fivethirtyeight--2020-03-05--Bloomberg’s Money Bought Him Something — Just Not The Nomination

Money can buy happiness — but it apparently can ’ t buy Michael Bloomberg the Democratic nomination .
The former mayor of New York City dropped out of the race this week after spending more than $ 500 million on ads , events , and campaign staff .
( Maybe he feels happy now ?
What else do billionaires do for entertainment ? )
Bloomberg was like a daredevil stuffed into a cannon at a circus sideshow .
He went up , he got attention , he crashed back down .
But in his ignominious arc we can see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics : Just how powerful is money , exactly , in determining the outcomes of elections ?
Let ’ s be clear , Bloomberg ’ s cash did have some effect .
After entering the race with minimal support in November , he was as high as 16.5 percent in our national polling average by Feb. 22 — enough , at the time , to tie former Vice President Joe Biden for second place .
Sens .
Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand and other candidates didn ’ t come close to those kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth in the polls didn ’ t translate into votes when it counted .
And that ’ s not a huge surprise if you ’ ve looked closely on the research surrounding the influence of money in politics .
While political scientists have been able to show a relationship between the money spent by lobbyists and the outcomes of policy votes , the research on whether money can buy votes in an election is murkier .
The Bloomberg Campaign Isn ’ t Actually Ending We know , for example , that politicians with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ routinely plunk down massive sums of cash against opponents who are spending literally nothing .
( Like literally literally , not metaphorically literally . )
They ’ re usually races involving incumbents ( who usually win ) running in heavily partisan districts ( which are easy to win ) during general elections ( that is to say , against the party their partisans hate ) .
The money serves to show donors that it ’ s still worth donating , and to prove to constituents that you care about them .
Situations like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and partisanship .
Campaign spending becomes window dressing to legitimize a race that would take way more talent and effort to lose than to win .
We also know advertising isn ’ t all it ’ s cracked up to be .
Sure , you can show that ads influence people ’ s opinion of a candidate or boost the candidate ’ s name recognition .
But efforts to link that to real-world votes have not found a conclusive correlation .
Meanwhile , the power of fake news sites to truly change public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
But at the same time , money isn ’ t worthless .
If voters don ’ t know who you are or know you ’ re running , you need money to establish yourself as , well , a person who exists and could maybe be trusted with power .
Especially in a busy primary where all the candidates are — more or less — on the same team .
You can ’ t rely on pure , partisan , Grade-A hatred of the other candidate to carry you to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be able to plunk down a few hundred million .
In some ways , Bloomberg ’ s very expensive loss is a reflection of everything we already know about money in politics .
Spend enough , and you can go from “ who ?
” to “ hey , it ’ s that guy !
” real fast .
But there ’ s probably not enough money in the world to make people vote for you if one of your competitors eats your face on live TV .
Or if voters would @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Money can buy happiness — but it apparently can’t buy Michael Bloomberg the Democratic nomination. The former mayor of New York City dropped out of the race this week after spending more than $500 million on ads, events, and campaign staff. (Maybe he feels happy now? What else do billionaires do for entertainment?)
Bloomberg was like a daredevil stuffed into a cannon at a circus sideshow. He went up, he got attention, he crashed back down. But in his ignominious arc we can see the contrail of a bigger question plaguing modern politics: Just how powerful is money, exactly, in determining the outcomes of elections?
Let’s be clear, Bloomberg’s cash did have some effect. After entering the race with minimal support in November, he was as high as 16.5 percent in our national polling average by Feb. 22 — enough, at the time, to tie former Vice President Joe Biden for second place. Sens. Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand and other candidates didn’t come close to those kind of numbers. But Bloomberg’s growth in the polls didn’t translate into votes when it counted.
And that’s not a huge surprise if you’ve looked closely on the research surrounding the influence of money in politics. While political scientists have been able to show a relationship between the money spent by lobbyists and the outcomes of policy votes, the research on whether money can buy votes in an election is murkier.
Confidence Interval: The Bloomberg campaign isn’t actually ending
We know, for example, that politicians with no real risk of losing their races routinely plunk down massive sums of cash against opponents who are spending literally nothing. (Like literally literally, not metaphorically literally.) They’re usually races involving incumbents (who usually win) running in heavily partisan districts (which are easy to win) during general elections (that is to say, against the party their partisans hate). The money serves to show donors that it’s still worth donating, and to prove to constituents that you care about them. Situations like that highlight the outsized influence of redistricting and partisanship. Campaign spending becomes window dressing to legitimize a race that would take way more talent and effort to lose than to win.
We also know advertising isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Sure, you can show that ads influence people’s opinion of a candidate or boost the candidate’s name recognition. But efforts to link that to real-world votes have not found a conclusive correlation. Meanwhile, the power of fake news sites to truly change public opinion has probably been overestimated, as well.
But at the same time, money isn’t worthless. If voters don’t know who you are or know you’re running, you need money to establish yourself as, well, a person who exists and could maybe be trusted with power. Especially in a busy primary where all the candidates are — more or less — on the same team. You can’t rely on pure, partisan, Grade-A hatred of the other candidate to carry you to a win, so it’s nice to be able to plunk down a few hundred million.
In some ways, Bloomberg’s very expensive loss is a reflection of everything we already know about money in politics. Spend enough, and you can go from “who?” to “hey, it’s that guy!” real fast. But there’s probably not enough money in the world to make people vote for you if one of your competitors eats your face on live TV. Or if voters would just rather vote for someone else.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-06--Politics Podcast: Why Biden Is Now A Big Favorite

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast ’ s “ Model Talk , ” Nate Silver explains why the @ @ @ @ @ in Biden ’ s favor this week .
He also discusses changes he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ why a comeback would be so challenging for the Sanders campaign .
You can listen @ @ @ @ @ the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in @ @ @ @ @ or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how @ @ @ @ @ Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving @ @ @ @ @ on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. @ @ @ @ @ in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast’s “Model Talk,” Nate Silver explains why the Democratic primary forecast shifted significantly in Biden’s favor this week. He also discusses changes he’s made to the model and why a comeback would be so challenging for the Sanders 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--2020-03-06--Did Sexism — And Fear of Sexism — Keep Warren From Winning The Nomination?

cwick : To mark the end of Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign , I ’ ve gathered some of FiveThirtyEight ’ s finest thinkers on the topic that has dogged the Democratic primary for months : electability .
Warren ’ s campaign had a slow and steady rise last summer , but seemed to peak when her opponents took issue with her support for Medicare for All .
From there , her support dropped as Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s rose , and now Sanders is again the standard-bearer for the progressive wing of the party .
Clare , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written about how Democrats didn ’ t think Warren was electable .
But if needed , let ’ s dispense with euphemisms right away .
In this case , were voters ’ “ electability concerns ” really just sexist concerns ?
I think we should define “ electability ” first .
maggie : Basically , for the 2020 cycle , we ’ re talking about “ can this person beat President Trump.
” clare.malone : There ’ s a political science definition of it where you can say , “ Oh , women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for office.
” And then there ’ s the 2020 pundit definition that makes it a shorthand for “ Who will appeal to white male swing voters in six states ?
” That brought us to a lot of national handwringing over what these voters like , don ’ t like , and on and on .
By the way , voters probably aren ’ t wrong at all to assume some sexism is in play .
ameliatd : Right , Maggie , which is just voters making a lot of guesses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong opponent for Trump .
I think voters ’ concerns about “ electability ” were largely — but not entirely — about sexism .
Some people thought Warren was too liberal to get elected .
Which isn ’ t unrelated to her gender — there ’ s research showing that voters generally think women are more liberal than they actually are .
But it seemed like a different bucket of worries than “ Will sexism doom a woman against Trump ?
” which is also something I heard a lot on the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote about whether electability is real .
