fivethirtyeight--2020-05-20--Will 2020 Be Another Blue Wave Election Year?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarah ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : The 2018 midterm elections were what we called “ a blue wave.
” Democrats picked up 40 seats in the House , making it the third-largest gain by any party in 40 years .
However , as we cautioned then , this did not mean anything for what the electoral environment might look like in 2020 .
Two years is a lifetime in politics .
But now we ’ re roughly six months away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if the electoral environment might once again favor Democrats .
Take the Democrats ’ lead over Republicans in our congressional generic ballot tracker .
It ’ s about 8 percentage points , which is just 1 point less than their lead on Election Day 2018 .
It ’ s not just the race for Congress either .
Former Vice President Joe Biden also has about a 6-point lead over Trump nationally , and that lead is even larger in some states .
However , the national environment can change — and probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the last six months of an election cycle , a 4-point spread , on average , between the largest and smallest generic ballot margins .
That might not sound like a lot , but in our era of ultra-competitive elections , things are often decided at the margins .
So today , let ’ s talk about the case for — and the case against — a blue wave in 2020 .
First , big picture : What evidence do we have that the overall environment is good for Democrats ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans ?
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : Yeah , I ’ m really torn on this .
The evidence in favor of a blue wave starts with the polls , IMO .
First , as you mentioned , Democrats have a solid — almost 2018-level !
— lead in our generic congressional ballot tracker .
I know Geoffrey has found that that ’ s subject to change over the course of the cycle , but it has been really steady .
Plus the Biden polls you mentioned .
Plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is certainly time for things to change , but I think you can ’ t be feeling good about these numbers if you ’ re a Republican .
geoffrey.skelley ( Geoffrey Skelley , elections analyst ) : Right , while the generic ballot does handily favor Democrats now , it could change .
( Historically , the margin has narrowed , and as we ’ ve said , I found that it moved 4 points , on average , between six months out and Election Day . )
Of course , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much this time , but as I noted in an article on the 2020 House map , there are a bunch of seats Democrats are defending that Trump carried in 2016 , so even a 1- to 2-point move in the generic ballot might make it tougher for Democrats to hold on to some of these more competitive seats they won in 2018. nrakich : But even if the environment changes , I ’ m not sure it will be in Republicans ’ favor .
In addition to the polling evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a blue wave , which is that we ’ ve entered an economic crisis and the incumbent president ( and his party ) does not do well when the economy is struggling .
The unemployment rate is currently 14.7 percent , and I think most experts expect it to get even worse .
geoffrey.skelley : And the president ’ s approval rating for his handling of the coronavirus crisis is now about the same as his overall approval ( 43.5 percent approve of his coronavirus response , and 43.7 percent approve of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that these figures now align arguably isn ’ t great for him or Republicans .
sarah : That ’ s a good point , but I also don ’ t know how big a deal that is considering just how stable Trump ’ s overall approval rating has been .
Will his handling of the coronavirus really cause supporters to abandon him when so many other things haven ’ t ?
I don ’ t know .
🤷♀ One other thing I ’ m not entirely sure how to reconcile is Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve found , Nathaniel , that if one party is performing consistently better than expected , that can foreshadow a strong election cycle for that party .
Yet Democrats haven ’ t done that well in 2019-2020 special elections , right ?
In particular , I ’ m thinking of their two most recent losses — the California 25th and the Wisconsin 7th — but also ones that predate those two elections haven ’ t boded all that well for Democrats .
Is this a possible silver lining for Republicans when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Right — to me , this is the big argument against a blue wave .
Remember how Democrats overperformed their partisan baseline so consistently in 2017-18 special elections ?
Well , I ’ m working on updating that analysis for 2019-20 , and I ’ ll give you a sneak peek : On average so far this cycle , there has been no overperformance for either party .
That tells me that , while the national mood does seem very pro-Democratic , when it comes to turning out to vote , voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sarah : What does that mean if neither party has an advantage ?
nrakich : It would point to a neutral political environment .
geoffrey.skelley : And if the electoral environment is more neutral , that might point to a close presidential race that could go either way .
You ’ d probably still be looking at a Democratic hold in the House — but with some GOP gains — and a likely GOP hold in the Senate as well .
nrakich : Right , and I think that ’ s the prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , considering we are in a historic era of polarization and close presidential elections .
Still probably not a bad assumption .
sarah : And I guess one unknown that is hard to quantify is how the coronavirus pandemic — especially if there is a resurgence in the fall — could upend the election .
Not many states have moved to prepare for an all-mail election , so the repercussions could be wide-ranging , in addition to being unpredictable .
nrakich : Yeah , exactly .
The coronavirus is a known unknown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re of the position that vote-by-mail doesn ’ t benefit any one party .
But what if different states , or different parts of swing states , are affected differently ?
geoffrey.skelley : Luckily , most of the key battleground states do offer some type of mail voting , but obviously access and ease vary from state to state , and no matter what , states will need to be ready for a surge in mail balloting .
sarah : Exactly .
And FiveThirtyEight contributor Lee Drutman cautioned in that piece Nathaniel linked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply too much of how voting by mail has worked previously to 2020 , as the states that moved to universal voting did so gradually , over several election cycles .
In other words , there ’ s no precedent for what we might see in 2020 , and as Lee wrote , “ The obvious implication is that efforts to expand absentee voting in a pandemic might work differently .
And maybe there will be partisan differences in who chooses to vote by mail , as we saw in Wisconsin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit , I ’ m curious what you guys made of this article from CNN ?
To sum it up , it found that Trump supporters were more enthusiastic to vote in November than Biden supporters .
That ’ s significant because the party with the enthusiasm advantage has won every presidential election since 1988. geoffrey.skelley : Enthusiasm certainly matters to some extent .
But if one side has a pretty appreciable lead , I ’ m not sure it matters that much at the end of the day .
nrakich : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do wonder about a scenario where the coronavirus is still a factor in November , states haven ’ t moved to vote by mail and Democrats are more scared to go to polling places than Republicans are .
sarah : Ah , about that supposed lack of enthusiasm for Biden… People were skeptical in April when we chatted about an ABC/Washington Post poll that found lukewarm enthusiasm for Biden and solid numbers for Trump , but I still think this idea that voters aren ’ t that excited about Biden has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways than we give it credit for .
It ’ s hard , for instance , for me to see Biden driving record-level turnout like Democrats saw in 2008 .
That said , we shouldn ’ t underestimate the power of negative partisanship , or voting for a candidate because you dislike the other party so much .
That played a big role in 2016 and could again in 2020 .
Democrats don ’ t have to be enthusiastic about Biden if they ’ re enthusiastic about beating Trump .
geoffrey.skelley : Yeah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher than today , so it ’ s a factor in our elections now more than ever .
Though a piece from Matt Grossman for FiveThirtyEight points out that anger at Trump — which connects to negative partisanship — might not be enough by itself for Democrats to win in November , because while it may mobilize white voters , it doesn ’ t motivate nonwhite voters as much .
And Democrats will need solid turnout among African Americans and probably Latinos , too — think Arizona — if they are to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly with all the unknowns surrounding the coronavirus , could play a really big role here in November , too .
But I ’ m not entirely sure which party would benefit .
You could see maybe more Republicans turning out — virus , be damned — given some of the partisan splits we ’ re starting to see emerge on the coronavirus .
Or maybe it ’ s a redux of what happened in Wisconsin if the effort to push for more mail ballots is driven largely by one party .
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now to help us understand the turnout factor come November ?
nrakich : I ’ m not sure we can know , Sarah , especially because of the coronavirus .
I just think the best tool we have is to look at the polls .
geoffrey.skelley : I haven ’ t seen recent polls asking about attention level and the election , but that could be something to look for , too .
nrakich : Yeah , I bet that ’ s decreased since the pandemic took over the news .
geoffrey.skelley : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a misleading indicator at this juncture .
nrakich : One interesting thing that may or may not be important is that , according to the RealClearPolitics average , both Biden ’ s and Trump ’ s vote share in polls went down as the pandemic started .
Perhaps that suggests they ’ re feeling more uncertainty about the election ?
geoffrey.skelley : That ’ s possible .
It could also just be something about the pollsters included in the average in that particular time period .
🤷♂ sarah : OK , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently gives Democrats about an 8-point lead over Republicans , which bodes well for them holding their majority in the House , but what about the Senate ?
What can we say there about each party ’ s relative advantages there ?
geoffrey.skelley : Unlike the House , the Senate isn ’ t a national election — only 33 seats are up regularly , along with two special elections in Arizona and Georgia this year .
However , of those seats , Republicans control 23 of them , so Democrats have a fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats is that Alabama is going to be tough to hold , so they need at least four seats plus the vice presidency to gain control .
So I would still peg Republicans as favorites to hold it despite the environment .
Another way to put it ( editor-in-chief Nate Silver might approve ) is that earlier in the cycle , I would ’ ve said Democrats needed an inside straight to get control of the Senate .
But now they ’ re on a flush draw — more options and slightly better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
nrakich : Interesting… I think the Senate has to be considered a toss-up at this point .
