sour even a few Republicans on Trump and increase the share of voters who don’t like both candidates (as most Republicans have an unfavorable view of Biden).
But, as was the case in 2016, some voters may ultimately feel that the 2020 election boils down to a choice between the lesser of two evils. We’ll be keeping an eye on just how many voters view both candidates unfavorably and what their preferences are.


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-29--States Are Reopening, But Many Americans Say They Aren’t Rushing Back To Normal Life

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
Almost all states have now begun phased reopenings after shutting down nonessential businesses to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
However , any dreams that life would return to its pre-pandemic normal do not appear to be coming true .
Recent polling indicates that Americans are still spooked by the threat of COVID-19 and many won ’ t be resuming their old behaviors any time soon .
In a Morning Consult poll conducted May 12-15 , only 23 percent of Americans said they were comfortable going out to eat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shopping mall — and those were the activities that respondents were most likely to be comfortable with .
Only 16 percent said they were comfortable going to the movies , 14 percent going to an amusement park and 13 percent going to the gym .
And another Morning Consult poll , from May 19-21 , found that sports fans have come around to holding games in empty stadiums if necessary , with 41 percent supporting a crowdless return as soon as possible and 38 percent saying leagues should wait until it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s a stark change from April 3-5 , when 70 percent of fans said sports leagues should wait until it ’ s safe for spectators and only 16 percent favored a quicker return .
Similarly , a May 17-21 poll of New York state by The New York Times/Siena College suggested that , even if all legal restrictions were lifted , the theater industry would take months to recover .
Only 39 percent of Broadway regulars said they would be very or somewhat likely to see a show if theaters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said they were not very likely to attend a show for the rest of this year , 58 percent said it was because they didn ’ t trust other audience members to maintain social-distancing measures , and 55 percent also said they did not trust others to wear masks .
Speaking of Sept. 1 , one of the biggest unknowns is whether schools will reopen in the fall — but even if they do , many students and teachers may not attend .
USA Today/Ipsos polled both parents and teachers May 18-21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were likely to pursue at-home learning options , like online classes or home schooling .
And nearly one-fifth of teachers said they likely would not go back to work in the fall if schools reopen .
Additionally , in at least one state , the pandemic may have a long-term impact on how people get around .
According to a MassINC poll from May 5-13 , about one-third of Massachusetts residents said they expect to take the train , ride the subway , take the bus , carpool , take a taxi and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the worst of the pandemic has passed .
On the other hand , 38 percent said they will walk more , and 28 percent said they will drive alone in their own car more .
Instead of looking to get life back to normal , Americans seem to be taking to the new , low-contact ways of life foisted upon us by the pandemic .
According to a May 11-17 Gallup poll , 44 percent of adults said they were picking up takeout food more often than they did a month ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only 26 percent said they were upping their takeout orders .
Likewise , 36 percent of adults were taking more advantage of curbside pickup at stores ( up from 19 percent in late March and early April ) , and 27 percent were having more virtual doctor ’ s appointments ( up from 12 percent ) .
And although it ’ s just one state , the MassINC poll also found that 41 percent of workers said they would prefer to work from home even after Massachusetts reopens .
Some people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the majority are still taking social-distancing measures .
According to the latest Navigator Research poll from Global Strategy Group and GBAO ( from May 21-25 ) , 74 percent of registered voters are spending almost all their time at home , down from a high of 87 percent in early April .
And 56 percent are still avoiding in-person interactions with family and friends , down from 73 percent .
However , the share who are avoiding public gatherings or going out to eat or drink has remained pretty steady over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Similarly , over the last few weeks , Elucd ’ s tracker has found a gradual erosion in the number of people who say they are isolating themselves from other people , although nearly 70 percent say they are still doing so all or most of the time .
The reason Americans aren ’ t yet picking up where they left off appears to be simple : People tell pollsters that they need the number of new COVID-19 cases to drop in order to feel safe again .
Per Elucd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and businesses reopening would make them stop practicing social distancing ; the same percentage said guidance from elected officials would .
For most people , it would take a significant drop in COVID-19 cases ( 32 percent said this ) or widespread antibody testing ( 26 percent ) .
According to yet another Morning Consult poll ( this one fielded May 19-21 ) , 73 percent of registered voters thought coronavirus testing should be required for employees to return to work , and 74 percent thought it should be required for students to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found in a May 14-18 poll that 79 percent of Americans thought it was important that a coronavirus vaccine be available before reopening businesses and resuming activities in their area , including 46 percent who said a vaccine was essential .
• One of the many second-order effects of the pandemic is that state governments are facing massive budget shortfalls .
The most recent Elucd data found that 63 percent of Americans supported direct federal payments to the states to avoid cuts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kaiser Family Foundation found that vast majorities of Americans opposed cuts to K-12 public education ( 80 percent ) , police and safety ( 75 percent ) and Medicaid ( 74 percent ) .
Majorities also opposed cuts to social services ( 60 percent ) , higher education ( 55 percent ) , prisons and jails ( 54 percent ) and environmental protection ( 53 percent ) .
However , only 39 percent opposed cuts to transportation ; 57 percent supported decreasing transportation spending to balance state budgets .
• Morning Consult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attitudes of Generation Z ( i.e.
, people born after 1997 ) .
So far , the coronavirus pandemic seems to be the seminal event for this generation : 78 percent of “ Zoomers ” ( a nickname that has now taken on a double meaning with our new reliance on video conferencing during the pandemic ! )
said the outbreak has had a major impact on their worldview .
Roughly tied for a distant second place were mass shootings ( 57 percent ) , the Sept. 11 attacks ( 56 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 55 percent ) .
• A new Civil Beat/Hawaii News Now poll showed that Hawaiians have soured on once-popular Rep. Tulsi Gabbard since her failed presidential run .
Only 28 percent of voters statewide viewed her positively , while 49 percent viewed her negatively .
Gov .
David Ige was also unpopular , with only 20 percent having a positive opinion of him and 54 percent having a negative opinion .
That makes Ige a notable outlier , as governors nationwide have seen a surge in popularity amid the pandemic .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good Senate polls for Democrats : A new South Carolina survey from Democratic pollster Civiqs , sponsored by Daily Kos , found Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and his Democratic challenger , Jaime Harrison , tied at 42 percent .
However , that same poll gave Trump a 52 percent to 42 percent lead over former Vice President Joe Biden , so many of the voters who said they were undecided or would vote for a third-party candidate in the Senate race ( 16 percent altogether ) may eventually vote Republican .
• In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did not want to secede from the United Kingdom — but that was before Brexit , which most Scots opposed .
Now , some Scottish politicians are pushing for a second independence referendum .
According to a new Ipsos MORI poll , 63 percent of Scots agree , with 34 percent wanting such a referendum to be held in the next two years .
Only 34 percent never want to hold another # indyref .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 42.6 percent of Americans approve of the job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 53.6 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -11.0 points ) .
At this time last week , 42.8 percent approved and 53.5 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -10.7 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 42.6 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.6 percent , for a net approval rating of -10.0 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 7.7 percentage points ( 48.2 percent to 40.5 percent ) .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7.9 points ( 48.2 percent to 40.3 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 7.9 points ( 48.3 percent to 40.4 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
Almost all states have now begun phased reopenings after shutting down nonessential businesses to slow the spread of the coronavirus. However, any dreams that life would return to its pre-pandemic normal do not appear to be coming true. Recent polling indicates that Americans are still spooked by the threat of COVID-19 and many won’t be resuming their old behaviors any time soon.