What was the verdict ?
maggie : The basic gist is that some people are more likely to be elected than others .
But if you ’ re trying to mentally strategize which of several candidates will be able to win a general election months down the road … you ’ re probably playing yourself .
ameliatd : And then there ’ s the question of whether “ electability ” is just a polite cover for a voters ’ personal unwillingness to vote for a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other people would vote for a woman .
( Or a little bit of both ! )
clare.malone : That ’ s the most interesting part to me .
On Super Tuesday , TONS of liberal voters decided to cede to the electability argument .
Thereby bolstering … sexism !
maggie : I kind of love the fact that you get these polls where people say , “ Well , I have no problem voting for a woman , but I know all my neighbors would.
” They remind me of the surveys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can take a sandwich from a pharma rep and not be compromised .
But all the other doctors would be.
” cwick : And we know — or at least some data shows — that many Democratic primary voters are sexist themselves , and that may have held Warren back .
ameliatd : Is “ electability ” the “ likability ” of 2020 ?
I think people have mostly figured out that “ likability ” is a pretty sexist conceit .
ameliatd : I think we can say pretty confidently that outright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whether it doomed her candidacy , though … that ’ s the million-dollar question .
clare.malone : From my inbox just now : People are fascinatingly , stubbornly against entertaining the idea that societal sexism trickles down into voter preferences .
ameliatd : And also , based on what I ’ ve heard on the campaign trail , getting people to understand that sexism is a factor could inadvertently make them less willing to vote for a woman .
It ’ s a weird , self-defeating conundrum .
You get people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it shakes their confidence in whether women can win .
cwick : Delaney definitely did not lose because he was bald .
maggie : Well , I mean , given what we know about people ’ s preferences for who they think “ looks presidential , ” all those things could actually be true .
Including Delaney and his vote-losing pate .
Amelia , I ’ m curious about the dichotomy between the data that shows women who run for congressional office do just as well as men in elections and these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from congressional races doesn ’ t seem to hold .
ameliatd : Yeah , that ’ s such an interesting question , Maggie .
Part of the issue is that with presidential elections , we ’ re kind of flying blind because there have been so few .
But there is evidence that gender stereotypes align better with legislative races ( people tend to be more comfortable with women in collaborative roles , for example ) than executive races .
The presidency is kind of the last frontier — it ’ s much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that a woman could inhabit that role .
Also , I think what people don ’ t understand is that 1 ) there is sexism in politics , but 2 ) women candidates have gotten pretty darn good at responding to voters ’ sexism , to the point where they do mostly win at the same rates as men .
The sexism is there .
It ’ s harder for women to run a campaign .
But that doesn ’ t mean they can ’ t win .
maggie : I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some of our oversimplified ideas of what sexism ( and racism ) must look like .
It doesn ’ t have to be blocking someone out completely .
It just means making it harder .
cwick : Amelia , how much of this is also about Trump , since Democrats have seen how Trump runs against a woman ?
ameliatd : I think a lot of it has to do with Trump , and Democrats ’ sense that Trump somehow managed to tap into the country ’ s sexist id during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll do it again this year .
Which isn ’ t wrong — there ’ s plenty of research showing that Trump appears to have motivated more sexist voters in that election .
But it also makes the assumption that all female candidates are the same , and that with Warren you ’ re just getting Clinton 2.0. clare.malone : Right , this is where I throw in the “ Clinton and Trump were each historically disliked candidates ” line .
ameliatd : It ’ s not even clear that Clinton lost because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , and there ’ s evidence that some Democrats were motivated to vote because of Trump ’ s sexist attacks .
But I think it ’ s hard for a lot of Democrats to shake the visceral feeling that Trump did something akin to sexist black magic to defeat her , and that he can do it again to another woman .
clare.malone : I think it was also the demonstrated capacity of GOP or independent , conservative-leaning women to still vote for Trump despite the sexism and the “ Access Hollywood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
maggie : Which comes back to the inherent mystery of who is electable .
If former Vice President Joe Biden wins in November , that doesn ’ t prove he was more electable than Sanders or Warren .
It just proves he was more electable than Hillary Clinton .
cwick : And maybe not even that , Maggie !
Given this is a whole different cycle .
cwick : How much does Sanders ’ s treatment tell us about Warren ?
Take , for example , that he was not punished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — for his support for Medicare for All .
Does that tell us something about whether a woman running for president has to be “ just right ?
” Not too liberal , not too impractical , not too shrill .
ameliatd : I have heard many a Warren supporter complain about Sanders ’ s yelling .
Why should he get to yell when Warren can ’ t ?
clare.malone : Well , lem me start with this fact : Biden tends to do better with women voters than men ( or about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders does better with men , according to the exit polls .
ameliatd : That ’ s right , Clare — Sanders consistently gets more support from men than women .
Including in states where he did well ( like New Hampshire ) and states where he lost ( like Minnesota ) .
clare.malone : And I think some of that has to do with the perception that Sanders ’ s campaign and its supporters — not necessarily the man himself — are sexist and are critical of Warren in particular in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might go back even further than that to the way some of his supporters refused to coalesce behind Clinton back in 2016 .
And I ’ ve also seen some signs that women are especially likely to prioritize beating Trump over choosing a candidate they align with on the issues , which could also help explain why they ’ re moving toward Biden .
maggie : I think issues like Medicare for All really get into the subtle ways that unconscious bias can affect how you view the candidates .
We know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than male counterparts , even when that isn ’ t true on a policy basis .
Was Warren punished because voters didn ’ t like women , because she seemed waffly on Medicare for All , or because people assumed she ’ d be to the left of Sanders and were then even more pissed off when she was a little waffly ?
clare.malone : A great point to bring up .
I do think Warren had the electoral baggage of being actually pretty damn liberal .
And generally we see more centrist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was pushing the envelope on a couple of fronts .
maggie : She was !
And yet I kept hearing anecdotally people complain that she wasn ’ t lefty enough .
Which , once I found out about the “ women are more liberal ” assumption , seemed more about what people thought she should be .
ameliatd : What I will say is , a lot of people consistently liked Warren .
And continue to like her .
That ’ s very different from Clinton .
And I was actually surprised by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my conversations with them .
Or when they did , it was to say how different she was .
So even though I ’ ve seen a lot of depressed Warren supporters talking about sexism in my Twitter feed today , I think Warren probably did expand voters ’ views of what a woman candidate can be .
clare.malone : She styled herself as a candidate — and like , literally styled herself — as a person who wasn ’ t “ of the elite , ” which was the big Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the power suit .
“ Look at my cute dog !
” Her persona was all about accessibility .
ameliatd : Warren was always wearing sneakers on the campaign trail !
That made me happy every time I went to one of her events .
cwick : We ’ ve been focusing on what Warren didn ’ t win , but what did she earn through this campaign ?
What power has she now amassed ?
And how can she potentially use it for the rest of the campaign or a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still has a lot of power , even though she ’ s out of the running for the nomination .
The wealth tax is her baby , and it ’ s extremely popular .
She ’ s got a zillion plans for the taking .
I will also be interested to see how Biden and Sanders try to appeal to her voters .
Because , as we were discussing earlier , I don ’ t think it ’ s obvious at all that her supporters will automatically flock to Sanders .
clare.malone : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more establishment-leaning , so Biden voters more than Sanders ones .
maggie : Which is interesting , given that the policy positions between her and Sanders are much closer .
cwick : It ’ s clear what Sanders needs from her ( her voters ) .
But what does Biden need from her , given his coalition and momentum ?
clare.malone : Right , Maggie .
But I guess if this primary is turning into a pragmatic one — beat Trump above all else — voters whose preferred candidates have already dropped out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” metric once more .
ameliatd : And now it might be Sanders ’ s turn to get burned by “ electability ” as Warren ’ s supporters look for an alternative .