Republicans pretty much always have the advantage in Senate races because of the chamber ’ s rural bias .
But Democrats seem to be doing well enough in the individual races this year that a 50-50 chamber seems like the modal outcome .
According to the polls , Democrats are clearly ahead in Colorado and Arizona .
North Carolina and Maine seem like toss-ups at worst for Democrats , and they might even be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose Alabama , that ’ s 50-50 already .
Plus Democrats have several dark-horse opportunities , like Montana and Georgia .
geoffrey.skelley : I would rank Montana and Iowa ahead of Georgia at this point , in terms of Democratic chances .
The runoff factor in Georgia is a potential headache for Democrats .
sarah : And remember how Indiana , Missouri and Florida went for Democrats in 2018 despite a very favorable national environment ( they lost all three ) .
I know we ’ re saying that Senate elections aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t — but Democrats taking back the Senate could still be very challenging .
geoffrey.skelley : Right , the baseline partisanship of the states with Senate contests is still slightly better for the GOP than for the Democrats .
And that could make the difference in 2020 , because remember that every Senate race followed the state ’ s presidential result in 2016 .
True , Colorado and Maine , which currently have two GOP senators up for reelection , lean slightly Democratic , but states like Georgia , Iowa and Montana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s true of Arizona and North Carolina , too , to a lesser extent .
nrakich : Sure , but Democrats could easily win the Senate even if every state once again votes the same way for president and Senate .
It ’ s quite possible that Biden will carry Maine , Colorado , Arizona and North Carolina .
If you take the polls right now literally , he ’ s probably ahead in all of those states .
It just goes back to the question of , “ Will there be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning those four states would require a mild blue wave .
Although not necessarily a 2018-level one — D+6 should do it .
geoffrey.skelley : For what it ’ s worth , another thing to remember is that waves tend to happen in midterms , not so much in presidential cycles , which usually are more evenly matched .
The 2008 cycle is an outlier there .
Just look at House results — the big shifts usually happen in midterms .
It ’ s also worth remembering that the blue wave conversation may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nature of the map there .
Because Democrats control the House and most of the competitive seats , I don ’ t think you ’ ll see a big gain for Democrats even if the environment is pretty favorable for them .
There just isn ’ t much low-hanging fruit left for them to pick off , plus they have to defend some tough seats in GOP-leaning places .
nrakich : That is fair .
But the circumstances just seem very parallel to 2008 .
A tanking economy , an unpopular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yes .
Granted , Trump is seeking reelection , and even though he ’ s unpopular , he isn ’ t nearly as unpopular as George W. Bush was in May 2008. sarah : Bold prediction , Nathaniel !
But OK , on that note , what are the biggest unknowns we should be watching as we get closer to Election Day to understand whether another blue wave is in the cards ?
nrakich : This is a boring answer , but I ’ ll just be watching the polls .
Special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re our best indicator .
But the polls in , like , October .
I will fully grant that the polls right now could be misleading us .
geoffrey.skelley : The polls right now are reasonably meaningful , but because presidential elections are just close by their nature these days , even a marginal shift could alter the outcome — and there would be down-ballot ramifications for such a shift .
So yeah , let ’ s see where things are in the fall .
nrakich : Right .
As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a presidential general election is 4 points .
So that 6-point Biden lead could actually be a 2-point Biden lead , which would make Republicans solid favorites in the Senate and would probably make the presidential race a toss-up given Trump ’ s likely Electoral College advantage .
Of course , it could also be a 10-point Biden lead .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): The 2018 midterm elections were what we called “a blue wave.” Democrats picked up 40 seats in the House, making it the third-largest gain by any party in 40 years. However, as we cautioned then, this did not mean anything for what the electoral environment might look like in 2020. Two years is a lifetime in politics.
But now we’re roughly six months away from Election Day, and it looks as if the electoral environment might once again favor Democrats. Take the Democrats’ lead over Republicans in our congressional generic ballot tracker. It’s about 8 percentage points, which is just 1 point less than their lead on Election Day 2018. It’s not just the race for Congress either. Former Vice President Joe Biden also has about a 6-point lead over Trump nationally, and that lead is even larger in some states.
However, the national environment can change — and probably will. We found, for instance, in the last six months of an election cycle, a 4-point spread, on average, between the largest and smallest generic ballot margins. That might not sound like a lot, but in our era of ultra-competitive elections, things are often decided at the margins.
So today, let’s talk about the case for — and the case against — a blue wave in 2020.
First, big picture: What evidence do we have that the overall environment is good for Democrats? Evidence that it’s good for Republicans?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): Yeah, I’m really torn on this. The evidence in favor of a blue wave starts with the polls, IMO.
First, as you mentioned, Democrats have a solid — almost 2018-level! — lead in our generic congressional ballot tracker.
I know Geoffrey has found that that’s subject to change over the course of the cycle, but it has been really steady.
Plus the Biden polls you mentioned.
Plus some truly bonkers Senate polls!
There is certainly time for things to change, but I think you can’t be feeling good about these numbers if you’re a Republican.
geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Right, while the generic ballot does handily favor Democrats now, it could change. (Historically, the margin has narrowed, and as we’ve said, I found that it moved 4 points, on average, between six months out and Election Day.)
Of course, there’s no guarantee it’ll move as much this time, but as I noted in an article on the 2020 House map, there are a bunch of seats Democrats are defending that Trump carried in 2016, so even a 1- to 2-point move in the generic ballot might make it tougher for Democrats to hold on to some of these more competitive seats they won in 2018.
Democrats are defending many districts Trump won Incumbents seeking reelection in seats won by the other party’s presidential candidate in 2016, by 2016 presidential result and median race rating District Inc. party Incumbent seeking reelection 2016 pres. margin Race Rating NJ-11 D Mikie Sherrill R+0.9 Safe D NJ-05 D Josh Gottheimer R+1.1 Safe D WI-03 D Ron Kind R+4.5 Safe D IL-17 D Cheri Bustos R+0.7 Likely D AZ-01 D Tom O’Halleran R+1.1 Likely D MN-02 D Angie Craig R+1.2 Likely D NY-18 D Sean Patrick Maloney R+1.9 Likely D PA-17 D Conor Lamb R+2.6 Likely D MI-11 D Haley Stevens R+4.4 Likely D NV-03 D Susie Lee R+1 Lean D NH-01 D Chris Pappas R+1.6 Lean D VA-02 D Elaine Luria R+3.4 Lean D IL-14 D Lauren Underwood R+3.9 Lean D MI-08 D Elissa Slotkin R+6.7 Lean D UT-04 D Ben McAdams R+6.7 Lean D NY-19 D Antonio Delgado R+6.8 Lean D PA-08 D Matt Cartwright R+9.6 Lean D GA-06 D Lucy McBath R+1.5 Toss-up IA-01 D Abby Finkenauer R+3.5 Toss-up IA-03 D Cindy Axne R+3.5 Toss-up NJ-03 D Andy Kim R+6.2 Toss-up VA-07 D Abigail Spanberger R+6.5 Toss-up NY-11 D Max Rose R+9.8 Toss-up NM-02 D Xochitl Torres Small R+10.2 Toss-up ME-02 D Jared Golden R+10.3 Toss-up SC-01 D Joe Cunningham R+13.1 Toss-up OK-05 D Kendra Horn R+13.4 Toss-up NY-22 D Anthony Brindisi R+15.5 Toss-up MN-07 D Collin Peterson R+30.8 Toss-up CA-25 R Mike Garcia D+6.7 Toss-up NY-24 R John Katko D+3.6 Lean R PA-01 R Brian Fitzpatrick D+2 Lean R Rating is the race’s median rating among the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. Sources: The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Daily Kos Elections, House of Representatives
nrakich: But even if the environment changes, I’m not sure it will be in Republicans’ favor. In addition to the polling evidence, there’s a good theoretical argument for a blue wave, which is that we’ve entered an economic crisis and the incumbent president (and his party) does not do well when the economy is struggling.
The unemployment rate is currently 14.7 percent, and I think most experts expect it to get even worse.
geoffrey.skelley: And the president’s approval rating for his handling of the coronavirus crisis is now about the same as his overall approval (43.5 percent approve of his coronavirus response, and 43.7 percent approve of his overall job performance). The fact that these figures now align arguably isn’t great for him or Republicans.
sarah: That’s a good point, but I also don’t know how big a deal that is considering just how stable Trump’s overall approval rating has been. Will his handling of the coronavirus really cause supporters to abandon him when so many other things haven’t? I don’t know. 🤷♀
One other thing I’m not entirely sure how to reconcile is Democrats’ performance in special elections. You’ve found, Nathaniel, that if one party is performing consistently better than expected, that can foreshadow a strong election cycle for that party.
Yet Democrats haven’t done that well in 2019-2020 special elections, right?
In particular, I’m thinking of their two most recent losses — the California 25th and the Wisconsin 7th — but also ones that predate those two elections haven’t boded all that well for Democrats. Is this a possible silver lining for Republicans when it comes to the national environment?
nrakich: Right — to me, this is the big argument against a blue wave. Remember how Democrats overperformed their partisan baseline so consistently in 2017-18 special elections? Well, I’m working on updating that analysis for 2019-20, and I’ll give you a sneak peek: On average so far this cycle, there has been no overperformance for either party.