In a Morning Consult poll conducted May 12-15, only 23 percent of Americans said they were comfortable going out to eat, going on vacation or going to a shopping mall — and those were the activities that respondents were most likely to be comfortable with. Only 16 percent said they were comfortable going to the movies, 14 percent going to an amusement park and 13 percent going to the gym. And another Morning Consult poll, from May 19-21, found that sports fans have come around to holding games in empty stadiums if necessary, with 41 percent supporting a crowdless return as soon as possible and 38 percent saying leagues should wait until it’s safe for fans to attend before restarting. That’s a stark change from April 3-5, when 70 percent of fans said sports leagues should wait until it’s safe for spectators and only 16 percent favored a quicker return.
Similarly, a May 17-21 poll of New York state by The New York Times/Siena College suggested that, even if all legal restrictions were lifted, the theater industry would take months to recover. Only 39 percent of Broadway regulars said they would be very or somewhat likely to see a show if theaters reopened around Sept. 1. Among playgoers who said they were not very likely to attend a show for the rest of this year, 58 percent said it was because they didn’t trust other audience members to maintain social-distancing measures, and 55 percent also said they did not trust others to wear masks.
Speaking of Sept. 1, one of the biggest unknowns is whether schools will reopen in the fall — but even if they do, many students and teachers may not attend. USA Today/Ipsos polled both parents and teachers May 18-21 and found that 59 percent of parents were likely to pursue at-home learning options, like online classes or home schooling. And nearly one-fifth of teachers said they likely would not go back to work in the fall if schools reopen.
Additionally, in at least one state, the pandemic may have a long-term impact on how people get around. According to a MassINC poll from May 5-13, about one-third of Massachusetts residents said they expect to take the train, ride the subway, take the bus, carpool, take a taxi and use ride-share apps less often, even after the worst of the pandemic has passed. On the other hand, 38 percent said they will walk more, and 28 percent said they will drive alone in their own car more.
Instead of looking to get life back to normal, Americans seem to be taking to the new, low-contact ways of life foisted upon us by the pandemic. According to a May 11-17 Gallup poll, 44 percent of adults said they were picking up takeout food more often than they did a month ago. In late March and early April, only 26 percent said they were upping their takeout orders. Likewise, 36 percent of adults were taking more advantage of curbside pickup at stores (up from 19 percent in late March and early April), and 27 percent were having more virtual doctor’s appointments (up from 12 percent). And although it’s just one state, the MassINC poll also found that 41 percent of workers said they would prefer to work from home even after Massachusetts reopens.
Some people have changed their behavior as states have reopened, but the majority are still taking social-distancing measures. According to the latest Navigator Research poll from Global Strategy Group and GBAO (from May 21-25), 74 percent of registered voters are spending almost all their time at home, down from a high of 87 percent in early April. And 56 percent are still avoiding in-person interactions with family and friends, down from 73 percent. However, the share who are avoiding public gatherings or going out to eat or drink has remained pretty steady over time (each currently at 81 percent). Similarly, over the last few weeks, Elucd’s tracker has found a gradual erosion in the number of people who say they are isolating themselves from other people, although nearly 70 percent say they are still doing so all or most of the time.
The reason Americans aren’t yet picking up where they left off appears to be simple: People tell pollsters that they need the number of new COVID-19 cases to drop in order to feel safe again. Per Elucd, only 7 percent of respondents said schools and businesses reopening would make them stop practicing social distancing; the same percentage said guidance from elected officials would. For most people, it would take a significant drop in COVID-19 cases (32 percent said this) or widespread antibody testing (26 percent). According to yet another Morning Consult poll (this one fielded May 19-21), 73 percent of registered voters thought coronavirus testing should be required for employees to return to work, and 74 percent thought it should be required for students to go back to school. Finally, the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found in a May 14-18 poll that 79 percent of Americans thought it was important that a coronavirus vaccine be available before reopening businesses and resuming activities in their area, including 46 percent who said a vaccine was essential.
Other polling bites
One of the many second-order effects of the pandemic is that state governments are facing massive budget shortfalls. The most recent Elucd data found that 63 percent of Americans supported direct federal payments to the states to avoid cuts in state services. And this week, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that vast majorities of Americans opposed cuts to K-12 public education (80 percent), police and safety (75 percent) and Medicaid (74 percent). Majorities also opposed cuts to social services (60 percent), higher education (55 percent), prisons and jails (54 percent) and environmental protection (53 percent). However, only 39 percent opposed cuts to transportation; 57 percent supported decreasing transportation spending to balance state budgets.
Morning Consult has launched a multiyear survey project into the attitudes of Generation Z (i.e., people born after 1997). So far, the coronavirus pandemic seems to be the seminal event for this generation: 78 percent of “Zoomers” (a nickname that has now taken on a double meaning with our new reliance on video conferencing during the pandemic!) said the outbreak has had a major impact on their worldview. Roughly tied for a distant second place were mass shootings (57 percent), the Sept. 11 attacks (56 percent) and President Trump’s election (55 percent).
A new Civil Beat/Hawaii News Now poll showed that Hawaiians have soured on once-popular Rep. Tulsi Gabbard since her failed presidential run. Only 28 percent of voters statewide viewed her positively, while 49 percent viewed her negatively. Gov. David Ige was also unpopular, with only 20 percent having a positive opinion of him and 54 percent having a negative opinion. That makes Ige a notable outlier, as governors nationwide have seen a surge in popularity amid the pandemic.
Add one to the list of outrageously good Senate polls for Democrats: A new South Carolina survey from Democratic pollster Civiqs, sponsored by Daily Kos, found Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and his Democratic challenger, Jaime Harrison, tied at 42 percent. However, that same poll gave Trump a 52 percent to 42 percent lead over former Vice President Joe Biden, so many of the voters who said they were undecided or would vote for a third-party candidate in the Senate race (16 percent altogether) may eventually vote Republican.
In a 2014 referendum, Scotland voters said they did not want to secede from the United Kingdom — but that was before Brexit, which most Scots opposed. Now, some Scottish politicians are pushing for a second independence referendum. According to a new Ipsos MORI poll, 63 percent of Scots agree, with 34 percent wanting such a referendum to be held in the next two years. Only 34 percent never want to hold another #indyref.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 42.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 53.6 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -11.0 points). At this time last week, 42.8 percent approved and 53.5 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -10.7 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 42.6 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.6 percent, for a net approval rating of -10.0 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.7 percentage points (48.2 percent to 40.5 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.9 points (48.2 percent to 40.3 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.9 points (48.3 percent to 40.4 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-29--After Minneapolis, Can Trump’s Law-And-Order Strategy Work?

When President Trump delivered his inaugural address in 2017 , it was in an unfamiliar style .
Gone was the jokey off-handedness of Trump-on-the-trail .
In a stilted , elegiac tone the freshly-minted president spoke of “ rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones ” and “ young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge.
” The content of the speech was familiar , though : Trump would bring America back from the brink .
“ This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
” President George W. Bush called it “ some weird shit.
” Trump ran on law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and order candidate ” he helpfully explained — even if empirical evidence suggested nothing was wrong with the law and order Americans were already living under .
The country ’ s rates of violent crime were trending downward when he ran — falling 51 percent between 1993 and 2018 — and the economy was churning along , but Trump tapped into some Americans ’ dissatisfaction with the status quo .
Law and order was about the restoration of a certain social configuration favorable to white Americans as much as it was a concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year that is 2020 marches on , Trump has returned to his 2016 rhetoric , but it may register differently .