It would be ironic if Warren supporters who were upset about how the “ electability ” narrative hurt their candidate rejected Sanders for similar reasons .
maggie : I think it ’ s really interesting that both Sanders supporters and Biden supporters right now seem to think the other side is making an obvious and idiotic mistake in choosing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my Facebook feed is any indication .
maggie : And also goes back to what the scientists told me about electability .
When figuring out who ’ s electable , people first figure out who they like more , then say they like them because they ’ re more electable .
cwick : If only there was a third candidate to split the difference , Maggie .
clare.malone : I would most like to get a beer with Tulsi … to ask her what ’ s going on ?
?
?
maggie : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night drinking with Tulsi feels like it has the most potential to be memorable .
I mean , now that Marianne Williamson is out .
ameliatd : This gets back to what we were discussing earlier , Maggie — how much of the “ electability ” worry for Warren was really just a socially acceptable cloak for sexism ?
Maybe even an unconscious cloak ?
maggie : Exactly , Amelia .
And there ’ s just no way to quantify that .
Because even the people who did have sexist reasons for not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel like it was just , “ Well I don ’ t like her as much.
” clare.malone : Here ’ s my theory of sexism and the presidency and why it ’ s different from women running for office at lower levels : When you vote for your female member of Congress , you don ’ t actually ever see her that much .
She probably doesn ’ t have enough money to do tons and tons of TV ads , etc .
You probably don ’ t watch her debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re CONSTANTLY exposed to the woman candidate .
You analyze her every move in debates , what she looks like , what she wears , how she talks to other people .
And either you relate to her and like her or she just brings out every sexist pet peeve that ’ s been ingrained in you societally .
She becomes home to all your projections , “ likeability ” tropes about librarians and teachers and on and on .
She becomes every woman in your life you ’ ve liked and disliked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that growing awareness of sexism in politics — because of Clinton , because of # MeToo , because there are more women in politics talking about their experiences — spooked some voters this year , and those fears had a lot of power because many people are extremely risk-averse .
So I wonder what the next presidential race will look like , hard as it is to imagine life after 2020 .
Do voters put less emphasis on their fears and awareness of sexism ?
That is , assuming a woman runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets the nomination have to choose a woman for vice president at this point ?
ameliatd : I would think yes ?
clare.malone : I mean … Biden probably will .
ameliatd : A female VP would be interesting for your theory of sexism in politics , Clare — would four years of exposure to a woman almost at the top of the government make people less inclined to judge and analyze her ?
I ’ m genuinely not sure .
In some ways the presidency feels kind of sui generis .
cwick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state suggests people are OK when women are in high-profile positions of power for several years , it ’ s just different when they seek those positions of power .
OK , I think we can wrap it there .
Anything else , everybody ?
maggie : I just checked twitter to find a video of Bailey the dog stealing someone ’ s burrito .
Vote Bailey .
ameliatd : Ugh , yes , pets for president .
No more people .
Too unelectable .

cwick: To mark the end of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, I’ve gathered some of FiveThirtyEight’s finest thinkers on the topic that has dogged the Democratic primary for months: electability. Warren’s campaign had a slow and steady rise last summer, but seemed to peak when her opponents took issue with her support for Medicare for All. From there, her support dropped as Sen. Bernie Sanders’s rose, and now Sanders is again the standard-bearer for the progressive wing of the party.
Clare, Amelia, Maggie: Much will be written about how Democrats didn’t think Warren was electable. But if needed, let’s dispense with euphemisms right away. In this case, were voters’ “electability concerns” really just sexist concerns?
clare.malone: Let’s talk about sex(ism), baby.
I think we should define “electability” first.
maggie: Basically, for the 2020 cycle, we’re talking about “can this person beat President Trump.”
clare.malone: There’s a political science definition of it where you can say, “Oh, women are actually really electable when they run for office.” And then there’s the 2020 pundit definition that makes it a shorthand for “Who will appeal to white male swing voters in six states?” That brought us to a lot of national handwringing over what these voters like, don’t like, and on and on. By the way, voters probably aren’t wrong at all to assume some sexism is in play.
ameliatd: Right, Maggie, which is just voters making a lot of guesses and assumptions about what will make someone a strong opponent for Trump. I think voters’ concerns about “electability” were largely — but not entirely — about sexism. Some people thought Warren was too liberal to get elected. Which isn’t unrelated to her gender — there’s research showing that voters generally think women are more liberal than they actually are. But it seemed like a different bucket of worries than “Will sexism doom a woman against Trump?” which is also something I heard a lot on the campaign trail.
cwick: Maggie, you wrote about whether electability is real. What was the verdict?
maggie: The basic gist is that some people are more likely to be elected than others. But if you’re trying to mentally strategize which of several candidates will be able to win a general election months down the road … you’re probably playing yourself.
ameliatd: And then there’s the question of whether “electability” is just a polite cover for a voters’ personal unwillingness to vote for a woman, or their genuine concern about whether other people would vote for a woman. (Or a little bit of both!)
clare.malone: That’s the most interesting part to me. On Super Tuesday, TONS of liberal voters decided to cede to the electability argument. Thereby bolstering … sexism!
maggie: I kind of love the fact that you get these polls where people say, “Well, I have no problem voting for a woman, but I know all my neighbors would.” They remind me of the surveys of doctors that are like, “I can take a sandwich from a pharma rep and not be compromised. But all the other doctors would be.”
cwick: And we know — or at least some data shows — that many Democratic primary voters are sexist themselves, and that may have held Warren back.
ameliatd: Is “electability” the “likability” of 2020? I think people have mostly figured out that “likability” is a pretty sexist conceit.
cwick: “You’re electable enough, Elizabeth.”
ameliatd: I think we can say pretty confidently that outright sexism did hurt Warren with some voters. Whether it doomed her candidacy, though … that’s the million-dollar question.
clare.malone: From my inbox just now:
People are fascinatingly, stubbornly against entertaining the idea that societal sexism trickles down into voter preferences.
ameliatd: And also, based on what I’ve heard on the campaign trail, getting people to understand that sexism is a factor could inadvertently make them less willing to vote for a woman. It’s a weird, self-defeating conundrum. You get people to accept that sexism in politics is real and it shakes their confidence in whether women can win.
cwick: Delaney definitely did not lose because he was bald.
maggie: Well, I mean, given what we know about people’s preferences for who they think “looks presidential,” all those things could actually be true. Including Delaney and his vote-losing pate.
Amelia, I’m curious about the dichotomy between the data that shows women who run for congressional office do just as well as men in elections and these big, executive elections where the pattern from congressional races doesn’t seem to hold.
ameliatd: Yeah, that’s such an interesting question, Maggie. Part of the issue is that with presidential elections, we’re kind of flying blind because there have been so few. But there is evidence that gender stereotypes align better with legislative races (people tend to be more comfortable with women in collaborative roles, for example) than executive races. The presidency is kind of the last frontier — it’s much harder to get people used to the idea that a woman could inhabit that role.
Also, I think what people don’t understand is that 1) there is sexism in politics, but 2) women candidates have gotten pretty darn good at responding to voters’ sexism, to the point where they do mostly win at the same rates as men. The sexism is there. It’s harder for women to run a campaign. But that doesn’t mean they can’t win.
maggie: I think that’s a pretty good encapsulation of some of our oversimplified ideas of what sexism (and racism) must look like. It doesn’t have to be blocking someone out completely. It just means making it harder.
cwick: Amelia, how much of this is also about Trump, since Democrats have seen how Trump runs against a woman?
ameliatd: I think a lot of it has to do with Trump, and Democrats’ sense that Trump somehow managed to tap into the country’s sexist id during the 2016 election, and that he’ll do it again this year. Which isn’t wrong — there’s plenty of research showing that Trump appears to have motivated more sexist voters in that election. But it also makes the assumption that all female candidates are the same, and that with Warren you’re just getting Clinton 2.0.
clare.malone: Right, this is where I throw in the “Clinton and Trump were each historically disliked candidates” line.
ameliatd: It’s not even clear that Clinton lost because of sexism! It was a weird election, and there’s evidence that some Democrats were motivated to vote because of Trump’s sexist attacks.