That tells me that, while the national mood does seem very pro-Democratic, when it comes to turning out to vote, voters of both parties are equally motivated.
sarah: What does that mean if neither party has an advantage?
nrakich: It would point to a neutral political environment.
geoffrey.skelley: And if the electoral environment is more neutral, that might point to a close presidential race that could go either way. You’d probably still be looking at a Democratic hold in the House — but with some GOP gains — and a likely GOP hold in the Senate as well.
nrakich: Right, and I think that’s the prior we went into the election cycle with, considering we are in a historic era of polarization and close presidential elections.
Still probably not a bad assumption.
sarah: And I guess one unknown that is hard to quantify is how the coronavirus pandemic — especially if there is a resurgence in the fall — could upend the election. Not many states have moved to prepare for an all-mail election, so the repercussions could be wide-ranging, in addition to being unpredictable.
nrakich: Yeah, exactly. The coronavirus is a known unknown in more ways than one.
We’re of the position that vote-by-mail doesn’t benefit any one party. But what if different states, or different parts of swing states, are affected differently?
geoffrey.skelley: Luckily, most of the key battleground states do offer some type of mail voting, but obviously access and ease vary from state to state, and no matter what, states will need to be ready for a surge in mail balloting.
sarah: Exactly. And FiveThirtyEight contributor Lee Drutman cautioned in that piece Nathaniel linked to that we should be careful not to apply too much of how voting by mail has worked previously to 2020, as the states that moved to universal voting did so gradually, over several election cycles. In other words, there’s no precedent for what we might see in 2020, and as Lee wrote, “The obvious implication is that efforts to expand absentee voting in a pandemic might work differently. And maybe there will be partisan differences in who chooses to vote by mail, as we saw in Wisconsin’s primary.”
nrakich: Switching gears a bit, I’m curious what you guys made of this article from CNN?
To sum it up, it found that Trump supporters were more enthusiastic to vote in November than Biden supporters. That’s significant because the party with the enthusiasm advantage has won every presidential election since 1988.
geoffrey.skelley: Enthusiasm certainly matters to some extent. But if one side has a pretty appreciable lead, I’m not sure it matters that much at the end of the day.
nrakich: Yeah, on the other hand, I do wonder about a scenario where the coronavirus is still a factor in November, states haven’t moved to vote by mail and Democrats are more scared to go to polling places than Republicans are.
sarah: Ah, about that supposed lack of enthusiasm for Biden…
People were skeptical in April when we chatted about an ABC/Washington Post poll that found lukewarm enthusiasm for Biden and solid numbers for Trump, but I still think this idea that voters aren’t that excited about Biden has the power to shape the narrative in more ways than we give it credit for. It’s hard, for instance, for me to see Biden driving record-level turnout like Democrats saw in 2008.
That said, we shouldn’t underestimate the power of negative partisanship, or voting for a candidate because you dislike the other party so much. That played a big role in 2016 and could again in 2020.
nrakich: Yes, that’s a good point, Sarah.
Democrats don’t have to be enthusiastic about Biden if they’re enthusiastic about beating Trump.
sarah: Exactly.
geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, negative partisanship has probably never been higher than today, so it’s a factor in our elections now more than ever. Though a piece from Matt Grossman for FiveThirtyEight points out that anger at Trump — which connects to negative partisanship — might not be enough by itself for Democrats to win in November, because while it may mobilize white voters, it doesn’t motivate nonwhite voters as much. And Democrats will need solid turnout among African Americans and probably Latinos, too — think Arizona — if they are to win the presidency.
sarah: Turnout, particularly with all the unknowns surrounding the coronavirus, could play a really big role here in November, too. But I’m not entirely sure which party would benefit.
You could see maybe more Republicans turning out — virus, be damned — given some of the partisan splits we’re starting to see emerge on the coronavirus. Or maybe it’s a redux of what happened in Wisconsin if the effort to push for more mail ballots is driven largely by one party.
Are there clues we can be looking toward now to help us understand the turnout factor come November?
nrakich: I’m not sure we can know, Sarah, especially because of the coronavirus.
I just think the best tool we have is to look at the polls.
geoffrey.skelley: I haven’t seen recent polls asking about attention level and the election, but that could be something to look for, too.
nrakich: Yeah, I bet that’s decreased since the pandemic took over the news.
geoffrey.skelley: Good point — it might actually be a misleading indicator at this juncture.
nrakich: One interesting thing that may or may not be important is that, according to the RealClearPolitics average, both Biden’s and Trump’s vote share in polls went down as the pandemic started.
Perhaps that suggests they’re feeling more uncertainty about the election?
geoffrey.skelley: That’s possible. It could also just be something about the pollsters included in the average in that particular time period. 🤷♂
sarah: OK, we’ve talked about how the generic ballot currently gives Democrats about an 8-point lead over Republicans, which bodes well for them holding their majority in the House, but what about the Senate? What can we say there about each party’s relative advantages there?
geoffrey.skelley: Unlike the House, the Senate isn’t a national election — only 33 seats are up regularly, along with two special elections in Arizona and Georgia this year. However, of those seats, Republicans control 23 of them, so Democrats have a fair amount of targets. The problem for Democrats is that Alabama is going to be tough to hold, so they need at least four seats plus the vice presidency to gain control. So I would still peg Republicans as favorites to hold it despite the environment.
Another way to put it (editor-in-chief Nate Silver might approve) is that earlier in the cycle, I would’ve said Democrats needed an inside straight to get control of the Senate. But now they’re on a flush draw — more options and slightly better odds — though they still need help.
nrakich: Interesting… I think the Senate has to be considered a toss-up at this point. Republicans pretty much always have the advantage in Senate races because of the chamber’s rural bias. But Democrats seem to be doing well enough in the individual races this year that a 50-50 chamber seems like the modal outcome.
According to the polls, Democrats are clearly ahead in Colorado and Arizona. North Carolina and Maine seem like toss-ups at worst for Democrats, and they might even be a little bit ahead. Even if they lose Alabama, that’s 50-50 already.
Plus Democrats have several dark-horse opportunities, like Montana and Georgia.
geoffrey.skelley: I would rank Montana and Iowa ahead of Georgia at this point, in terms of Democratic chances.
The runoff factor in Georgia is a potential headache for Democrats.
sarah: And remember how Indiana, Missouri and Florida went for Democrats in 2018 despite a very favorable national environment (they lost all three). I know we’re saying that Senate elections aren’t national elections — and they aren’t — but Democrats taking back the Senate could still be very challenging.
geoffrey.skelley: Right, the baseline partisanship of the states with Senate contests is still slightly better for the GOP than for the Democrats. And that could make the difference in 2020, because remember that every Senate race followed the state’s presidential result in 2016. True, Colorado and Maine, which currently have two GOP senators up for reelection, lean slightly Democratic, but states like Georgia, Iowa and Montana lean toward the GOP. That’s true of Arizona and North Carolina, too, to a lesser extent.
nrakich: Sure, but Democrats could easily win the Senate even if every state once again votes the same way for president and Senate. It’s quite possible that Biden will carry Maine, Colorado, Arizona and North Carolina. If you take the polls right now literally, he’s probably ahead in all of those states.
It just goes back to the question of, “Will there be a blue wave in 2020?”
Biden winning those four states would require a mild blue wave.
Although not necessarily a 2018-level one — D+6 should do it.
geoffrey.skelley: For what it’s worth, another thing to remember is that waves tend to happen in midterms, not so much in presidential cycles, which usually are more evenly matched. The 2008 cycle is an outlier there. Just look at House results — the big shifts usually happen in midterms.
It’s also worth remembering that the blue wave conversation may be more obvious in the Senate because of the nature of the map there. Because Democrats control the House and most of the competitive seats, I don’t think you’ll see a big gain for Democrats even if the environment is pretty favorable for them. There just isn’t much low-hanging fruit left for them to pick off, plus they have to defend some tough seats in GOP-leaning places.
nrakich: That is fair. But the circumstances just seem very parallel to 2008. A tanking economy, an unpopular Republican president…
geoffrey.skelley: To some extent, yes. Granted, Trump is seeking reelection, and even though he’s unpopular, he isn’t nearly as unpopular as George W. Bush was in May 2008.
sarah: Bold prediction, Nathaniel! But OK, on that note, what are the biggest unknowns we should be watching as we get closer to Election Day to understand whether another blue wave is in the cards?
nrakich: This is a boring answer, but I’ll just be watching the polls. Special election results notwithstanding, I still think they’re our best indicator.
But the polls in, like, October. I will fully grant that the polls right now could be misleading us.
geoffrey.skelley: The polls right now are reasonably meaningful, but because presidential elections are just close by their nature these days, even a marginal shift could alter the outcome — and there would be down-ballot ramifications for such a shift. So yeah, let’s see where things are in the fall.
nrakich: Right. As I recently wrote, a normal polling error for a presidential general election is 4 points. So that 6-point Biden lead could actually be a 2-point Biden lead, which would make Republicans solid favorites in the Senate and would probably make the presidential race a toss-up given Trump’s likely Electoral College advantage.