Late Thursday night , Minneapolis residents burned down a police station after the death of George Floyd , a black man in police custody .
The president tweeted in response that , “ These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd , and I won ’ t let that happen .
Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way .
Any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when the looting starts , the shooting starts .
Thank you !
” It was a familiar law and order message from Trump .
But he tweeted it into an unfamiliar America : Over 100,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 in the past few months .
One out of every four workers has filed for unemployment .
As the country lives through actual American carnage , will Trump ’ s law and order message resonate as it once did ?
Or will the bleak realities of 2020 prove inhospitable to the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can fix it ” ?
In 2016 , voters seemed excited by Trump ’ s verbal promiscuity , the lurid way that he painted the state of the nation .
In his telling , America had descended into disarray thanks to porous borders that allowed in terrorists and job-stealing immigrants .
He was engaging , if not accurate ( the economy was doing well in many parts of the country and President Obama had actually deported more immigrants who were living in the country illegally than previous administrations ) .
Pew Research surveys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , terrorism , and immigration , along with foreign policy , as the most pressing issues of the election .
And according to another Pew survey , 78 percent of voters who supported Trump in 2016 felt crime had gotten worse since 2008 .
Trump ’ s law and order framework was a sturdy way for him to talk about a more elusive idea — nostalgia for a mid century America with robust domestic manufacturing and a clearly-defined , if racist , social order .
While Trump is no wonk and couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the consolidation of industry and the widening gap between CEO and worker pay , he could talk about “ the good old days ” when you could smack someone around .
It evoked something deep , that call for everything and everyone in their proper place .
The law and order message might not sit so well in 2020 .
The country has now lived through years of controversies over video-taped killings by police , and the pandemic makes the world feel more chaotic day by day .
We ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political reaction to the demonstrations in Minnesota , but there might be more sympathy for the turbulent feelings that make people riot or protest .
While many will still roundly condemn looting , it ’ s perhaps easier for a greater number of us to imagine the kind of jagged anger — grief , if we ’ re being concise about it — that causes it than it was four years ago .
Understanding the catharsis of looting — if not approving of the act — is something that has long eluded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white America .
“ Shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim looters ” was the order from Chicago ’ s white , Democratic Mayor Richard Daley during the 1968 riots following Dr. Martin Luther King ’ s assassination .
King , for his part , called riots , “ the language of the unheard.
” Even Obama struggled with his reaction to the Ferguson , Missouri riots of 2014 , receiving criticism from voices on the black left when he said he had “ no sympathy at all for destroying your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done some things differently in his response to the Ferguson crisis , writ large .
Minnesota has also proven a difficult testing ground for Trump ’ s return to law and order rhetoric .
Reaction to the violence in the state — and the killing of Floyd — has unfolded somewhat differently than past violent deaths in police custody .
Police chiefs from around the country swiftly condemned the officer who killed Floyd .
Even as police on the ground in Minneapolis arrested a black journalist on live TV , the mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for calm while saying they understood and were sympathetic to the anger behind the rioting .
Fox News guests and analysts condemned the officer ’ s actions , though it remains to be seen how conservative media and the right will react to the ongoing protests and violence .
In a YouGov poll , 78 percent of surveyed adults thought the officer in the Floyd case should be arrested ( he was on Friday afternoon ) .
It seems unlikely , though , that Trump will easily give up the race-baiting language of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Trump , who is famously ideologically flexible , the idea of law and order is perhaps his deepest-held , most sincere political belief .
In 1989 , in the midst of the Central Park Five controversy , when five black and Latino men were accused of the brutal rape of a white jogger , he took out full-page advertisements in New York City newspapers to decry waffling over the punishment of the men .
( Later , they were famously found to have been wrongly convicted ) .
“ What has happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhood cop we all trusted to safeguard our homes and families ?
” Trump wrote .
“ I am not looking to psychoanalyze them or understand them , I am looking to punish them , ” he said of the alleged criminals .
“ I no longer want to understand their anger .
I want them to understand our anger .
I want them to be afraid.
” In 2016 , Trump was able to echo these sentiments from 1989 easily — he was on the outside looking in .
But in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a campaign angry at authority when he is the authority .
Once you have promised to end an imagined carnage , only to encounter actual death and societal destruction , the misdirection of your talking points risks exposure .
But on this point , Trump has always been true to himself : He is the law and order candidate once again .

When President Trump delivered his inaugural address in 2017, it was in an unfamiliar style. Gone was the jokey off-handedness of Trump-on-the-trail. In a stilted, elegiac tone the freshly-minted president spoke of “rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones” and “young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge.” The content of the speech was familiar, though: Trump would bring America back from the brink. “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” President George W. Bush called it “some weird shit.”
Trump ran on law and order — “I am the law and order candidate” he helpfully explained — even if empirical evidence suggested nothing was wrong with the law and order Americans were already living under. The country’s rates of violent crime were trending downward when he ran — falling 51 percent between 1993 and 2018 — and the economy was churning along, but Trump tapped into some Americans’ dissatisfaction with the status quo. Law and order was about the restoration of a certain social configuration favorable to white Americans as much as it was a concern with crime.
As the strange election year that is 2020 marches on, Trump has returned to his 2016 rhetoric, but it may register differently. Late Thursday night, Minneapolis residents burned down a police station after the death of George Floyd, a black man in police custody. The president tweeted in response that, “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”
It was a familiar law and order message from Trump. But he tweeted it into an unfamiliar America: Over 100,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 in the past few months. One out of every four workers has filed for unemployment. As the country lives through actual American carnage, will Trump’s law and order message resonate as it once did? Or will the bleak realities of 2020 prove inhospitable to the man who once proclaimed, “I alone can fix it”?
In 2016, voters seemed excited by Trump’s verbal promiscuity, the lurid way that he painted the state of the nation. In his telling, America had descended into disarray thanks to porous borders that allowed in terrorists and job-stealing immigrants. He was engaging, if not accurate (the economy was doing well in many parts of the country and President Obama had actually deported more immigrants who were living in the country illegally than previous administrations). Pew Research surveys show that 2016 Trump supporters ranked the economy, terrorism, and immigration, along with foreign policy, as the most pressing issues of the election. And according to another Pew survey, 78 percent of voters who supported Trump in 2016 felt crime had gotten worse since 2008.
Trump’s law and order framework was a sturdy way for him to talk about a more elusive idea — nostalgia for a mid century America with robust domestic manufacturing and a clearly-defined, if racist, social order. While Trump is no wonk and couldn’t talk particularly compellingly about globalization, the consolidation of industry and the widening gap between CEO and worker pay, he could talk about “the good old days” when you could smack someone around. It evoked something deep, that call for everything and everyone in their proper place.
The law and order message might not sit so well in 2020. The country has now lived through years of controversies over video-taped killings by police, and the pandemic makes the world feel more chaotic day by day. We’ll have to wait to see the social and political reaction to the demonstrations in Minnesota, but there might be more sympathy for the turbulent feelings that make people riot or protest. While many will still roundly condemn looting, it’s perhaps easier for a greater number of us to imagine the kind of jagged anger — grief, if we’re being concise about it — that causes it than it was four years ago.
Understanding the catharsis of looting — if not approving of the act — is something that has long eluded the understanding of white America, including liberal white America. “Shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim looters” was the order from Chicago’s white, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley during the 1968 riots following Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination. King, for his part, called riots, “the language of the unheard.” Even Obama struggled with his reaction to the Ferguson, Missouri riots of 2014, receiving criticism from voices on the black left when he said he had “no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities.” He later said he would have done some things differently in his response to the Ferguson crisis, writ large.