But I think it’s hard for a lot of Democrats to shake the visceral feeling that Trump did something akin to sexist black magic to defeat her, and that he can do it again to another woman.
cwick: Sexist black magic conjured up Comey’s letter.
clare.malone: I think it was also the demonstrated capacity of GOP or independent, conservative-leaning women to still vote for Trump despite the sexism and the “Access Hollywood” tape. That also jarred Democratic voters.
maggie: Which comes back to the inherent mystery of who is electable. If former Vice President Joe Biden wins in November, that doesn’t prove he was more electable than Sanders or Warren. It just proves he was more electable than Hillary Clinton.
cwick: And maybe not even that, Maggie! Given this is a whole different cycle.
maggie: True!
cwick: How much does Sanders’s treatment tell us about Warren? Take, for example, that he was not punished at the polls — at least noticeably — for his support for Medicare for All. Does that tell us something about whether a woman running for president has to be “just right?” Not too liberal, not too impractical, not too shrill.
ameliatd: I have heard many a Warren supporter complain about Sanders’s yelling. Why should he get to yell when Warren can’t?
clare.malone: Well, lemme start with this fact: Biden tends to do better with women voters than men (or about the same between groups), whereas Sanders does better with men, according to the exit polls.
ameliatd: That’s right, Clare — Sanders consistently gets more support from men than women. Including in states where he did well (like New Hampshire) and states where he lost (like Minnesota).
clare.malone: And I think some of that has to do with the perception that Sanders’s campaign and its supporters — not necessarily the man himself — are sexist and are critical of Warren in particular in a gendered way.
ameliatd: I think it might go back even further than that to the way some of his supporters refused to coalesce behind Clinton back in 2016.
And I’ve also seen some signs that women are especially likely to prioritize beating Trump over choosing a candidate they align with on the issues, which could also help explain why they’re moving toward Biden.
maggie: I think issues like Medicare for All really get into the subtle ways that unconscious bias can affect how you view the candidates. We know people assume female candidates are more liberal than male counterparts, even when that isn’t true on a policy basis. Was Warren punished because voters didn’t like women, because she seemed waffly on Medicare for All, or because people assumed she’d be to the left of Sanders and were then even more pissed off when she was a little waffly?
clare.malone: A great point to bring up. I do think Warren had the electoral baggage of being actually pretty damn liberal. And generally we see more centrist people elected as president.
So she was pushing the envelope on a couple of fronts.
maggie: She was! And yet I kept hearing anecdotally people complain that she wasn’t lefty enough. Which, once I found out about the “women are more liberal” assumption, seemed more about what people thought she should be.
ameliatd: What I will say is, a lot of people consistently liked Warren. And continue to like her. That’s very different from Clinton. And I was actually surprised by how few voters compared her to Clinton in my conversations with them. Or when they did, it was to say how different she was. So even though I’ve seen a lot of depressed Warren supporters talking about sexism in my Twitter feed today, I think Warren probably did expand voters’ views of what a woman candidate can be.
clare.malone: She styled herself as a candidate — and like, literally styled herself — as a person who wasn’t “of the elite,” which was the big Clinton critique. Target runs, sweaters, not the power suit. “Look at my cute dog!” Her persona was all about accessibility.
ameliatd: Warren was always wearing sneakers on the campaign trail! That made me happy every time I went to one of her events.
cwick: We’ve been focusing on what Warren didn’t win, but what did she earn through this campaign? What power has she now amassed? And how can she potentially use it for the rest of the campaign or a new administration?
ameliatd: I think she still has a lot of power, even though she’s out of the running for the nomination. The wealth tax is her baby, and it’s extremely popular. She’s got a zillion plans for the taking. I will also be interested to see how Biden and Sanders try to appeal to her voters. Because, as we were discussing earlier, I don’t think it’s obvious at all that her supporters will automatically flock to Sanders.
clare.malone: I think her voters tend to be more establishment-leaning, so Biden voters more than Sanders ones.
maggie: Which is interesting, given that the policy positions between her and Sanders are much closer.
cwick: It’s clear what Sanders needs from her (her voters). But what does Biden need from her, given his coalition and momentum?
clare.malone: Right, Maggie. But I guess if this primary is turning into a pragmatic one — beat Trump above all else — voters whose preferred candidates have already dropped out might just turn to the “electability” metric once more.
ameliatd: And now it might be Sanders’s turn to get burned by “electability” as Warren’s supporters look for an alternative. It would be ironic if Warren supporters who were upset about how the “electability” narrative hurt their candidate rejected Sanders for similar reasons.
maggie: I think it’s really interesting that both Sanders supporters and Biden supporters right now seem to think the other side is making an obvious and idiotic mistake in choosing a clearly unelectable candidate. At least if my Facebook feed is any indication.
clare.malone: Intraparty polarization.
maggie: And also goes back to what the scientists told me about electability. When figuring out who’s electable, people first figure out who they like more, then say they like them because they’re more electable.
cwick: If only there was a third candidate to split the difference, Maggie.
maggie: TULSI GABBARD
cwick: Now there’s a good electability chat.
clare.malone: I would most like to get a beer with Tulsi … to ask her what’s going on???
maggie: Out of all the candidates, a night drinking with Tulsi feels like it has the most potential to be memorable. I mean, now that Marianne Williamson is out.
ameliatd: This gets back to what we were discussing earlier, Maggie — how much of the “electability” worry for Warren was really just a socially acceptable cloak for sexism? Maybe even an unconscious cloak?
maggie: Exactly, Amelia. And there’s just no way to quantify that. Because even the people who did have sexist reasons for not liking her, most of them probably feel like it was just, “Well I don’t like her as much.”
clare.malone: Here’s my theory of sexism and the presidency and why it’s different from women running for office at lower levels: When you vote for your female member of Congress, you don’t actually ever see her that much. She probably doesn’t have enough money to do tons and tons of TV ads, etc. You probably don’t watch her debate. But with the presidency, you’re CONSTANTLY exposed to the woman candidate. You analyze her every move in debates, what she looks like, what she wears, how she talks to other people. And either you relate to her and like her or she just brings out every sexist pet peeve that’s been ingrained in you societally. She becomes home to all your projections, “likeability” tropes about librarians and teachers and on and on. She becomes every woman in your life you’ve liked and disliked.
ameliatd: I also really do think that growing awareness of sexism in politics — because of Clinton, because of #MeToo, because there are more women in politics talking about their experiences — spooked some voters this year, and those fears had a lot of power because many people are extremely risk-averse. So I wonder what the next presidential race will look like, hard as it is to imagine life after 2020. Do voters put less emphasis on their fears and awareness of sexism?
That is, assuming a woman runs of course.
maggie: Does whoever gets the nomination have to choose a woman for vice president at this point?
ameliatd: I would think yes?
clare.malone: I mean … Biden probably will.
ameliatd: A female VP would be interesting for your theory of sexism in politics, Clare — would four years of exposure to a woman almost at the top of the government make people less inclined to judge and analyze her? I’m genuinely not sure. In some ways the presidency feels kind of sui generis.
clare.malone: Yes, totally, an interesting thought experiment, Amelia.
cwick: Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state suggests people are OK when women are in high-profile positions of power for several years, it’s just different when they seek those positions of power.