Of course, it could also be a 10-point Biden lead.
🌊
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Does Trump Really Want A Fight With Obama?


The Uncounted Dead

The first time Bob Duffy entered the world of epidemiology , he was an amateur scientist .
It was 2003 .
He had retired from the New York City Fire Department and taken a sabbatical from his normal life in suburban Long Island to help his daughter Meghan earn her Ph.D. in Michigan .
She was studying the ecology and evolution of infectious diseases , using tiny lake crustaceans as a model organism .
Together , Meghan and Bob would go out in a truck , towing a little , flat-bottomed rowboat .
They were studying how epidemics begin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ d unhitch at one lake , and then another , working their way across the countryside as they collected and counted diseased crustaceans and the fish that preyed on them .
“ Over the course of a few months , you can go through a whole epidemic , ” Meghan Duffy told me .
Her father was her paid research assistant , and one of his jobs was to catch the fish .
After 30 years of running into burning buildings , he couldn ’ t believe his luck , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered the world of epidemiology , he was a statistic .
He died , at home , on March 29 , 2020 .
Officially , the cause of death was chronic lung disease .
But there was more going on than just that .
A sudden illness had left him too fatigued to leave the house , and he had had contact with multiple people who later tested positive for COVID-19 .
Yet Bob ’ s death certificate doesn ’ t list that disease as a cause or even a probable cause of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — he didn ’ t want to enter a hospital and be separated from Fran , his wife of 48 years .
Instead , because he didn ’ t die at a hospital and because this was at the beginning of the pandemic , when guidelines were rapidly changing and testing was hard to come by , Bob Duffy became one of the people who fell through the statistical cracks .
As of this writing , 22,843 New Yorkers have officially died from COVID-19 .
Bob Duffy is not counted among them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of who counts as a COVID-19 fatality has become political .
In Florida , the Medical Examiners Commission accused state officials of suppressing their state death count .
Pennsylvania ’ s death tally bounced up and down , enough to prompt the state senate to discuss giving coroners a bigger role in investigating COVID-19 deaths .
And President Trump has questioned the official national death count of 90,340 as of May 19 , reportedly wondering whether it was exaggerated .
The experts who are involved in counting novel coronavirus deaths at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — disagree with the president .
If anything , they say , these deaths are undercounted .
And with a death like Bob Duffy ’ s , you can begin to see why .
Bob was a person , beloved by his family and his community .
Ever since he died , Bob has also become a number — data entered into a spreadsheet , just like the tiny shellfish he and his daughter once pulled from cold Michigan lakes .
His death might never end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death matters to the way we understand it .
There was never a cough .
Instead , the first sign of illness Fran Duffy remembers was when she and Bob tried to go for a walk and he couldn ’ t make it to the end of the block .
“ We got three houses down , and he said , ‘ I can ’ t walk today .
I ’ m too tired.
’ I thought maybe he ’ s getting a bug .
Maybe he ’ s just tired .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
He died four days later .
It was a very fast decline .
But in other ways , Bob ’ s final illness was just part of a long string of sicknesses .
Over the two decades since his retirement , he had had a stroke .
He also had had cancer in his mouth , colon and liver .
There was scarring — fibrosis — that had damaged his lungs and forced him onto supplemental oxygen .
The radiation treatments that had cured his cancers years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his legs and a slowly eroding jawbone .
Bob was not the picture of health .
We are , after all , talking about a guy who worked for the NYFD during a time when firefighters did not routinely wear the ventilators and masks they had been issued .
It was a macho thing , Fran said .
You couldn ’ t be the one guy who put on the mask if nobody else did .
So when Bob got sick in late March this year , whatever it was was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was also so sick of being sick that he wasn ’ t interested in going to the hospital .
Even as his temperature soared to 103 degrees , Bob chose to do a video chat with his family doctor , Ihor Magun , rather than leave the house .
Fran remembers the doctor suggesting they treat Bob as if he was positive for COVID-19 , in terms of isolation from friends and family .
He could have gotten a test — but the nearest testing center at Jones Beach was 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long lines besides .
Fran thought about driving him out there , but he was already sick enough that that option seemed worse for him than not knowing what it was that he had contracted .
All those small decisions , made in the moment because of what was best for Bob , ended up determining how his death was recorded .
The way deaths are counted , like so much else in the U.S. , differs among ( and even within ) states .
There ’ s a lot of variation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good day — a fact that stretches all the way back to the beginning of mortality records in this country .
While the census began counting living people nationwide in 1790 , recording deaths was left up to state and local governments .
The first state to fully document its deaths was Massachusetts , in 1842 .
It wasn ’ t until 1933 that all states were turning in death counts to federal authorities .
Even today , now that the death certificate itself is fairly standardized , who first records your death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by where you live and where you die .
And that variation is only likely to increase when people begin dying of a new disease that we still don ’ t understand .
In Milwaukee County , Wisconsin , for example , medical examiners — medical doctors who investigate deaths and perform autopsies — must provide official certification for every COVID-19 or COVID-19-related death in the county , said Dr. Sally Aiken , president of the National Association of Medical Examiners .
But that ’ s not true everywhere .
In New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in cases that seem strange or suspicious , like when an otherwise healthy young person dies with no prior warning , said Richard Sullivan , president of the New York State Funeral Directors Association .
Otherwise , the decision is left up to health care workers .
Bob ’ s death certificate was filled out by his family doctor and did not mention COVID-19 .
The county medical examiner called Fran but asked only about Bob ’ s preexisting conditions .
He had had enough of them that there was no reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the medical examiner needed to know .
If Bob had died in a nearby hospital , such as one of the ones in Nassau County owned by Northwell Health , he would have been tested for COVID-19 , either before or after his death .
Whether he ’ d been there for five minutes or a month , hospital staff would have been in charge of filling out the part of his electronic death record that pertains to cause of death , a representative from Northwell told me .
This process can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of death on the line — but there ’ s more to it than you ’ d think .
The New York electronic death records form provides three lines for cause of death , which are supposed to be filled out in a way that tells a story .
The idea is that nobody ever really dies of just one thing , Aiken told me .
Even if you die in a traffic accident , the death record might read something like “ Blunt force trauma … as a consequence of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that helps people further up the data chain classify a death accurately .
Leaving any part of the story out means a gap in the data later .
Not everyone fills out these records completely , though .
And early on during the COVID-19 pandemic , there was a lot of confusion happening , said Shawna Webster , executive director of the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems , which represents vital registrars nationwide .
“ It might just say ‘ coronavirus , ’ which I ’ m sure you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to be , ” she said .
There are , after all , multiple ways COVID-19 might kill a person .
On the other end of the spectrum are people who fill out the forms completely wrong .
“ Please do not put ‘ COVID-19 test negative , ' ” Webster said .
“ Do not do that .
There were several.
” In the days after his first symptoms , Bob ’ s condition worsened .
He ’ d become so tired he couldn ’ t leave the house — then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was impossible .
He had a massively high fever .
But even Saturday , the night before he died , he was still talking , Fran said , and so she asked him what he wanted for dinner .
She expected something light .
Bob said , “ Corned beef hash.
” “ I said , ‘ Bob , corned beef hash ? '
” But he was sure .
So Fran put it together for him , the man she loved .
She had to move him to a wheelchair and bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He could no longer walk without falling .
“ I bring him to the kitchen and I ’ m just turning to the sink to wash my hands and I hear plop , ” she said .
He had fallen asleep at the table .
“ His head went right down in the plate .
And I just said , ‘ Bob .
What about the corned beef hash !
’ So it just … he thought about it and he wanted it , but he just couldn ’ t get it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of oxygen depletion and exhaustion — coupled with an ability to still communicate — is a common feature of COVID-19 .
Even after he collapsed at the table , Bob was lucid enough to talk to the priest who gave him his last rites later that night .
He died the next day .
Over the next few weeks , it would become clear that Bob had been in contact with a number of potential sources of COVID-19 — or maybe he ’ d been a source that passed it to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His son-in-law was later diagnosed with the disease , and his wife — one of Bob ’ s three daughters — tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies .
One day Fran would open the newspaper to find that the woman who had cut her and Bob ’ s hair for three decades — and who had come to their house just before Bob got sick — had died of COVID-19 .
But Bob ’ s death certificate makes no mention of the novel coronavirus .
Bob ’ s doctor did not return requests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know why he made the choices he did when completing the certificate .
But Bob ’ s immediate cause of death is listed as “ cardiopulmonary arrest ” — his heart stopped — as a consequence of “ chronic obstructive lung disease , ” as a consequence of “ fibrosis.
” Bob is a prime example of why doctors and other experts think that COVID-19 deaths are probably being undercounted — not overcounted , as some COVID-19 skeptics have alleged .
In fact , if Bob had died today , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d have been labeled a “ probable ” COVID death , based on current CDC guidelines , which , among other things , advise doctors to include “ probable COVID-19 ” on death certificates when a patient has had symptoms of the disease and been in contact with people who tested positive .