Minnesota has also proven a difficult testing ground for Trump’s return to law and order rhetoric. Reaction to the violence in the state — and the killing of Floyd — has unfolded somewhat differently than past violent deaths in police custody. Police chiefs from around the country swiftly condemned the officer who killed Floyd. Even as police on the ground in Minneapolis arrested a black journalist on live TV, the mayor and governor — both Democrats — called for calm while saying they understood and were sympathetic to the anger behind the rioting. Fox News guests and analysts condemned the officer’s actions, though it remains to be seen how conservative media and the right will react to the ongoing protests and violence. In a YouGov poll, 78 percent of surveyed adults thought the officer in the Floyd case should be arrested (he was on Friday afternoon).
It seems unlikely, though, that Trump will easily give up the race-baiting language of “thugs” and the like. For Trump, who is famously ideologically flexible, the idea of law and order is perhaps his deepest-held, most sincere political belief. In 1989, in the midst of the Central Park Five controversy, when five black and Latino men were accused of the brutal rape of a white jogger, he took out full-page advertisements in New York City newspapers to decry waffling over the punishment of the men. (Later, they were famously found to have been wrongly convicted). “What has happened to law and order, to the neighborhood cop we all trusted to safeguard our homes and families?” Trump wrote. “I am not looking to psychoanalyze them or understand them, I am looking to punish them,” he said of the alleged criminals. “I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.”
In 2016, Trump was able to echo these sentiments from 1989 easily — he was on the outside looking in. But in 2020 it will take more dexterity to run a campaign angry at authority when he is the authority. Once you have promised to end an imagined carnage, only to encounter actual death and societal destruction, the misdirection of your talking points risks exposure. But on this point, Trump has always been true to himself: He is the law and order candidate once again.


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-29--Politics Podcast: What Biden’s VP Picks Say About Him

Given that presidential nominees choose their running mates without any formal input from voters , how they choose can say @ @ @ @ @ and their views of their party and the country .
In this installment of the @ @ @ @ @ Bacon Jr. and Julia Azari discuss the considerations former Vice President Joe Biden is making @ @ @ @ @ mates — and what this says about his campaign .
You can listen to the @ @ @ @ @ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , @ @ @ @ @ favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen @ @ @ @ @ publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a @ @ @ @ @ .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling @ @ @ @ @ by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

Given that presidential nominees choose their running mates without any formal input from voters, how they choose can say a lot about the candidates and their views of their party and the country. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Perry Bacon Jr. and Julia Azari discuss the considerations former Vice President Joe Biden is making as he vets potential running mates — and what this says about his campaign.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-01--How Accurate Have Senate Polls Been, And What Could That Mean For November?

The 2016 election was an off year for state-level polls of the presidential race .
But for polls of U.S. Senate races , it was a perfectly ordinary year — better than average , even .
And Senate polls in the 2018 election were even more accurate .
In the 2017-18 cycle , U.S. Senate polls conducted in the three weeks leading up to the general election had a weighted average error of 4.3 points .
( As always , we define error as the absolute difference between a poll ’ s margin and the actual election ’ s margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , if a poll gave the Democratic candidate a lead of 2 percentage points but the Republican won the election by 4 points , that would be a 6-point error . )
In the 2015-16 cycle , it was 4.9 points .
And the long-term average , for all U.S. Senate elections since 1998 , is 5.2 points .
In the grand scheme of things , that ’ s pretty accurate — not as true as polls of presidential general elections have historically been , but better than polls of presidential primaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more , Senate polling has been remarkably consistent in its accuracy from year to year .
Since the 2001-02 cycle , the weighted average error of U.S. Senate polls conducted in the final 21 days before the election has never been lower than 4.2 points ( its score in 2005-06 ) or higher than 5.4 points ( 2013-14 ) .
But that doesn ’ t mean there haven ’ t been any surprises in Senate races .
The battle for the U.S. Senate , of course , is waged on a state-by-state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average out to around 5 points across these races , they are higher in some states and lower in others .
You can see this clearly in the table below , which shows the weighted average error of U.S. Senate polls by cycle for states that had at least 10 polls conducted during the last 21 days of the campaign .
( This threshold prevents us from showing states where the sample size of polls is too small to draw meaningful conclusions ; it also focuses our attention on the states with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as close races tend to attract polling interest . )
The table also shows the weighted average statistical bias of Senate polls in each state , which tells us whether that polling error went in favor of Democrats or Republicans .
For instance , in the 2015-16 cycle , polls of most Senate races were pretty good , as 10 of the 12 states with enough polling to analyze had weighted average errors of 4.5 points or lower .
In Missouri ( 2.8 ) and Nevada ( 3.0 ) , the polls were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble spots : Ohio ( 5.8 ) and Wisconsin ( 6.0 ) .
In both states , the polls overestimated Democrats , delivering the party a nasty surprise on election night .
In the 2017-18 cycle , polls of the U.S. Senate races in Missouri , Michigan and especially Arizona and Florida were quite accurate — all had weighted average errors of 4.3 or below .
But the race in Alabama proved difficult to poll , with a weighted average error of 6.0 .
( The fact that it was an irregularly scheduled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was abandoned by his party after allegations of sexual misconduct emerged — probably contributed to the challenges . )
You can do the same exercise for other years , too .
In 2013-14 , Kansas , Iowa and Georgia saw the largest weighted average errors , each 6 points or greater .
In 2005-06 , Pennsylvania polls were particularly inaccurate ( their weighted average statistical bias was 6 points toward Republicans ) , while Missouri polls were exceptionally good ( their weighted average error was 2.4 points ) .
In 2003-04 , Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other states ’ were very reliable .
But much like the accuracy of swing-state polls in presidential elections , it ’ s difficult to predict where these trouble spots will be .
Some states have very accurate Senate polls one year but particularly inaccurate ones in later cycles , or vice versa .
Take Florida : In 2003-04 , polls of the Sunshine State had a very low weighted average error of 2.5 points .
In 2009-10 , their error was a shaky 6.2 points .
That said , some states have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado , for example , appears six times in the table above , and only once has its polls ’ weighted average error exceeded 3.5 points ( it was 4.5 points in the 2001-02 elections — still pretty good ! )
.
We don ’ t want to make too much of this — it could just be that Colorado is on a polling hot streak , so to speak , and hasn ’ t yet hit a rough patch this century .
On the other hand , it could also be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2020 U.S. Senate race , which will once again be closely watched .
Other 2020 Senate battleground states that have historically produced pretty accurate Senate polls include Arizona ( a weighted average error of 4.2 points in 2015-16 and 3.2 points in 2017-18 ) and North Carolina ( 4.7 in 2007-08 , 2.8 in 2013-14 and 4.5 in 2015-16 ) .
On the other hand , polls of Georgia ( 6.1 in 2013-14 ) and Iowa ( 6.6 in 2013-14 ) have missed the mark significantly in recent elections — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again in 2020 , but we can ’ t rule it out .
We ’ ve already seen some pretty unbelievable — perhaps literally so — Senate polls this cycle .
Those polls were obviously conducted several months before Election Day , so it ’ s not fair to compare them to the polls in this analysis .
But if polls within the final 21 days of the campaign are still showing the same thing , it might be time to believe them .
If the historical pattern holds , Senate polls should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — at least in most states .
Just remember there will probably be a state or two where they misfire .