OK, I think we can wrap it there. Anything else, everybody?
clare.malone: Nada
maggie: Nope
ameliatd: We have solved electability.
maggie: I just checked twitter to find a video of Bailey the dog stealing someone’s burrito. Vote Bailey.
ameliatd: Ugh, yes, pets for president. No more people. Too unelectable.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-06--After Super Tuesday, Joe Biden Is A Clear Favorite To Win The Nomination

After a huge night on Super Tuesday — and with all his major opponents except Sen. Bernie Sanders having dropped out — former Vice President Joe Biden is a strong favorite to win the Democratic nomination , according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast .
We ’ d encourage you to approach the forecast with a bit of caution for the next few days until we have new polling and a better sense of what the post-Super Tuesday landscape looks like .
There are several uncertainties to keep in mind : • Many states , especially California , are not yet done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results could shift significantly based on late-returned mail ballots .
Under the state ’ s rules , ballots only need to have been mailed out by election day , so millions of votes are literally still in the mail .
• Two candidates , Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , have just dropped out , and while the model makes some educated guesses about where their support will go , it may be wrong about that .
• Super Tuesday itself could have a substantial effect on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of a bounce for Biden .
The model , again , makes educated guesses about the size of these bounces .
But those guesses may not be right : Biden got a much bigger South Carolina bounce than is typical for that state , for example ; while Sanders got little , if any , bounce after winning Nevada when the model expected him to get one .
• Making matters trickier , it ’ s also not entirely clear what the race was like prior to Super Tuesday because Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapid and there were few national polls during this period .
With that said , even if there ’ s some uncertainty here — perhaps a bit more of it than the model lets on — things don ’ t look good for Sanders .
He has several compounding problems : • First , he ’ s already behind by around 70 delegates , according to our estimates , based on returns in each state as currently reported .
That deficit could get worse because there are some signs that late-returned mail ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflection of the fact that Biden surged in the race in the final few days before Super Tuesday .
• As mentioned , Biden will probably get a bounce in the polls as a result of his Super Tuesday wins .
The model ’ s guess ( accounting for its projected Super Tuesday bounce for Biden and the effects of Bloomberg and Warren dropping out ) is that he ’ s currently ahead by the equivalent of 6 or 7 points in national polls .
So although momentum could shift back toward Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him in the short run .
• Some of Sanders ’ s best states ( California , Nevada ) have already voted , and the upcoming states generally either aren ’ t good for him or have relatively few delegates .
In fact , given how broadly Sanders lost on Super Tuesday — including in northern states such as Minnesota , Massachusetts and Maine — it ’ s hard to know where his strengths lie , other than among young progressives and Hispanics , who are not large enough groups to constitute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conversely , it ’ s easy to identify places where Sanders will likely lose badly to Biden .
Our model has Biden winning a net of about 85 delegates over Sanders in Florida on March 17 , where Sanders ’ s polling has been terrible , and a net of about 35 delegates in Georgia , which votes on March 24 .
• There aren ’ t that many delegates left after March .
Some 38 percent of delegates have already been selected .
And by the time Georgia votes in two-and-a-half weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been chosen .
So even if Sanders did get a big , massive momentum swing late in the race , it might not be enough to allow him to come back , with only about a third of delegates still to be chosen .
• Finally , even if Sanders does come back , it might merely be enough to win a plurality rather than a majority of delegates .
We project that roughly 150 delegates — or about 4 percent of the total of 3,979 pledged delegates available — belong to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , even after accounting for the fact that statewide delegates are reallocated to other candidates once a candidate drops out .
That creates an additional buffer that will make it harder for Sanders to win a majority .
So basically , Sanders has to come back quickly when the momentum is currently against him in a bunch of states that are not very good for him — or it will be too late .
It ’ s not impossible .
But the chances are low .
The model gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a majority of pledged delegates , with most of the remaining outcomes being “ no majority ” rather than a Sanders majority .
It also gives Biden a 94 percent chance of winning a plurality of pledged delegates , and Sanders a 6 percent chance .
Again , that ’ s not impossible .
Any chance that ’ s 5 percent or higher is within what you might think of as the model ’ s “ margin of error.
” The model does not account for other real-world contingencies such as Biden dropping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( It assumes that the delegate leader never drops out of the race . )
But the comeback path is not going to be easy for the senator from Vermont .
The one potential opening for Sanders is that the recent volatility in the polls could imply further volatility in the days and weeks ahead .
This is one thing we looked at while the model was “ off ” over the past couple of days : Is recent polling volatility predictive of future volatility ?
I ’ m skipping a bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ yes.
” There are short-run spikes of volatility in the polls , just as there are short-run spikes of volatility in the stock market .
We ’ ve now implemented code reflecting this in the model , which slightly improves Sanders ’ s chances relative to what they would have been otherwise .
Note that the volatility could run in either direction , however .
It could mean that Biden completely runs away with the race and wins Michigan by 25 points or something next week .
But since Sanders is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more volatility the better for him .
He ’ ll take his share of 25-point losses if he can get his share of upset wins .
And the model does reflect the substantial uncertainty in Michigan , a state where polls have historically not been very good , giving Sanders a 21 percent chance of winning there .
Even a win in Michigan would just be the first step in a long journey back to front-runner status for Sanders — but every comeback has to start somewhere .

After a huge night on Super Tuesday — and with all his major opponents except Sen. Bernie Sanders having dropped out — former Vice President Joe Biden is a strong favorite to win the Democratic nomination, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast.
We’d encourage you to approach the forecast with a bit of caution for the next few days until we have new polling and a better sense of what the post-Super Tuesday landscape looks like. There are several uncertainties to keep in mind:
Many states, especially California, are not yet done counting their votes. In California, the results could shift significantly based on late-returned mail ballots. Under the state’s rules, ballots only need to have been mailed out by election day, so millions of votes are literally still in the mail.
by election day, so millions of votes are literally still in the mail. Two candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have just dropped out, and while the model makes some educated guesses about where their support will go, it may be wrong about that.
Super Tuesday itself could have a substantial effect on the polls — most likely in the form of a bounce for Biden. The model, again, makes educated guesses about the size of these bounces. But those guesses may not be right: Biden got a much bigger South Carolina bounce than is typical for that state, for example; while Sanders got little, if any, bounce after winning Nevada when the model expected him to get one.
Making matters trickier, it’s also not entirely clear what the race was like prior to Super Tuesday because Biden’s ascent in the polls was quite rapid and there were few national polls during this period.
With that said, even if there’s some uncertainty here — perhaps a bit more of it than the model lets on — things don’t look good for Sanders. He has several compounding problems:
First, he’s already behind by around 70 delegates, according to our estimates, based on returns in each state as currently reported. That deficit could get worse because there are some signs that late-returned mail ballots in California will help Biden — a reflection of the fact that Biden surged in the race in the final few days before Super Tuesday.
reported. That deficit could get worse because there are some signs that late-returned mail ballots in California will help Biden — a reflection of the fact that Biden surged in the race in the final few days before Super Tuesday. As mentioned, Biden will probably get a bounce in the polls as a result of his Super Tuesday wins. The model’s guess (accounting for its projected Super Tuesday bounce for Biden and the effects of Bloomberg and Warren dropping out) is that he’s currently ahead by the equivalent of 6 or 7 points in national polls. So although momentum could shift back toward Sanders later on, it may get worse for him in the short run.
shift back toward Sanders later on, it may get worse for him in the short run. Some of Sanders’s best states (California, Nevada) have already voted, and the upcoming states generally either aren’t good for him or have relatively few delegates. In fact, given how broadly Sanders lost on Super Tuesday — including in northern states such as Minnesota, Massachusetts and Maine — it’s hard to know where his strengths lie, other than among young progressives and Hispanics, who are not large enough groups to constitute a winning coalition in most states. Conversely, it’s easy to identify places where Sanders will likely lose badly to Biden. Our model has Biden winning a net of about 85 delegates over Sanders in Florida on March 17, where Sanders’s polling has been terrible, and a net of about 35 delegates in Georgia, which votes on March 24.