Originally , only people who themselves had tested positive for the virus were being counted .
Like Bob , a lot of people were probably left out .
But even as the guidelines were revised and the national death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as confirmed cases — shot upward , experts said that undercounting was still more likely than overcounting .
Some of this reasoning is based on logic .
We know that we had a widespread shortage of tests when people were already dying of COVID-19 , so it makes sense that these two problems would overlap at times .
Other reasoning is based on data .
In a lot of states the number of pneumonia deaths in March was higher than what you ’ d expect for that time of year , or for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time — an important detail , given that pneumonia can often be a complication of that disease as well .
These increases were particularly noticeable in New Jersey , Georgia , Illinois , Washington and New York , according to research led by Dan Weinberger , a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Medicine .
But pneumonia isn ’ t the only way COVID-19 kills .
All deaths in the state of New York went up in March , and these excess deaths — deaths above the usual rate for that place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 cases statewide by nearly three times .
Data collected by The New York Times suggests that the high number of “ excess ” deaths in New York continued through April .
Yet another reason why experts say we ’ re not overcounting COVID-19 deaths is that we ’ re now counting them in much the same way as we have always counted deaths from infectious disease .
The methodology is longstanding and is used for all sorts of diseases — and there ’ s never been cause to think that the methodology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other diseases .
In the bureaucracy of death everything happens fast , fast , fast , and then , after a while , things just grind on .
If you look at the CDC ’ s annual report of flu deaths , for example , you ’ ll see that it ’ s “ estimated , ” modeled on official flu deaths reported , deaths from flu-like causes reported , and what we know about flu epidemiology .
The calculation is done this way precisely because public health officials know that a straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an undercount of actual flu deaths .
While flu tests aren ’ t in short supply and essentially anyone who wants to be tested for the flu can be , not everyone who catches it gets tested .
Plenty of people get sick with the flu and never go to a doctor , said Alberto Marino , a research officer at the London School of Economics who has studied disease case and death counts for both LSE and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development .
If they die — especially if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying condition — the role the flu played in their deaths can easily go unnoticed and unrecorded .
We don ’ t record “ probable ” flu deaths ( again , the tests aren ’ t rationed ) , but we do record deaths due to “ flu-like illnesses ” — and plenty of people who die from the flu don ’ t have that listed as the cause on their death certificates .
Likewise , when a doctor lists COVID-19 as a condition that led to someone ’ s death — even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of illnesses — they ’ re not doing anything different from what ’ s been done with the flu for years , Aiken told me .
Basically , if you think COVID-19 deaths are being inflated , then you shouldn ’ t trust annual flu death counts , either .
Or a whole host of other death counts .
The only reason to really think that COVID-19 death counts are less trustworthy at this point is that the flu is politically neutral while the new coronavirus is not .
If there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way we count flu deaths and the way we count COVID-19 deaths , it ’ s that nobody is trying to publish flu deaths daily , in real time .
And that ’ s where death counting for COVID-19 gets complicated .
When Bob Duffy died , his community responded immediately .
Fran found her mailbox filled with cards ; flowers and baked goods piled up on the porch .
At one point , there were so many tulips , hydrangeas and pansies that the Amazon delivery guy started to make comments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the yard .
“ There ’ s not one card that doesn ’ t have a separate letter in it , ” she said .
And many were from people she didn ’ t even know .
Besides being a firefighter and Ph.D. assistant , Bob spent many years working with the local Catholic parish ’ s social ministry .
Essentially , he was a volunteer social worker .
He made sure people who were hungry found meals .
He helped strangers pay their utility bills , and he coordinated a Long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volunteer one day a week .
Bob officially volunteered five days a week , ” Fran told me .
“ He ended up with the keys to the parish .
He was up there seven days a week , and he couldn ’ t be stopped.
” So when he did stop , people cared .
And they cared for his widow .
Death happens suddenly , abruptly .
At first , family , friends and , sometimes , if we ’ re lucky , strangers burst into action like Roman candles , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like sparks .
For a short period of time , there is a lot to do , decisions to be made , love to be accepted .
But then there is quiet .
And then there is the rest of your life .
The absence that death leaves behind lasts far longer than the initial flurry of condolences .
The bureaucracy of death has a similar dynamic — first , everything happens fast , fast , fast , and then , after a while , things just grind on .
In New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two after a person dies , the doctor or hospital enters the cause of death on an electronic death record , the funeral home fills out demographic data on the same form , and the state registrar of vital statistics logs the data .
But from there things slow down considerably .
Usually , that ’ s fine — death statistics aren ’ t so volatile that we need them to be updated as quickly as , say , election returns or live sports scores .
But the pandemic has changed our relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re how we know whether we ’ re stopping the spread of COVID-19 , and just how big that spread is .
The problem is that the system isn ’ t designed to do that work .
Normally , if a death is uncomplicated and requires no investigation or autopsy or debate , death records are transferred to the National Center for Health Statistics , an arm of the CDC that organizes and analyzes the data of life and death in this country .
It ’ s here that a death is categorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening now , with COVID-19 deaths as well .
It takes time to investigate some of the deaths and get them to NCHS — the frequency of investigations varies widely , but state-level emergency operations teams work with medical personnel and state epidemiology surveillance to review COVID-19 deaths and possible COVID-19 deaths , Webster said .
So the records can be in the state databases for a while before they ’ re solid enough that they go to NCHS .
Then , someone at the NCHS is reading each of these death records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a car crash victim who happened to have a COVID-19 diagnosis is logged in a database differently from a COVID-19-positive patient who died on a ventilator .
The result of all this is that , even though public counts include confirmed COVID-19 deaths and probable ones , the deaths aren ’ t just being recorded willy-nilly .
And it will be possible , in the future , to go back and look at the records and see which cases were confirmed by testing and which weren ’ t .
But these are slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down even further by the confusion caused by a novel virus pandemic .
Currently , the count of COVID-19 deaths produced this way is at least two weeks behind , said Robert Anderson , chief of the mortality statistics branch of the NCHS .
The counts in some states , including New York , might be lagging even more .
This system is the gold standard , Webster said , but it ’ s designed to produce accurate statistics — not monitor a pandemic in real time .
Death is hard — hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so the CDC also has fast stats on COVID-19 deaths .
Besides going to the NCHS , the data from the New York State vital records office is also gathered directly from that agency ’ s database and into one maintained by USAFacts , a nonpartisan nonprofit organization charged with collecting daily death reports from the state and county registrars that first record them .
The CDC ’ s COVID Data Tracker comes directly from the USAFacts count .
That means there are two distinct death counts being published by the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( That ’ s in addition to counts being kept by Johns Hopkins University , The New York Times , and other entities . )
As of May 19 , the CDC ’ s slow count was 67,008 , and its fast count was 90,340 .
You ’ ll find both counts in various sections of the CDC ’ s website , and when you look at those pages , it ’ s not always clear what these separate counts do and don ’ t represent .
It ’ s easy to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ve just seen in the newspaper has suddenly been cut in half .
On May 2 , conservative firebrand Dinesh D ’ Souza falsely claimed exactly that , linking his followers to the CDC ’ s slow count .
The smaller , slow count is more accurate , but it doesn ’ t reflect how many people have died as of today .
It ’ s weeks behind .
The fast count does a better job of portraying the real-time situation , but the exact number will shift as state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change is due to confusion between state and local entities .
New York City , for example , has its own vital records office — almost as though it ’ s an independent state — and the fast-count numbers it produces for itself don ’ t usually match the fast-count numbers produced for it by the State of New York , said Tanveer Ali , a data visualization analyst for USAFacts .
And while Bob Duffy will not be counted in either the slow or the fast counts happening now , he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — if only by algorithmic proxy .
Eventually , experts said , the CDC will come back and do an estimated burden of death counts for COVID-19 , just as it does for the flu every year .
All of this is why we won ’ t know the exact number of people who died of COVID-19 for years , Aiken said .
Again , that ’ s nothing new .
Final estimates for the number of people who died in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic weren ’ t published until 2011 .
Getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences between disparate and nonstandardized state reporting systems , correcting errors and categorizing probable cases , finding ways to understand how many Bob Duffys we ’ re missing — it all takes time .
This is , experts emphasized again and again , something nobody has ever done before .
But the precedent that does exist suggests we shouldn ’ t expect to get a “ right ” answer soon .
“ If you look at opioid mortality , they ’ re two and a half years behind on compiling that , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to count , hard to experience .
The personal and the statistical both reside in a space where the question of “ what happened ” can be answered as an absolute — as certain as we can ever be about a thing — while simultaneously remaining painfully inexact and mysterious .
We will almost certainly never know exactly how many Americans died of COVID-19 .
But any count we get by leaving out deaths probably related to the virus — and , ultimately , leaving out Bob and a lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a count that includes them .
“ We like to have answers .
We like to have a yes , a no , a definite answer , ” Fran said .
Bob had been dead for about a month when Fran spoke to me from her kitchen .
Just that day , someone she didn ’ t know had sympathetically left a loaf of banana bread in her mailbox .