The 2016 election was an off year for state-level polls of the presidential race. But for polls of U.S. Senate races, it was a perfectly ordinary year — better than average, even. And Senate polls in the 2018 election were even more accurate.
In the 2017-18 cycle, U.S. Senate polls conducted in the three weeks leading up to the general election had a weighted average error of 4.3 points. (As always, we define error as the absolute difference between a poll’s margin and the actual election’s margin between the top two candidates. For example, if a poll gave the Democratic candidate a lead of 2 percentage points but the Republican won the election by 4 points, that would be a 6-point error.) In the 2015-16 cycle, it was 4.9 points. And the long-term average, for all U.S. Senate elections since 1998, is 5.2 points.
In the grand scheme of things, that’s pretty accurate — not as true as polls of presidential general elections have historically been, but better than polls of presidential primaries or U.S. House races.
What’s more, Senate polling has been remarkably consistent in its accuracy from year to year. Since the 2001-02 cycle, the weighted average error of U.S. Senate polls conducted in the final 21 days before the election has never been lower than 4.2 points (its score in 2005-06) or higher than 5.4 points (2013-14). But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been any surprises in Senate races. The battle for the U.S. Senate, of course, is waged on a state-by-state basis, and while polling errors may average out to around 5 points across these races, they are higher in some states and lower in others.
You can see this clearly in the table below, which shows the weighted average error of U.S. Senate polls by cycle for states that had at least 10 polls conducted during the last 21 days of the campaign. (This threshold prevents us from showing states where the sample size of polls is too small to draw meaningful conclusions; it also focuses our attention on the states with the most competitive Senate races each cycle, as close races tend to attract polling interest.) The table also shows the weighted average statistical bias of Senate polls in each state, which tells us whether that polling error went in favor of Democrats or Republicans.
Senate polls have been pretty accurate in most states Weighted average error and statistical bias of U.S. Senate polls in the final 21 days before general elections, for states with at least 10 such polls, among polls in FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings database 2017-18 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias Florida 34 3.1 D+1.8 Arizona 19 3.2 R+1.8 Alabama 16 6.0 R+3.7 Michigan 14 4.2 D+3.1 Missouri 12 4.3 D+4.0 2015-16 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias Florida 30 4.3 D+2.4 Pennsylvania 23 4.5 D+4.2 North Carolina 22 4.5 D+4.4 New Hampshire 21 3.6 D+0.3 Nevada 16 3.0 R+1.2 Georgia 13 4.2 D+2.5 Arizona 12 4.2 D+3.6 Missouri 12 2.8 D+2.5 Ohio 12 5.8 D+5.8 Colorado 10 3.2 D+1.8 Louisiana 10 3.9 D+2.5 Wisconsin 10 6.0 D+6.0 2013-14 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias Colorado 21 2.5 D+0.3 Iowa 21 6.6 D+6.6 North Carolina 21 2.8 D+2.0 Georgia 20 6.1 D+6.1 Massachusetts 19 4.1 R+2.0 New Hampshire 16 2.6 R+1.0 Louisiana 15 5.1 R+5.0 New Jersey 13 3.1 D+2.7 Michigan 11 2.2 R+0.8 Kansas 10 11.5 — 2011-12 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias Ohio 28 3.0 R+1.5 Florida 21 5.8 R+4.8 Virginia 19 4.1 R+3.9 Wisconsin 15 4.4 R+4.4 Pennsylvania 12 3.4 R+2.7 Massachusetts 10 3.9 R+3.6 2009-10 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias California 23 5.2 R+5.2 New York 22 6.1 R+5.0 Pennsylvania 18 3.0 R+2.0 Ohio 15 2.8 D+0.4 Florida 13 6.2 — Illinois 13 2.7 D+1.0 Massachusetts 13 7.7 D+3.5 Colorado 12 3.0 R+3.0 Kentucky 11 4.8 D+4.0 West Virginia 11 6.8 R+6.8 Connecticut 10 3.1 R+1.3 Washington 10 3.4 R+3.0 2007-08 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias Georgia 18 5.0 D+1.4 North Carolina 16 4.7 R+4.6 Virginia 16 3.9 R+2.9 Minnesota 13 4.2 D+0.2 New Hampshire 13 2.9 D+2.2 Colorado 11 3.5 D+0.7 2005-06 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias New Jersey 22 3.4 R+3.0 Tennessee 18 3.7 R+0.3 Missouri 16 2.4 R+1.3 Virginia 15 3.0 D+0.6 Ohio 13 4.9 R+0.8 Maryland 12 4.8 R+4.2 Pennsylvania 12 6.0 R+6.0 Michigan 11 3.3 R+1.9 Minnesota 11 5.0 R+3.4 Montana 10 3.2 D+3.0 2003-04 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias Florida 20 2.5 D+1.9 Colorado 13 3.5 R+1.6 Pennsylvania 13 9.1 R+8.7 Ohio 12 3.4 R+0.6 Oklahoma 10 9.6 D+9.6 2001-02 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias Colorado 13 4.5 D+3.6 New Jersey 13 2.0 R+0.4 Texas 13 6.3 D+6.3 1999-2000 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias New York 18 7.6 R+7.6 Michigan 16 5.8 R+4.9 Pennsylvania 15 10.6 R+10.6 Florida 13 2.5 R+0.4 Ohio 12 2.9 R+1.3 New Jersey 11 3.8 D+0.8 1998 Elections State No. of Polls Weighted
Avg. Error Weighted Avg. Statistical Bias New York 19 8.1 R+8.1 Illinois 10 10.5 R+9.2 Averages are weighted by the square root of the number of polls that a particular pollster conducted in that particular cycle. Polls that are banned by FiveThirtyEight because we know or suspect they faked data are excluded from the analysis. Bias is calculated only for elections where the top two finishers were a Republican and a Democrat. Therefore, it is not calculated for Florida in 2010 or Kansas in 2014, where the second-place finishers were independents.
For instance, in the 2015-16 cycle, polls of most Senate races were pretty good, as 10 of the 12 states with enough polling to analyze had weighted average errors of 4.5 points or lower. In Missouri (2.8) and Nevada (3.0), the polls were downright excellent. But two states were trouble spots: Ohio (5.8) and Wisconsin (6.0). In both states, the polls overestimated Democrats, delivering the party a nasty surprise on election night.
In the 2017-18 cycle, polls of the U.S. Senate races in Missouri, Michigan and especially Arizona and Florida were quite accurate — all had weighted average errors of 4.3 or below. But the race in Alabama proved difficult to poll, with a weighted average error of 6.0. (The fact that it was an irregularly scheduled special election — and the Republican candidate was abandoned by his party after allegations of sexual misconduct emerged — probably contributed to the challenges.)
You can do the same exercise for other years, too. In 2013-14, Kansas, Iowa and Georgia saw the largest weighted average errors, each 6 points or greater. In 2005-06, Pennsylvania polls were particularly inaccurate (their weighted average statistical bias was 6 points toward Republicans), while Missouri polls were exceptionally good (their weighted average error was 2.4 points). In 2003-04, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma polls missed, while three other states’ were very reliable.
But much like the accuracy of swing-state polls in presidential elections, it’s difficult to predict where these trouble spots will be. Some states have very accurate Senate polls one year but particularly inaccurate ones in later cycles, or vice versa. Take Florida: In 2003-04, polls of the Sunshine State had a very low weighted average error of 2.5 points. In 2009-10, their error was a shaky 6.2 points.