There aren’t that many delegates left after March. Some 38 percent of delegates have already been selected. And by the time Georgia votes in two-and-a-half weeks, 61 percent of delegates will already have been chosen. So even if Sanders did get a big, massive momentum swing late in the race, it might not be enough to allow him to come back, with only about a third of delegates still to be chosen.
been selected. And by the time Georgia votes in two-and-a-half weeks, of delegates will already have been chosen. So even if Sanders did get a big, massive momentum swing late in the race, it might not be enough to allow him to come back, with only about a third of delegates still to be chosen. Finally, even if Sanders does come back, it might merely be enough to win a plurality rather than a majority of delegates. We project that roughly 150 delegates — or about 4 percent of the total of 3,979 pledged delegates available — belong to candidates who have since dropped out or to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, even after accounting for the fact that statewide delegates are reallocated to other candidates once a candidate drops out. That creates an additional buffer that will make it harder for Sanders to win a majority.
So basically, Sanders has to come back quickly when the momentum is currently against him in a bunch of states that are not very good for him — or it will be too late. It’s not impossible. But the chances are low. The model gives Biden an 88 percent chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates, with most of the remaining outcomes being “no majority” rather than a Sanders majority. It also gives Biden a 94 percent chance of winning a plurality of pledged delegates, and Sanders a 6 percent chance.
Again, that’s not impossible. Any chance that’s 5 percent or higher is within what you might think of as the model’s “margin of error.” The model does not account for other real-world contingencies such as Biden dropping out because of a health problem. (It assumes that the delegate leader never drops out of the race.) But the comeback path is not going to be easy for the senator from Vermont.
The one potential opening for Sanders is that the recent volatility in the polls could imply further volatility in the days and weeks ahead. This is one thing we looked at while the model was “off” over the past couple of days: Is recent polling volatility predictive of future volatility?
I’m skipping a bunch of steps here, but the basic answer is “yes.” There are short-run spikes of volatility in the polls, just as there are short-run spikes of volatility in the stock market. We’ve now implemented code reflecting this in the model, which slightly improves Sanders’s chances relative to what they would have been otherwise.
Note that the volatility could run in either direction, however. It could mean that Biden completely runs away with the race and wins Michigan by 25 points or something next week.
But since Sanders is a substantial underdog in the race, the more volatility the better for him. He’ll take his share of 25-point losses if he can get his share of upset wins. And the model does reflect the substantial uncertainty in Michigan, a state where polls have historically not been very good, giving Sanders a 21 percent chance of winning there. Even a win in Michigan would just be the first step in a long journey back to front-runner status for Sanders — but every comeback has to start somewhere.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-06--What We Know About The Voters Who Swung Super Tuesday For Biden

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
A key part of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s success on Super Tuesday was his strong performance among voters who had only made up their minds in the last few days .
According to exit poll data , Biden won at least 40 percent — if not more — of the late-deciding vote in every state except Sanders ’ s home state of Vermont .
But who exactly were these voters ?
And why did they so overwhelmingly back Biden at the last minute ?
If we look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a lot of variation from state to state , but there are a few key trends from Tuesday : • Late deciders , on average , were more moderate .
• Voters in the Northeast ( Maine , Massachusetts and Vermont ) and the Midwest ( Minnesota ) were especially likely to decide late ( nearly half did ) while voters in some parts of the South and California were more likely to have cast their ballot early ( in California , mail-in voting played a huge role in boosting early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a lot of support among white voters who decided late .
Let ’ s unpack that first finding .
Thirty-nine percent of late deciders said they were moderate , compared with 27 percent of those who had decided earlier .
They were also somewhat more likely to say they wanted a candidate who could defeat Trump more than one who agreed with them on most issues .
The fact that this is something many late-deciding voters had in common makes sense .
Both Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend , Indiana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more moderate voters , as evidenced in Iowa and New Hampshire , and because they dropped out right before Super Tuesday , at least some moderate voters were forced to change their mind — and , perhaps aided by Buttigieg ’ s and Klobuchar ’ s endorsements , many broke for Biden .
But it wasn ’ t just moderates who broke for Biden .
Very liberal voters were less likely to be late deciders overall , but Biden also saw a huge swing among these voters : an increase of 19 percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decrease ( 22 points ) .
Second , there was a geographical divide in where late deciders cast their ballots , with a relatively larger percentage concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest .
A majority ( 55 percent ) of Minnesota voters , for instance , said they decided in the last few days , which probably had a lot to do with Klobuchar ’ s last-minute departure from the race .
She had been polling about even with Sanders in Minnesota before she dropped out and on March 1 had a 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , according to the FiveThirtyEight model .
Biden obviously benefited here , performing 29 points better among late-deciders than early ones , en route to an 8-point victory .
Late deciders also boosted Biden ’ s performance in the Northeast and helped Biden win both Maine and Massachusetts , states in which he had no better than a 1 in 4 chance of winning .
In Maine , 47 percent of voters were late deciders , in Massachusetts 51 percent and in Vermont 38 percent were late deciders , with Biden even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite it being Sanders ’ s home state .
Fewer voters in the South ( 34 percent ) and California ( 18 percent ) said they decided on a candidate in the last few days , though there were exceptions such as Oklahoma ( 50 percent ) and Virginia ( 49 percent ) .
Third , Biden did really well among white voters , especially those who decided late : Of the 34 percent of white voters who made their minds up in the last few days , 51 percent of them went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed Sanders .
Overall , Biden bested Sanders among white voters in eight states , including a 15-point edge in Minnesota .
He also ran close to Sanders among white voters in Maine and Texas , narrowly edging Sanders out in the former and trailing him only slightly in the latter .
This marked a massive shift compared with voters who picked a candidate earlier .
But if we dig a bit deeper , we find certain groups of white voters were more likely to land on a candidate in the final days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white women were late deciders , more than any other group broken down by race and gender .
As a whole , they made up 43 percent of late deciders , and 50 percent of them backed Biden .
Though this was in line with the overall support for Biden among late deciders , the sheer number of white women ( the single largest voting bloc on Super Tuesday ) made it a key late-deciding group for Biden .
White voters aged 45 years or older were also likely to be late deciders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of all voters who made their vote choice in the final days .
And of those , 57 percent supported Biden vote compared to only 11 percent for Sanders .
That 46-point margin was nearly seven times larger than the 7-point edge for Biden over Sanders among older white voters who decided before the last few days .
But not all groups swung towards Biden in the last few days .
Black voters were already very supportive , with more than half voting for him , and he didn ’ t make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black voters , who were more likely to decide in the last few days than older ones , didn ’ t swing that much towards Biden in their decision .
• Here ’ s another interesting tidbit from Tuesday ’ s exit polls : Many voters went to the polls with coronavirus in mind .
In California , 15 percent of respondents said that coronavirus was the most important factor in their vote , 37 percent said it was one of several important factors , 19 percent said it was a minor factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a factor at all .
In Texas , 25 percent said it was the most important factor , 37 percent said it was one of several important factors , 20 percent said it was a minor factor and 15 percent said it was not a factor .
• After former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped out of the presidential race on Wednesday , Morning Consult released a snapshot of polling data from Monday and Tuesday on second-choice voter data and found that 48 percent of Bloomberg supporters ’ s identified Biden as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders was their second choice and 15 percent said Warren ( who also dropped out on Thursday ) .
• According to a HuffPost/YouGov poll , 43 percent of adults said they have more distrust than admiration for billionaires ; just 18 percent said they have more admiration than distrust .