He was still so close .
He was so far away .
“ But we certainly don ’ t always get what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That ’ s really the truth , you know ?
”

The first time Bob Duffy entered the world of epidemiology, he was an amateur scientist. It was 2003. He had retired from the New York City Fire Department and taken a sabbatical from his normal life in suburban Long Island to help his daughter Meghan earn her Ph.D. in Michigan. She was studying the ecology and evolution of infectious diseases, using tiny lake crustaceans as a model organism.
Together, Meghan and Bob would go out in a truck, towing a little, flat-bottomed rowboat. They were studying how epidemics begin and spread under a variety of conditions. They’d unhitch at one lake, and then another, working their way across the countryside as they collected and counted diseased crustaceans and the fish that preyed on them. “Over the course of a few months, you can go through a whole epidemic,” Meghan Duffy told me. Her father was her paid research assistant, and one of his jobs was to catch the fish. After 30 years of running into burning buildings, he couldn’t believe his luck, she said.
The last time Bob Duffy entered the world of epidemiology, he was a statistic.
He died, at home, on March 29, 2020. Officially, the cause of death was chronic lung disease. But there was more going on than just that. A sudden illness had left him too fatigued to leave the house, and he had had contact with multiple people who later tested positive for COVID-19. Yet Bob’s death certificate doesn’t list that disease as a cause or even a probable cause of his death. He never got tested — he didn’t want to enter a hospital and be separated from Fran, his wife of 48 years.
Instead, because he didn’t die at a hospital and because this was at the beginning of the pandemic, when guidelines were rapidly changing and testing was hard to come by, Bob Duffy became one of the people who fell through the statistical cracks. As of this writing, 22,843 New Yorkers have officially died from COVID-19. Bob Duffy is not counted among them.
More than a month later, the question of who counts as a COVID-19 fatality has become political. In Florida, the Medical Examiners Commission accused state officials of suppressing their state death count. Pennsylvania’s death tally bounced up and down, enough to prompt the state senate to discuss giving coroners a bigger role in investigating COVID-19 deaths. And President Trump has questioned the official national death count of 90,340 as of May 19, reportedly wondering whether it was exaggerated.
The experts who are involved in counting novel coronavirus deaths at all levels — from local hospitals to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — disagree with the president. If anything, they say, these deaths are undercounted. And with a death like Bob Duffy’s, you can begin to see why.
Bob was a person, beloved by his family and his community. Ever since he died, Bob has also become a number — data entered into a spreadsheet, just like the tiny shellfish he and his daughter once pulled from cold Michigan lakes. His death might never end up being attributed to SARS-CoV-2, but his death matters to the way we understand it.
There was never a cough. Instead, the first sign of illness Fran Duffy remembers was when she and Bob tried to go for a walk and he couldn’t make it to the end of the block. “We got three houses down, and he said, ‘I can’t walk today. I’m too tired.’ I thought maybe he’s getting a bug. Maybe he’s just tired. So we came back. That was Wednesday,” she said.
He died four days later.
It was a very fast decline. But in other ways, Bob’s final illness was just part of a long string of sicknesses. Over the two decades since his retirement, he had had a stroke. He also had had cancer in his mouth, colon and liver. There was scarring — fibrosis — that had damaged his lungs and forced him onto supplemental oxygen. The radiation treatments that had cured his cancers years ago had also left him with nerve damage in his legs and a slowly eroding jawbone. Bob was not the picture of health. We are, after all, talking about a guy who worked for the NYFD during a time when firefighters did not routinely wear the ventilators and masks they had been issued. It was a macho thing, Fran said. You couldn’t be the one guy who put on the mask if nobody else did.
So when Bob got sick in late March this year, whatever it was was not the only thing he was sick with. He was also so sick of being sick that he wasn’t interested in going to the hospital. Even as his temperature soared to 103 degrees, Bob chose to do a video chat with his family doctor, Ihor Magun, rather than leave the house. Fran remembers the doctor suggesting they treat Bob as if he was positive for COVID-19, in terms of isolation from friends and family. He could have gotten a test — but the nearest testing center at Jones Beach was 30 minutes away, and then there were the long lines besides. Fran thought about driving him out there, but he was already sick enough that that option seemed worse for him than not knowing what it was that he had contracted.
All those small decisions, made in the moment because of what was best for Bob, ended up determining how his death was recorded.
The way deaths are counted, like so much else in the U.S., differs among (and even within) states. There’s a lot of variation in this process, even on a good day — a fact that stretches all the way back to the beginning of mortality records in this country. While the census began counting living people nationwide in 1790, recording deaths was left up to state and local governments. The first state to fully document its deaths was Massachusetts, in 1842. It wasn’t until 1933 that all states were turning in death counts to federal authorities.
Even today, now that the death certificate itself is fairly standardized, who first records your death and decides what you died of varies by where you live and where you die. And that variation is only likely to increase when people begin dying of a new disease that we still don’t understand. In Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, for example, medical examiners — medical doctors who investigate deaths and perform autopsies — must provide official certification for every COVID-19 or COVID-19-related death in the county, said Dr. Sally Aiken, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. But that’s not true everywhere. In New York State, medical examiners get involved only in cases that seem strange or suspicious, like when an otherwise healthy young person dies with no prior warning, said Richard Sullivan, president of the New York State Funeral Directors Association. Otherwise, the decision is left up to health care workers.
Bob’s death certificate was filled out by his family doctor and did not mention COVID-19. The county medical examiner called Fran but asked only about Bob’s preexisting conditions. He had had enough of them that there was no reason to suspect foul play, and that was all the medical examiner needed to know.
If Bob had died in a nearby hospital, such as one of the ones in Nassau County owned by Northwell Health, he would have been tested for COVID-19, either before or after his death. Whether he’d been there for five minutes or a month, hospital staff would have been in charge of filling out the part of his electronic death record that pertains to cause of death, a representative from Northwell told me. This process can look deceptively simple — just write a cause of death on the line — but there’s more to it than you’d think.
The New York electronic death records form provides three lines for cause of death, which are supposed to be filled out in a way that tells a story. The idea is that nobody ever really dies of just one thing, Aiken told me. Even if you die in a traffic accident, the death record might read something like “Blunt force trauma … as a consequence of a car crash.” This is the information that helps people further up the data chain classify a death accurately. Leaving any part of the story out means a gap in the data later.
Not everyone fills out these records completely, though. And early on during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a lot of confusion happening, said Shawna Webster, executive director of the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems, which represents vital registrars nationwide. “It might just say ‘coronavirus,’ which I’m sure you know is not as descriptive as it needs to be,” she said. There are, after all, multiple ways COVID-19 might kill a person. On the other end of the spectrum are people who fill out the forms completely wrong. “Please do not put ‘COVID-19 test negative,'” Webster said. “Do not do that. There were several.”
In the days after his first symptoms, Bob’s condition worsened. He’d become so tired he couldn’t leave the house — then so tired that walking anywhere by himself was impossible. He had a massively high fever. But even Saturday, the night before he died, he was still talking, Fran said, and so she asked him what he wanted for dinner. She expected something light. Bob said, “Corned beef hash.”
“I said, ‘Bob, corned beef hash?'” But he was sure. So Fran put it together for him, the man she loved. She had to move him to a wheelchair and bring him to the kitchen to eat. He could no longer walk without falling. “I bring him to the kitchen and I’m just turning to the sink to wash my hands and I hear plop,” she said. He had fallen asleep at the table. “His head went right down in the plate. And I just said, ‘Bob. What about the corned beef hash!’ So it just … he thought about it and he wanted it, but he just couldn’t get it, you know?”
Doctors say this kind of oxygen depletion and exhaustion — coupled with an ability to still communicate — is a common feature of COVID-19. Even after he collapsed at the table, Bob was lucid enough to talk to the priest who gave him his last rites later that night. He died the next day.
Over the next few weeks, it would become clear that Bob had been in contact with a number of potential sources of COVID-19 — or maybe he’d been a source that passed it to them. It’s impossible to know. His son-in-law was later diagnosed with the disease, and his wife — one of Bob’s three daughters — tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. One day Fran would open the newspaper to find that the woman who had cut her and Bob’s hair for three decades — and who had come to their house just before Bob got sick — had died of COVID-19.
But Bob’s death certificate makes no mention of the novel coronavirus. Bob’s doctor did not return requests for an interview, so we don’t know why he made the choices he did when completing the certificate. But Bob’s immediate cause of death is listed as “cardiopulmonary arrest” — his heart stopped — as a consequence of “chronic obstructive lung disease,” as a consequence of “fibrosis.”
Bob is a prime example of why doctors and other experts think that COVID-19 deaths are probably being undercounted — not overcounted, as some COVID-19 skeptics have alleged. In fact, if Bob had died today, there’s a decent chance that he’d have been labeled a “probable” COVID death, based on current CDC guidelines, which, among other things, advise doctors to include “probable COVID-19” on death certificates when a patient has had symptoms of the disease and been in contact with people who tested positive. Originally, only people who themselves had tested positive for the virus were being counted. Like Bob, a lot of people were probably left out. But even as the guidelines were revised and the national death count — which includes probable as well as confirmed cases — shot upward, experts said that undercounting was still more likely than overcounting.