That said, some states have an impressive track record of polling accuracy. Colorado, for example, appears six times in the table above, and only once has its polls’ weighted average error exceeded 3.5 points (it was 4.5 points in the 2001-02 elections — still pretty good!). We don’t want to make too much of this — it could just be that Colorado is on a polling hot streak, so to speak, and hasn’t yet hit a rough patch this century.
On the other hand, it could also be a vote of confidence in polls of Colorado’s 2020 U.S. Senate race, which will once again be closely watched. Other 2020 Senate battleground states that have historically produced pretty accurate Senate polls include Arizona (a weighted average error of 4.2 points in 2015-16 and 3.2 points in 2017-18) and North Carolina (4.7 in 2007-08, 2.8 in 2013-14 and 4.5 in 2015-16). On the other hand, polls of Georgia (6.1 in 2013-14) and Iowa (6.6 in 2013-14) have missed the mark significantly in recent elections — which doesn’t necessarily mean they will again in 2020, but we can’t rule it out.
We’ve already seen some pretty unbelievable — perhaps literally so — Senate polls this cycle. Those polls were obviously conducted several months before Election Day, so it’s not fair to compare them to the polls in this analysis. But if polls within the final 21 days of the campaign are still showing the same thing, it might be time to believe them. If the historical pattern holds, Senate polls should be pretty accurate once again in 2020 — at least in most states. Just remember there will probably be a state or two where they misfire.
‘I totally buy â¦ Democrats have a chance at winning (Senate)’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-01--Politics Podcast: The Data Behind Police Violence

Protests have spread across the country in the week since George Floyd died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on @ @ @ @ @ eight minutes .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , FiveThirtyEight contributor and @ @ @ @ @ joins the crew to analyze the trends in police violence over the past six years @ @ @ @ @ the protests — along with looting and the violent exchanges with police — could shape @ @ @ @ @ months .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button @ @ @ @ @ or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform @ @ @ @ @ to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and @ @ @ @ @ discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a @ @ @ @ @ for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , @ @ @ @ @ comments .

Protests have spread across the country in the week since George Floyd died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, FiveThirtyEight contributor and Campaign Zero co-founder Samuel Sinyangwe joins the crew to analyze the trends in police violence over the past six years. They also discuss how the protests — along with looting and the violent exchanges with police — could shape electoral politics in the coming months.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: The data behind police violence
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-01--De-escalation Keeps Protesters And Police Safer. Departments Respond With Force Anyway.

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project , a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system .
MINNEAPOLIS — Last Wednesday , Marcell Harris was hit by a rubber bullet .
He had joined the second day of protests in this city over the killing of George Floyd , a black man who died after a police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes while bystanders filmed .
Though these protests began with peaceful demonstrations outside the city ’ s 3rd Precinct , interactions between police and protesters had escalated .
Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas .
Protesters threw water bottles , built barricades and destroyed nearby property .
Harris said he had used his backpack as a shield and maneuvered close enough to take the baton of the officer who shot him .
On Thursday night , he returned to the same spot to watch the precinct burn .
With no police presence to be seen , he and other protesters were celebrating a victory .
“ I ’ m nonviolent , ” he said .
“ But this feels emotional .
George Floyd popped the bubble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end.
” The end of what ?
“ What we ’ ve been going through , ” he said , referring to heavy-handed and often deadly policing of African Americans .
“ All the bullshit.
” Watching a peaceful protest turn into something much less palatable is hard .
There has been a lot of hard the past few days , as people in dozens of cities have released pent-up anger against discriminatory police tactics .
Cars and buildings have burned .
Store windows have been smashed .
Protesters and police have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn like this we naturally wonder … why ?
Was this preventable ?
Does anyone know how to stop it from happening ?
Three federal commissions concluded that when police escalate force those efforts can often go wrong , creating the very violence that force was meant to prevent .
Turns out , we do know some of these answers .
Researchers have spent 50 years studying the way crowds of protesters and crowds of police behave — and what happens when the two interact .
One thing they will tell you is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force — wearing riot gear from the start , or using tear gas on protesters — it doesn ’ t work .
In fact , disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful .
But if we know that ( and have known that for decades ) , why are police still doing it ?
“ There ’ s this failed mindset of ‘ if we show force , immediately we will deter criminal activity or unruly activity ’ and show me where that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former chief of police in Camden , New Jersey .
“ That ’ s the primal response , ” he said .
“ The adrenaline starts to pump , the temperature in the room is rising , and you want to go one step higher .
But what we need to know as professionals is that there are times , if we go one step higher , we are forcing them to go one step higher.
” Interactions between police and protesters are , by their very nature , tough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good vantage point to observe protests in the real world — for example , by embedding within a crowd — the data that comes out is more descriptive and narrative as opposed to quantitative .
Some kinds of protests are highly organized with top-down plans that are months in the making .
Others , like many of the events across America this past week , are spontaneous outpourings of grief and anger .
The social and political context of the time and place also affect what happens .
Even a single protest isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You have lots of mini protests happening in many places , ” said Edward Maguire , a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona State University .
“ There ’ s different dynamics .
Some peaceful .
Some not .
And different police tactics.
” In Baltimore on Saturday , for example , a police lieutenant mollified a crowd by reading out loud the names of victims of police brutality , while protesters outside City Hall threw bottles at police in riot gear and police used tear gas on the crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s no data about protests that can be easily compared in a chart doesn ’ t mean we ’ re bereft of information , said Pat Gillham , a professor of sociology at Western Washington University .
There ’ s 50 years of research on violence at protests , dating back to the three federal commissions formed between 1967 and 1970 .
All three concluded that when police escalate force — using weapons , tear gas , mass arrests and other tools to make protesters do what the police want — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating the very violence that force was meant to prevent .
For example , the Kerner Commission , which was formed in 1967 to specifically investigate urban riots , found that police action was pivotal in starting half of the 24 riots the commission studied in detail .
It recommended that police eliminate “ abrasive policing tactics ” and that cities establish fair ways to address complaints against police .
Experts say the following decades of research have turned up similar findings .
Escalating force by police leads to more violence , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loops , where protesters escalate against police , police escalate even further , and both sides become increasingly angry and afraid .
Escalating force by police leads to more violence , not less , and tends to create feedback loops , where protesters escalate against police , police escalate even further , and both sides become increasingly angry and afraid .
“ Do we know [ this ] in the way that you know if you put two chemicals together things explode ?
” said John Noakes , professor of sociology , anthropology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ No .
But there is a general consensus.
” De-escalation , of course , does not guarantee that a protest will remain peaceful , and when protests take an unpredictable turn , it can be challenging for police to estimate the appropriate level of force .
Former law-enforcement officials also said good policing of demonstrations isn ’ t as simple as just showing up with an approachable demeanor .
“ The time to make friends isn ’ t when you need them , ” Thomson said .
“ You have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a veteran police monitor who is now overseeing the Albuquerque Police ’ s settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice , agreed that only this longer-term trust-building exercise works .
“ Trying to find folks at the last minute that you can put out there in soft clothes and talk to people , frankly and in my opinion , wouldn ’ t work that well , ” Ginger said .
“ You ’ ve got to till the soil before you can grow the beans.
” Still , if researchers know it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police to use force against protests and demonstrations , and that information has been available for decades , why do we still see situations like this happening all over the country ?
That part is harder to answer .
At one point , in the 1980s and 1990s , many police departments in the U.S. did try different strategies , Noakes and Maguire said .