However , 50 percent also said being personally wealthy doesn ’ t make a difference to how they see presidential candidates .
Just 19 percent said it is a negative characteristic for presidential candidates , while 12 percent said it is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for mayor of Baltimore is April 28 , and a new WYPR/Baltimore Sun/University of Baltimore poll says it ’ ll be a close race .
Former Mayor Sheila Dixon got 16 percent , City Council President Brandon Scott got 10 percent , former prosecutor Thiru Vignarajah got 10 percent , former city police spokesman T.J. Smith got 9 percent , former U.S. Treasury official Mary Miller got 7 percent , incumbent Mayor Jack Young ( who acceded to the post when the previous mayor resigned ) got 6 percent and state Sen. Mary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 42.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.9 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -10 points ) .
At this time last week , 43.2 percent approved and 52.3 percent disapproved ( for a net approval rating of -9.1 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 43.4 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.1 percent , for a net approval rating of -8.7 points .
In our average of polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently lead by 6.9 percentage points ( 48.0 percent to 41.1 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 6.5 points ( 47.8 percent to 41.3 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 5.7 points ( 47.2 percent to 41.5 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll of the week
A key part of former Vice President Joe Biden’s success on Super Tuesday was his strong performance among voters who had only made up their minds in the last few days. According to exit poll data, Biden won at least 40 percent — if not more — of the late-deciding vote in every state except Sanders’s home state of Vermont.
Late voters turned the tide for Biden Vote share by candidate among voters who decided in the last few days (“late” voters) and prior to the last few days (“early” voters), according to exit polls in 11 Super Tuesday states Biden Sanders State Early Late Diff. Early Late Diff. Minnesota 24% 53% +29 45% 19% -26 Tennessee 34 61 +27 28 15 -13 California 19 44 +25 38 22 -16 Maine 22 47 +25 47 17 -30 Vermont 13 35 +22 64 32 -32 Massachusetts 24 43 +19 40 18 -22 Texas 29 45 +16 33 16 -17 North Carolina 39 53 +14 26 22 -4 Oklahoma 33 44 +11 35 16 -19 Virginia 50 59 +9 29 17 -12 Alabama 63 64 +1 20 11 -9 Colorado is not included as its exit poll was conducted prior to Election Day to account for its mostly mail-in balloting system and it included candidates who withdrew just ahead of Super Tuesday. We don’t have exit poll data from Arkansas, Utah or American Samoa. Source: ABC NEWS/edison research
But who exactly were these voters? And why did they so overwhelmingly back Biden at the last minute? If we look at the exit poll data we have, there is a lot of variation from state to state, but there are a few key trends from Tuesday:
Late deciders, on average, were more moderate. Voters in the Northeast (Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont) and the Midwest (Minnesota) were especially likely to decide late (nearly half did) while voters in some parts of the South and California were more likely to have cast their ballot early (in California, mail-in voting played a huge role in boosting early voting numbers). Biden picked up a lot of support among white voters who decided late.
Let’s unpack that first finding. Thirty-nine percent of late deciders said they were moderate, compared with 27 percent of those who had decided earlier. They were also somewhat more likely to say they wanted a candidate who could defeat Trump more than one who agreed with them on most issues.
The fact that this is something many late-deciding voters had in common makes sense. Both Sen. Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg did better among more moderate voters, as evidenced in Iowa and New Hampshire, and because they dropped out right before Super Tuesday, at least some moderate voters were forced to change their mind — and, perhaps aided by Buttigieg’s and Klobuchar’s endorsements, many broke for Biden.
But it wasn’t just moderates who broke for Biden. Very liberal voters were less likely to be late deciders overall, but Biden also saw a huge swing among these voters: an increase of 19 percentage points, while Sanders saw a huge decrease (22 points).
Voters across the ideological spectrum swung to Biden Vote share by candidate among voters who decided in the last few days (“late” voters) and prior to the last few days (“early” voters) by ideology, according to exit polls in 11 Super Tuesday states Biden Sanders Group Early Late Diff. Early Late Diff. Very liberal 15% 34% +19 54% 32% -22 Somewhat liberal 25 48 +23 35 20 -15 Moderate 45 56 +11 20 12 -8 Conservative 30 45 +15 25 14 -11 All 28 48 +20 36 19 -17 Colorado is not included as its exit poll was conducted prior to Election Day to account for its mostly mail-in balloting system and it included candidates who withdrew just ahead of Super Tuesday. We don’t have exit poll data from Arkansas, Utah or American Samoa. Source: ABC NEWS/edison research
Second, there was a geographical divide in where late deciders cast their ballots, with a relatively larger percentage concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest. A majority (55 percent) of Minnesota voters, for instance, said they decided in the last few days, which probably had a lot to do with Klobuchar’s last-minute departure from the race. She had been polling about even with Sanders in Minnesota before she dropped out and on March 1 had a 1 in 2 chance to win her home state, according to the FiveThirtyEight model. Biden obviously benefited here, performing 29 points better among late-deciders than early ones, en route to an 8-point victory.
Late deciders also boosted Biden’s performance in the Northeast and helped Biden win both Maine and Massachusetts, states in which he had no better than a 1 in 4 chance of winning. In Maine, 47 percent of voters were late deciders, in Massachusetts 51 percent and in Vermont 38 percent were late deciders, with Biden even having a very narrow edge here too despite it being Sanders’s home state. Fewer voters in the South (34 percent) and California (18 percent) said they decided on a candidate in the last few days, though there were exceptions such as Oklahoma (50 percent) and Virginia (49 percent).
Third, Biden did really well among white voters, especially those who decided late: Of the 34 percent of white voters who made their minds up in the last few days, 51 percent of them went for Biden compared with 17 percent who backed Sanders. Overall, Biden bested Sanders among white voters in eight states, including a 15-point edge in Minnesota. He also ran close to Sanders among white voters in Maine and Texas, narrowly edging Sanders out in the former and trailing him only slightly in the latter. This marked a massive shift compared with voters who picked a candidate earlier.
White voters had the biggest last-minute swing Vote share by candidate among voters who decided in the last few days (“late” voters) and prior to the last few days (“early” voters) by race, according to exit polls in 11 Super Tuesday states Biden Sanders Group Early Late Diff. Early Late Diff. Black 60% 55% -5 17% 22% +5 White 23 51 +28 36 17 -19 Hispanic 21 37 +16 48 22 -26 All 28 49 +21 35 18 -17 Colorado is not included as its exit poll was conducted prior to Election Day to account for its mostly mail-in balloting system and it included candidates who withdrew just ahead of Super Tuesday. We don’t have exit poll data from Arkansas, Utah or American Samoa. Source: ABC NEWS/edison research
But if we dig a bit deeper, we find certain groups of white voters were more likely to land on a candidate in the final days. For instance, 37 percent of white women were late deciders, more than any other group broken down by race and gender. As a whole, they made up 43 percent of late deciders, and 50 percent of them backed Biden. Though this was in line with the overall support for Biden among late deciders, the sheer number of white women (the single largest voting bloc on Super Tuesday) made it a key late-deciding group for Biden.
White voters aged 45 years or older were also likely to be late deciders. In fact, they made up half of all voters who made their vote choice in the final days. And of those, 57 percent supported Biden vote compared to only 11 percent for Sanders. That 46-point margin was nearly seven times larger than the 7-point edge for Biden over Sanders among older white voters who decided before the last few days.
But not all groups swung towards Biden in the last few days. Black voters were already very supportive, with more than half voting for him, and he didn’t make additional inroads with them. Even younger black voters, who were more likely to decide in the last few days than older ones, didn’t swing that much towards Biden in their decision.