Some of this reasoning is based on logic. We know that we had a widespread shortage of tests when people were already dying of COVID-19, so it makes sense that these two problems would overlap at times.
Other reasoning is based on data. In a lot of states the number of pneumonia deaths in March was higher than what you’d expect for that time of year, or for the level of influenza active during that time — an important detail, given that pneumonia can often be a complication of that disease as well. These increases were particularly noticeable in New Jersey, Georgia, Illinois, Washington and New York, according to research led by Dan Weinberger, a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Medicine. But pneumonia isn’t the only way COVID-19 kills. All deaths in the state of New York went up in March, and these excess deaths — deaths above the usual rate for that place and time of year — outstrip diagnosed COVID-19 cases statewide by nearly three times. Data collected by The New York Times suggests that the high number of “excess” deaths in New York continued through April.
Yet another reason why experts say we’re not overcounting COVID-19 deaths is that we’re now counting them in much the same way as we have always counted deaths from infectious disease. The methodology is longstanding and is used for all sorts of diseases — and there’s never been cause to think that the methodology made us overcount the deaths from those other diseases.
In the bureaucracy of death everything happens fast, fast, fast, and then, after a while, things just grind on.
If you look at the CDC’s annual report of flu deaths, for example, you’ll see that it’s “estimated,” modeled on official flu deaths reported, deaths from flu-like causes reported, and what we know about flu epidemiology. The calculation is done this way precisely because public health officials know that a straight count of formally diagnosed flu deaths would be an undercount of actual flu deaths.
While flu tests aren’t in short supply and essentially anyone who wants to be tested for the flu can be, not everyone who catches it gets tested. Plenty of people get sick with the flu and never go to a doctor, said Alberto Marino, a research officer at the London School of Economics who has studied disease case and death counts for both LSE and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. If they die — especially if they are also old or have some underlying condition — the role the flu played in their deaths can easily go unnoticed and unrecorded. We don’t record “probable” flu deaths (again, the tests aren’t rationed), but we do record deaths due to “flu-like illnesses” — and plenty of people who die from the flu don’t have that listed as the cause on their death certificates.
Likewise, when a doctor lists COVID-19 as a condition that led to someone’s death — even if it was just the last in a series of illnesses — they’re not doing anything different from what’s been done with the flu for years, Aiken told me.
Basically, if you think COVID-19 deaths are being inflated, then you shouldn’t trust annual flu death counts, either. Or a whole host of other death counts. The only reason to really think that COVID-19 death counts are less trustworthy at this point is that the flu is politically neutral while the new coronavirus is not.
If there’s any major difference between the way we count flu deaths and the way we count COVID-19 deaths, it’s that nobody is trying to publish flu deaths daily, in real time. And that’s where death counting for COVID-19 gets complicated.
When Bob Duffy died, his community responded immediately. Fran found her mailbox filled with cards; flowers and baked goods piled up on the porch. At one point, there were so many tulips, hydrangeas and pansies that the Amazon delivery guy started to make comments, so Fran decided to plant the flowers around the yard. “There’s not one card that doesn’t have a separate letter in it,” she said. And many were from people she didn’t even know.
Besides being a firefighter and Ph.D. assistant, Bob spent many years working with the local Catholic parish’s social ministry. Essentially, he was a volunteer social worker. He made sure people who were hungry found meals. He helped strangers pay their utility bills, and he coordinated a Long Island-wide food bank. “Most people volunteer one day a week. Bob officially volunteered five days a week,” Fran told me. “He ended up with the keys to the parish. He was up there seven days a week, and he couldn’t be stopped.”
So when he did stop, people cared. And they cared for his widow.
Death happens suddenly, abruptly. At first, family, friends and, sometimes, if we’re lucky, strangers burst into action like Roman candles, sending out showers of casseroles and condolences like sparks. For a short period of time, there is a lot to do, decisions to be made, love to be accepted. But then there is quiet. And then there is the rest of your life. The absence that death leaves behind lasts far longer than the initial flurry of condolences.
The bureaucracy of death has a similar dynamic — first, everything happens fast, fast, fast, and then, after a while, things just grind on.
In New York, in the heady first day or two after a person dies, the doctor or hospital enters the cause of death on an electronic death record, the funeral home fills out demographic data on the same form, and the state registrar of vital statistics logs the data. But from there things slow down considerably.
Usually, that’s fine — death statistics aren’t so volatile that we need them to be updated as quickly as, say, election returns or live sports scores. But the pandemic has changed our relationship with these stats. Now they’re how we know whether we’re stopping the spread of COVID-19, and just how big that spread is. The problem is that the system isn’t designed to do that work.
Normally, if a death is uncomplicated and requires no investigation or autopsy or debate, death records are transferred to the National Center for Health Statistics, an arm of the CDC that organizes and analyzes the data of life and death in this country. It’s here that a death is categorized and tabulated. And this process is happening now, with COVID-19 deaths as well.
It takes time to investigate some of the deaths and get them to NCHS — the frequency of investigations varies widely, but state-level emergency operations teams work with medical personnel and state epidemiology surveillance to review COVID-19 deaths and possible COVID-19 deaths, Webster said. So the records can be in the state databases for a while before they’re solid enough that they go to NCHS. Then, someone at the NCHS is reading each of these death records to make sure that, say, a car crash victim who happened to have a COVID-19 diagnosis is logged in a database differently from a COVID-19-positive patient who died on a ventilator. The result of all this is that, even though public counts include confirmed COVID-19 deaths and probable ones, the deaths aren’t just being recorded willy-nilly. And it will be possible, in the future, to go back and look at the records and see which cases were confirmed by testing and which weren’t.
But these are slow stats. And they’re slowed down even further by the confusion caused by a novel virus pandemic. Currently, the count of COVID-19 deaths produced this way is at least two weeks behind, said Robert Anderson, chief of the mortality statistics branch of the NCHS. The counts in some states, including New York, might be lagging even more. This system is the gold standard, Webster said, but it’s designed to produce accurate statistics — not monitor a pandemic in real time.
Death is hard — hard to count, hard to experience.
And so the CDC also has fast stats on COVID-19 deaths. Besides going to the NCHS, the data from the New York State vital records office is also gathered directly from that agency’s database and into one maintained by USAFacts, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization charged with collecting daily death reports from the state and county registrars that first record them. The CDC’s COVID Data Tracker comes directly from the USAFacts count.
That means there are two distinct death counts being published by the CDC — one slow, one fast. (That’s in addition to counts being kept by Johns Hopkins University, The New York Times, and other entities.) As of May 19, the CDC’s slow count was 67,008, and its fast count was 90,340. You’ll find both counts in various sections of the CDC’s website, and when you look at those pages, it’s not always clear what these separate counts do and don’t represent. It’s easy to get confused and assume that the death count you’ve just seen in the newspaper has suddenly been cut in half. On May 2, conservative firebrand Dinesh D’Souza falsely claimed exactly that, linking his followers to the CDC’s slow count.
The smaller, slow count is more accurate, but it doesn’t reflect how many people have died as of today. It’s weeks behind. The fast count does a better job of portraying the real-time situation, but the exact number will shift as state and local counts fluctuate. Some of that change is due to confusion between state and local entities. New York City, for example, has its own vital records office — almost as though it’s an independent state — and the fast-count numbers it produces for itself don’t usually match the fast-count numbers produced for it by the State of New York, said Tanveer Ali, a data visualization analyst for USAFacts.
And while Bob Duffy will not be counted in either the slow or the fast counts happening now, he will likely end up included in the data — if only by algorithmic proxy. Eventually, experts said, the CDC will come back and do an estimated burden of death counts for COVID-19, just as it does for the flu every year.
All of this is why we won’t know the exact number of people who died of COVID-19 for years, Aiken said. Again, that’s nothing new. Final estimates for the number of people who died in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic weren’t published until 2011. Getting the slow count right, sorting through differences between disparate and nonstandardized state reporting systems, correcting errors and categorizing probable cases, finding ways to understand how many Bob Duffys we’re missing — it all takes time. This is, experts emphasized again and again, something nobody has ever done before. But the precedent that does exist suggests we shouldn’t expect to get a “right” answer soon. “If you look at opioid mortality, they’re two and a half years behind on compiling that,” Aiken said.
Death is hard — hard to count, hard to experience. The personal and the statistical both reside in a space where the question of “what happened” can be answered as an absolute — as certain as we can ever be about a thing — while simultaneously remaining painfully inexact and mysterious.
We will almost certainly never know exactly how many Americans died of COVID-19. But any count we get by leaving out deaths probably related to the virus — and, ultimately, leaving out Bob and a lot of people like him — will be less accurate than a count that includes them.
“We like to have answers. We like to have a yes, a no, a definite answer,” Fran said. Bob had been dead for about a month when Fran spoke to me from her kitchen. Just that day, someone she didn’t know had sympathetically left a loaf of banana bread in her mailbox. He was still so close. He was so far away. “But we certainly don’t always get what we like,” she said. “That’s really the truth, you know?”