The “ negotiated management ” model of protest policing called for officers to meet with protesters in advance to plan events together to specify the times , locations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when that included mass arrests .
“ There was a time when the playbook was much more straightforward .
The police would meet with the organizers of the protest , and they would lay out ground rules together that would provide for an opportunity for protesters to do exactly what they have a right to do , ” said Ronal Serpas , a former police chief in New Orleans and Nashville who ’ s now a professor of criminology at Loyola University in New Orleans .
But the era of negotiated management basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests in Seattle in 1999 , when protesters blocked streets , broke windows and successfully shut down the WTO meeting and stalled trade talks .
When protesters violated the negotiated terms , police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets and took away the wrong lessons , Maguire said .
“ What a lot of people took from that in policing is , we can ’ t trust these people .
We need to be smarter and overwhelm them to nip these things in the bud , ” he said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Gillham pointed out , negotiating and managing a protest can ’ t really work if the protest wasn ’ t organized ahead of time .
That goes double , he said , if the topic of the protest is police brutality .
It ’ s hard to negotiate with someone about the best way to demand they be fired .
Instead , it ’ s become normal in the U.S. for police departments to revert to tactics that amplify tensions and provoke protesters , Maguire said , including wearing intimidating tactical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maguire does training for police officers and has tried , for years , to get buy-in on the idea that there could be a different way .
“ I have good relationships with police and I ’ ve been working with them for 25 years , and I ’ ve never experienced pushback like I do on this , ” Maguire said .
De-escalation strategies definitely exist .
Anne Nassauer , a professor of sociology at Freie Universität in Berlin , has studied how the Berlin Police Department handles protests and soccer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ element is transparent communication — something Nassauer said helps increase trust and diffuse potentially tense moments .
The Berlin police employs people specifically to make announcements in these situations , using different speakers , with local accents or different languages , for things like information about what police are doing , and another speaker for commands .
Either way , the messages are delivered in a calm , measured voice .
Communication is also a cornerstone of what police know as “ the Madison Model , ” created by former Madison , Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His strategy for dealing with protesters was to send officers out to talk with demonstrators , engage , ask them why protests are made , listen to their concerns and , above all , empathize .
Not all police officers trust this model , however .
“ When you have overly aggressive crowds you have to address them , ” said Anthony Batts , who led departments in Long Beach and Oakland , California , as well as Baltimore .
Batts was police commissioner during the violent clashes between police and protesters that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Baltimore police custody .
Reached by text , Batts said that certain events , like fires and police retreats , “ inspire ” crowds .
He said from his point of view , methods like the Madison model make crowds “ go ballistic.
” A lot of this pushback from police has to do with some legitimate officer safety concerns related to de-escalation , Maguire said .
“ But we make the argument that [ de-escalation ] makes officers more safe , by reducing violent confrontations with protesters .
If officers come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armor and face shields , that can make protesters feel uncomfortable and under attack long before there ’ s any kind of confrontation , ” Maguire said .
“ When I had the opportunity to build a new police department , I was able to do in three days what would normally take me three years to do.
” It ’ s also just hard to change police culture .
Maguire compared it to trying to change hospital procedures by using evidence-based medicine .
Even if the evidence is , “ don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or someone could die , ” it can still take 20 years for the new technique to be widely adopted .
The disconnect between rank and file and executive leadership — commonly cited as an impediment to policing reform — also seems to get in the way of improving policing of protests .
Take the Atlanta Police Department as an example .
On Saturday the city ’ s chief Erika Shields earned plaudits for meeting face to face with protesters , empathizing with their grief and fear , and even reprimanding some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m standing here because what I saw was my people face to face with this crowd and everyone is thinking , ‘ How can we use force to diffuse it , ’ and I ’ m not having that.
” But mere hours later , her department was trending on social media again — this time because officers had used tasers to force two college students out of their vehicle , even though they did not appear to be posing any threat .
That , experts say , speaks to a cultural attitude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is hard to change with new chiefs or rules .
Thomson encountered this when he tried to make change in Camden .
The police department was so dysfunctional that the city took the unprecedented step of disbanding the force and reconstituting a whole new agency from scratch .
“ When I had the opportunity to build a new police department , I was able to do in three days what would normally take me three years to do , because of work rules , because of the bureaucracy of collective bargaining agreements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reform , ” Thomson said .
Couper , the creator of the Madison Method , said , “ It ’ s this whole attitude of , ‘ We keep order because we kick ass , and it ’ s us against them.
’ ( … ) We ’ ve got to root those people out and say , ‘ Look , this is the job that we expect .
This is how a democracy is policed .
If you can ’ t buy into it .
I ’ m sorry .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sign up for The Marshall Project ’ s newsletter , or follow them on Facebook or Twitter .

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system.
MINNEAPOLIS — Last Wednesday, Marcell Harris was hit by a rubber bullet. He had joined the second day of protests in this city over the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died after a police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes while bystanders filmed. Though these protests began with peaceful demonstrations outside the city’s 3rd Precinct, interactions between police and protesters had escalated. Police unleashed pepper spray, projectiles and tear gas. Protesters threw water bottles, built barricades and destroyed nearby property.
Harris said he had used his backpack as a shield and maneuvered close enough to take the baton of the officer who shot him. On Thursday night, he returned to the same spot to watch the precinct burn. With no police presence to be seen, he and other protesters were celebrating a victory. “I’m nonviolent,” he said. “But this feels emotional. George Floyd popped the bubble. It feels like the beginning of the end.” The end of what? “What we’ve been going through,” he said, referring to heavy-handed and often deadly policing of African Americans. “All the bullshit.”
[Related: Trump’s Use Of Tear Gas To Break Up A Protest Undermined Three Core Values Of American Democracy]
Watching a peaceful protest turn into something much less palatable is hard. There has been a lot of hard the past few days, as people in dozens of cities have released pent-up anger against discriminatory police tactics. Cars and buildings have burned. Store windows have been smashed. Protesters and police have been hurt. When protests take a turn like this we naturally wonder … why? Was this preventable? Does anyone know how to stop it from happening?
Three federal commissions concluded that when police escalate force those efforts can often go wrong, creating the very violence that force was meant to prevent.
Turns out, we do know some of these answers. Researchers have spent 50 years studying the way crowds of protesters and crowds of police behave — and what happens when the two interact. One thing they will tell you is that when the police respond by escalating force — wearing riot gear from the start, or using tear gas on protesters — it doesn’t work. In fact, disproportionate police force is one of the things that can make a peaceful protest not so peaceful. But if we know that (and have known that for decades), why are police still doing it?
“There’s this failed mindset of ‘if we show force, immediately we will deter criminal activity or unruly activity’ and show me where that has worked,” said Scott Thomson, the former chief of police in Camden, New Jersey.
“That’s the primal response,” he said. “The adrenaline starts to pump, the temperature in the room is rising, and you want to go one step higher. But what we need to know as professionals is that there are times, if we go one step higher, we are forcing them to go one step higher.”
Interactions between police and protesters are, by their very nature, tough to study. Even when researchers get a good vantage point to observe protests in the real world — for example, by embedding within a crowd — the data that comes out is more descriptive and narrative as opposed to quantitative. Some kinds of protests are highly organized with top-down plans that are months in the making. Others, like many of the events across America this past week, are spontaneous outpourings of grief and anger. The social and political context of the time and place also affect what happens. Even a single protest isn’t really a single protest. “You have lots of mini protests happening in many places,” said Edward Maguire, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Arizona State University. “There’s different dynamics. Some peaceful. Some not. And different police tactics.” In Baltimore on Saturday, for example, a police lieutenant mollified a crowd by reading out loud the names of victims of police brutality, while protesters outside City Hall threw bottles at police in riot gear and police used tear gas on the crowd, WBFF-TV reported.