Additional reporting by Kaleigh Rogers.
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-20--What Special Elections Can Tell Us About November

On May 12 , the GOP won two special congressional elections handily : Republican Mike Garcia defeated Democratic Assemblywoman Christy Smith 55 percent to 45 percent in the California 25th District , and Republican state Sen. Tom Tiffany beat his Democratic opponent , Wausau School Board President Tricia Zunker , 57 percent to 43 percent in the Wisconsin 7th District .
Garcia ’ s win was especially important , as it lowered the number of House seats Republicans need to flip in order to take back control in November from 18 to 17 .
These special elections may also throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be another “ blue wave ” election .
Although you shouldn ’ t infer too much from any one special election — particularly strong or weak candidates or idiosyncratic local issues can matter more in individual races — special elections in the aggregate have historically been predictive of the national political environment .
In other words , a party that consistently punches above its weight in special elections tends to have a really good November .
So what are special elections saying so far about 2020 ?
Counting the two earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal special elections so far this cycle — not a huge sample size , but enough to detect whether Republicans or Democrats are consistently overperforming the seat ’ s baseline partisanship .
Except so far , the final vote-share margin in the average special election has not been any more Democratic-leaning ( or , for that matter , Republican-leaning ) than the seat ’ s FiveThirtyEight partisan lean score .
No party has an edge in special elections this cycle How the final vote margin compared with the seat ’ s FiveThirtyEight partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Partisan lean is the average difference between how a state or district votes and how the country votes overall , with 2016 presidential election results weighted at 50 percent , 2012 presidential election results weighted at 25 percent and results from elections for the state legislature weighted at 25 percent .
Note that FiveThirtyEight ’ s current partisan leans do not yet incorporate the results of the 2018 election .
*Unofficial results as of May 20 .
†The North Carolina 9th election was technically a do-over election but otherwise had all the characteristics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the six elections , the final result was quite close to the district ’ s partisan lean .
And the other two races pointed in opposite directions .
Republicans did 10 points better in the California 25th than we ’ d expect them to in a neutral political environment , while Democrats did 12 points better than their baseline in the North Carolina 9th do-over election last year .
And these results can easily be explained by the strength of the candidates .
Both Garcia and Dan McCready , the Democratic candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderates , veterans and prolific fundraisers .
By contrast , in 2017 and 2018 , Democrats routinely posted amazing numbers .
Even when they didn ’ t win , they performed far better than the seat ’ s baseline partisanship would predict .
In the 11 federal special elections before November 2018 , the average margin swing between a seat ’ s final margin and its partisan lean was 17 points toward Democrats .
In 2018 , this ended up foreshadowing a great general election for Democrats , who won the national House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If 2020 follows the same pattern , we could be in for a neutral political environment for the fall .
However , “ if ” is the operative word there .
Special elections are just one indicator of the national mood , and others are notably rosier for Democrats .
Polls of the generic congressional ballot , for instance , give Democrats an average lead of nearly 8 percentage points — comparable to what they said in 2018 .
In addition , most polls give presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden a solid lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoyed some unbelievable Senate polls lately .
Republicans are also retiring from Congress at a far faster rate than Democrats .
Finally , the economy is in a tailspin , which has historically been bad news for the president ’ s reelection chances .
So maybe this year will be like 2002 , when special elections also had a margin swing of zero but Republicans won the national House popular vote by 5 points in a mini-wave .
The relationship between special elections and the political environment isn ’ t perfect .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special-election results should make us more uncertain about which party will have the advantage in November .
In 2018 , virtually every indicator under the sun pointed to that blue wave .
This year , we ’ re getting mixed signals .

On May 12, the GOP won two special congressional elections handily: Republican Mike Garcia defeated Democratic Assemblywoman Christy Smith 55 percent to 45 percent in the California 25th District, and Republican state Sen. Tom Tiffany beat his Democratic opponent, Wausau School Board President Tricia Zunker, 57 percent to 43 percent in the Wisconsin 7th District. Garcia’s win was especially important, as it lowered the number of House seats Republicans need to flip in order to take back control in November from 18 to 17.
These special elections may also throw cold water on the idea that 2020 will be another “blue wave” election. Although you shouldn’t infer too much from any one special election — particularly strong or weak candidates or idiosyncratic local issues can matter more in individual races — special elections in the aggregate have historically been predictive of the national political environment. In other words, a party that consistently punches above its weight in special elections tends to have a really good November.
So what are special elections saying so far about 2020? Counting the two earlier this month, there have now been six federal special elections so far this cycle — not a huge sample size, but enough to detect whether Republicans or Democrats are consistently overperforming the seat’s baseline partisanship. Except so far, the final vote-share margin in the average special election has not been any more Democratic-leaning (or, for that matter, Republican-leaning) than the seat’s FiveThirtyEight partisan lean score.
No party has an edge in special elections this cycle How the final vote margin compared with the seat’s FiveThirtyEight partisan lean in federal special elections so far Year Date Seat Partisan Lean Vote Margin Margin Swing 2019 May 21 Pennsylvania 12th R+35 R+36 R+1 Sept. 10 North Carolina 3rd R+24 R+24 0 Sept. 10 North Carolina 9th† R+14 R+2 D+12 2020 April 28 Maryland 7th D+51 D+49 R+2 May 12 California 25th* EVEN R+10 R+10 May 12 Wisconsin 7th* R+18 R+14 D+4 Average R+6 R+6 0 Partisan lean is the average difference between how a state or district votes and how the country votes overall, with 2016 presidential election results weighted at 50 percent, 2012 presidential election results weighted at 25 percent and results from elections for the state legislature weighted at 25 percent. Note that FiveThirtyEight’s current partisan leans do not yet incorporate the results of the 2018 election. *Unofficial results as of May 20. †The North Carolina 9th election was technically a do-over election but otherwise had all the characteristics of a special election. Sources: state election offices
In four of the six elections, the final result was quite close to the district’s partisan lean. And the other two races pointed in opposite directions. Republicans did 10 points better in the California 25th than we’d expect them to in a neutral political environment, while Democrats did 12 points better than their baseline in the North Carolina 9th do-over election last year. And these results can easily be explained by the strength of the candidates. Both Garcia and Dan McCready, the Democratic candidate in the North Carolina 9th, were moderates, veterans and prolific fundraisers.
By contrast, in 2017 and 2018, Democrats routinely posted amazing numbers. Even when they didn’t win, they performed far better than the seat’s baseline partisanship would predict. In the 11 federal special elections before November 2018, the average margin swing between a seat’s final margin and its partisan lean was 17 points toward Democrats.
Democrats overperformed last cycle How the final vote margin compared with the seat’s FiveThirtyEight partisan lean in federal special elections Year Date Seat Partisan Lean Vote Margin Margin Swing 2017 April 4 California 34th* D+68 D+87 D+20 April 11 Kansas 4th R+29 R+6 D+23 May 25 Montana at-large R+18 R+6 D+12 June 20 Georgia 6th R+15 R+4 D+11 June 20 South Carolina 5th R+20 R+3 D+17 Nov. 7 Utah 3rd R+39 R+32 D+6 Dec. 12 Alabama Senate R+27 D+2 D+28 2018 March 13 Pennsylvania 18th R+21 D+0.3 D+22 April 24 Arizona 8th R+26 R+5 D+22 June 30 Texas 27th* R+29 R+21 D+8 Aug. 7 Ohio 12th R+14 R+1 D+13 Average R+15 D+1 D+17 Partisan lean is the average difference between how a state or district votes and how the country votes overall, with 2016 presidential election results weighted at 50 percent, 2012 presidential election results weighted at 25 percent and results from elections for the state legislature weighted at 25 percent. *Results are from either an all-party primary or an all-party general election, both of which include multiple candidates of the same party; vote margin is the total vote share of all Democratic candidates combined minus the total vote share of all Republican candidates combined. Sources: state election offices
In 2018, this ended up foreshadowing a great general election for Democrats, who won the national House popular vote by 8.6 percentage points. If 2020 follows the same pattern, we could be in for a neutral political environment for the fall.
However, “if” is the operative word there. Special elections are just one indicator of the national mood, and others are notably rosier for Democrats. Polls of the generic congressional ballot, for instance, give Democrats an average lead of nearly 8 percentage points — comparable to what they said in 2018. In addition, most polls give presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden a solid lead over President Trump, and Democrats have enjoyed some unbelievable Senate polls lately. Republicans are also retiring from Congress at a far faster rate than Democrats. Finally, the economy is in a tailspin, which has historically been bad news for the president’s reelection chances.
So maybe this year will be like 2002, when special elections also had a margin swing of zero but Republicans won the national House popular vote by 5 points in a mini-wave. The relationship between special elections and the political environment isn’t perfect. Still, the current cycle’s inconsistent special-election results should make us more uncertain about which party will have the advantage in November. In 2018, virtually every indicator under the sun pointed to that blue wave. This year, we’re getting mixed signals.
Confidence Interval: If Trump Loses In 2020, Heâll Be The Nominee Again In 2024