[Related: Police Are Killing Fewer People In Big Cities, But More In Suburban And Rural America]
But just because there’s no data about protests that can be easily compared in a chart doesn’t mean we’re bereft of information, said Pat Gillham, a professor of sociology at Western Washington University. There’s 50 years of research on violence at protests, dating back to the three federal commissions formed between 1967 and 1970. All three concluded that when police escalate force — using weapons, tear gas, mass arrests and other tools to make protesters do what the police want — those efforts can often go wrong, creating the very violence that force was meant to prevent. For example, the Kerner Commission, which was formed in 1967 to specifically investigate urban riots, found that police action was pivotal in starting half of the 24 riots the commission studied in detail. It recommended that police eliminate “abrasive policing tactics” and that cities establish fair ways to address complaints against police.
Experts say the following decades of research have turned up similar findings. Escalating force by police leads to more violence, not less. It tends to create feedback loops, where protesters escalate against police, police escalate even further, and both sides become increasingly angry and afraid.
Escalating force by police leads to more violence, not less, and tends to create feedback loops, where protesters escalate against police, police escalate even further, and both sides become increasingly angry and afraid.
“Do we know [this] in the way that you know if you put two chemicals together things explode?” said John Noakes, professor of sociology, anthropology and criminal justice at Arcadia University. “No. But there is a general consensus.”
De-escalation, of course, does not guarantee that a protest will remain peaceful, and when protests take an unpredictable turn, it can be challenging for police to estimate the appropriate level of force.
Former law-enforcement officials also said good policing of demonstrations isn’t as simple as just showing up with an approachable demeanor. “The time to make friends isn’t when you need them,” Thomson said. “You have to be in front of it.”
James Ginger, a veteran police monitor who is now overseeing the Albuquerque Police’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, agreed that only this longer-term trust-building exercise works. “Trying to find folks at the last minute that you can put out there in soft clothes and talk to people, frankly and in my opinion, wouldn’t work that well,” Ginger said. “You’ve got to till the soil before you can grow the beans.”
Still, if researchers know it’s not a good idea for police to use force against protests and demonstrations, and that information has been available for decades, why do we still see situations like this happening all over the country?
That part is harder to answer. At one point, in the 1980s and 1990s, many police departments in the U.S. did try different strategies, Noakes and Maguire said. The “negotiated management” model of protest policing called for officers to meet with protesters in advance to plan events together to specify the times, locations and activities that would happen, even when that included mass arrests.
“There was a time when the playbook was much more straightforward. The police would meet with the organizers of the protest, and they would lay out ground rules together that would provide for an opportunity for protesters to do exactly what they have a right to do,” said Ronal Serpas, a former police chief in New Orleans and Nashville who’s now a professor of criminology at Loyola University in New Orleans.
But the era of negotiated management basically fell apart after the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999, when protesters blocked streets, broke windows and successfully shut down the WTO meeting and stalled trade talks. When protesters violated the negotiated terms, police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets and took away the wrong lessons, Maguire said. “What a lot of people took from that in policing is, we can’t trust these people. We need to be smarter and overwhelm them to nip these things in the bud,” he said. “We sort of went backwards.”
Of course, as Gillham pointed out, negotiating and managing a protest can’t really work if the protest wasn’t organized ahead of time. That goes double, he said, if the topic of the protest is police brutality. It’s hard to negotiate with someone about the best way to demand they be fired.
Instead, it’s become normal in the U.S. for police departments to revert to tactics that amplify tensions and provoke protesters, Maguire said, including wearing intimidating tactical gear before its use would be warranted. Maguire does training for police officers and has tried, for years, to get buy-in on the idea that there could be a different way. “I have good relationships with police and I’ve been working with them for 25 years, and I’ve never experienced pushback like I do on this,” Maguire said.
De-escalation strategies definitely exist. Anne Nassauer, a professor of sociology at Freie Universität in Berlin, has studied how the Berlin Police Department handles protests and soccer matches. She found that one key element is transparent communication — something Nassauer said helps increase trust and diffuse potentially tense moments. The Berlin police employs people specifically to make announcements in these situations, using different speakers, with local accents or different languages, for things like information about what police are doing, and another speaker for commands. Either way, the messages are delivered in a calm, measured voice.
[Related: How The Protests Against Police Brutality Could Shape Electoral Politics]
Communication is also a cornerstone of what police know as “the Madison Model,” created by former Madison, Wisconsin, chief of police David Couper. His strategy for dealing with protesters was to send officers out to talk with demonstrators, engage, ask them why protests are made, listen to their concerns and, above all, empathize.
Not all police officers trust this model, however. “When you have overly aggressive crowds you have to address them,” said Anthony Batts, who led departments in Long Beach and Oakland, California, as well as Baltimore. Batts was police commissioner during the violent clashes between police and protesters that followed the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore police custody.
Reached by text, Batts said that certain events, like fires and police retreats, “inspire” crowds. He said from his point of view, methods like the Madison model make crowds “go ballistic.” He said he was speaking generally, and that he does not advocate a harsh police approach to the ongoing demonstrations.
A lot of this pushback from police has to do with some legitimate officer safety concerns related to de-escalation, Maguire said. “But we make the argument that [de-escalation] makes officers more safe, by reducing violent confrontations with protesters. If officers come into a situation already wearing protective body armor and face shields, that can make protesters feel uncomfortable and under attack long before there’s any kind of confrontation,” Maguire said.
“When I had the opportunity to build a new police department, I was able to do in three days what would normally take me three years to do.”
It’s also just hard to change police culture. Maguire compared it to trying to change hospital procedures by using evidence-based medicine. Even if the evidence is, “don’t perform this surgery in that way or someone could die,” it can still take 20 years for the new technique to be widely adopted.
The disconnect between rank and file and executive leadership — commonly cited as an impediment to policing reform — also seems to get in the way of improving policing of protests. Take the Atlanta Police Department as an example. On Saturday the city’s chief Erika Shields earned plaudits for meeting face to face with protesters, empathizing with their grief and fear, and even reprimanding some of her own officers: “I’m standing here because what I saw was my people face to face with this crowd and everyone is thinking, ‘How can we use force to diffuse it,’ and I’m not having that.” But mere hours later, her department was trending on social media again — this time because officers had used tasers to force two college students out of their vehicle, even though they did not appear to be posing any threat.
That, experts say, speaks to a cultural attitude that is endemic to the profession, and is hard to change with new chiefs or rules.
Thomson encountered this when he tried to make change in Camden. The police department was so dysfunctional that the city took the unprecedented step of disbanding the force and reconstituting a whole new agency from scratch. “When I had the opportunity to build a new police department, I was able to do in three days what would normally take me three years to do, because of work rules, because of the bureaucracy of collective bargaining agreements — there are a lot of impediments to reform,” Thomson said.
Couper, the creator of the Madison Method, said, “It’s this whole attitude of, ‘We keep order because we kick ass, and it’s us against them.’ (…) We’ve got to root those people out and say, ‘Look, this is the job that we expect. This is how a democracy is policed. If you can’t buy into it. I’m sorry. You just have to find another job.’”
This story was updated to include additional comments from Anthony Batts.
Sign up for The Marshall Project’s newsletter, or follow them on Facebook or Twitter.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: The data behind police violence