Other polling bites
Here’s another interesting tidbit from Tuesday’s exit polls: Many voters went to the polls with coronavirus in mind. In California, 15 percent of respondents said that coronavirus was the most important factor in their vote, 37 percent said it was one of several important factors, 19 percent said it was a minor factor and 22 percent said it was not a factor at all. In Texas, 25 percent said it was the most important factor, 37 percent said it was one of several important factors, 20 percent said it was a minor factor and 15 percent said it was not a factor.
After former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped out of the presidential race on Wednesday, Morning Consult released a snapshot of polling data from Monday and Tuesday on second-choice voter data and found that 48 percent of Bloomberg supporters’s identified Biden as their second-choice candidate. Twenty-five percent said Sanders was their second choice and 15 percent said Warren (who also dropped out on Thursday).
According to a HuffPost/YouGov poll, 43 percent of adults said they have more distrust than admiration for billionaires; just 18 percent said they have more admiration than distrust. However, 50 percent also said being personally wealthy doesn’t make a difference to how they see presidential candidates. Just 19 percent said it is a negative characteristic for presidential candidates, while 12 percent said it is a positive characteristic.
The Democratic primary for mayor of Baltimore is April 28, and a new WYPR/Baltimore Sun/University of Baltimore poll says it’ll be a close race. Former Mayor Sheila Dixon got 16 percent, City Council President Brandon Scott got 10 percent, former prosecutor Thiru Vignarajah got 10 percent, former city police spokesman T.J. Smith got 9 percent, former U.S. Treasury official Mary Miller got 7 percent, incumbent Mayor Jack Young (who acceded to the post when the previous mayor resigned) got 6 percent and state Sen. Mary Washington got 5 percent.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 42.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.9 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -10 points). At this time last week, 43.2 percent approved and 52.3 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -9.1 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 43.4 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.1 percent, for a net approval rating of -8.7 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 6.9 percentage points (48.0 percent to 41.1 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 6.5 points (47.8 percent to 41.3 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 5.7 points (47.2 percent to 41.5 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-07--Confidence Interval: Sanders Still Has A Shot

Welcome to another episode of Confidence Interval , where we make a persuasive case for a political argument , and @ @ @ @ @ we really are .
In this video , managing editor Micah Cohen makes the case @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden ’ s success on Super Tuesday , Sen. Bernie Sanders still has a @ @ @ @ @ .

Welcome to another episode of Confidence Interval, where we make a persuasive case for a political argument and then reveal just how confident we really are.
In this video, managing editor Micah Cohen makes the case that despite former Vice President Joe Biden’s success on Super Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders still has a shot at the Democratic nomination.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-09--Election Preview: Sanders Is The Underdog In Michigan, But We’ve Heard That One Before

Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s road to a comeback in the Democratic primary once again runs through Michigan .
In 2016 , Sanders overcame massive polling deficits and less than 1 in 100 odds to score a shocking win in the Michigan primary , showing there was still life in his campaign despite former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s significant delegate lead .
Sanders is now hoping the Wolverine State can do the same for him four years later .
Michigan is Sanders ’ s most important upcoming state for a few reasons .
It is big enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him with an opportunity to cut his delegate deficit .
It also leans enough toward former Vice President Joe Biden that another Sanders upset there would sow doubt about whether Biden is really as strong as he looks .
Finally , Michigan has the benefit of voting now .
Well over half of the pledged delegates will have been awarded by the end of this month , meaning that Sanders can ’ t afford for his comeback to start in April — if it ’ s going to happen , it needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecast as of 9 p.m. Eastern on March 8 , Biden had a 3 in 4 ( 77 percent ) chance of winning Michigan , while Sanders had a 1 in 4 ( 23 percent ) chance .
On average , Biden is forecasted to receive 51 percent of the statewide vote in Michigan , and Sanders is forecasted to receive 42 percent .
But those results will likely not be consistent across all corners of the state .
We ’ re forecasting that 11 of Michigan ’ s 14 congressional districts will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development for Sanders , given that 82 of Michigan ’ s pledged delegates are awarded on the district level and he ’ s overperfoming in several of them .
So let ’ s take a look at Sanders ’ s and Biden ’ s relative strength in each Michigan congressional district ( this is in the average scenario of a 51-42 Biden statewide win ) : The 13th District and 14th District immediately jump out as the two best districts in the state for Biden .
Not coincidentally , these two Detroit-based districts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strongest districts in Michigan in 2016 , as she crushed Sanders in each by more than 30 percentage points .
The fact that both districts are majority black bodes well for Biden just as it did for Clinton ; according to exit polls , Biden got 58 percent of the black vote in the median state on Super Tuesday , while Sanders got just 17 percent .
In our average forecast , Biden gets 60-61 percent of the vote in these districts , while Sanders gets 32-33 percent .
So on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statewide but the City of Detroit has yet to report , don ’ t jump to any conclusions — this is Biden ’ s base .
On the other hand , most other districts in the state figure to be close — none more so than the 11th District ( which covers certain northern and western Detroit suburbs like Troy and Livonia ) , where we are forecasting Biden to get an average of 47 percent and Sanders to get an average of 46 percent .
We also expect Sanders to overperform his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( which runs from Lansing to the Detroit suburb of Rochester ) .
The 8th and 11th districts have a lot in common , too , besides their expected affinity for Sanders : They are Michigan ’ s two wealthiest and most college-educated districts , and Democrats flipped both these seats in the 2018 elections .
Sanders is also forecasted to hit 46 percent and almost tie Biden in the 2nd District , which includes some suburbs of Grand Rapids and much of the Lake Michigan shoreline .
The district was notably one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 ( he beat Clinton by more than 20 points ) .
And in the 10th District , a heavily non-college-educated white district covering Michigan ’ s “ Thumb , ” our forecast predicts Biden to get 48 percent and Sanders to get 45 percent .
If Sanders is going to overperform on Tuesday , these four districts — the 2nd , 8th , 10th and 11th — will probably be leading indicators .
Finally , if it ’ s a bellwether district you ’ re after , look no further than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flint- and Saginaw-based district looks like Michigan as a whole , although it is also one of the least wealthy and college-educated districts in the state .
We ’ re forecasting Biden to get an average of 52 percent here and Sanders to get an average of 41 percent , which closely matches their expected statewide performance .
Sanders winning here on election night could be the first sign that a statewide upset is brewing .
Of course , there ’ s also a lot of uncertainty as we move into Tuesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have many recent polls of Michigan to help us understand how close this race is .
But as results come in , keep in mind some of these congressional-district benchmarks , as they can help you judge who might be on pace to win statewide .

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s road to a comeback in the Democratic primary once again runs through Michigan. In 2016, Sanders overcame massive polling deficits and less than 1 in 100 odds to score a shocking win in the Michigan primary, showing there was still life in his campaign despite former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s significant delegate lead.
Sanders is now hoping the Wolverine State can do the same for him four years later. Michigan is Sanders’s most important upcoming state for a few reasons. It is big enough (125 pledged delegates) to present him with an opportunity to cut his delegate deficit. It also leans enough toward former Vice President Joe Biden that another Sanders upset there would sow doubt about whether Biden is really as strong as he looks. Finally, Michigan has the benefit of voting now. Well over half of the pledged delegates will have been awarded by the end of this month, meaning that Sanders can’t afford for his comeback to start in April — if it’s going to happen, it needs to start soon.
According to the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of 9 p.m. Eastern on March 8, Biden had a 3 in 4 (77 percent) chance of winning Michigan, while Sanders had a 1 in 4 (23 percent) chance. On average, Biden is forecasted to receive 51 percent of the statewide vote in Michigan, and Sanders is forecasted to receive 42 percent. But those results will likely not be consistent across all corners of the state. We’re forecasting that 11 of Michigan’s 14 congressional districts will be tighter than that — a welcome development for Sanders, given that 82 of Michigan’s pledged delegates are awarded on the district level and he’s overperfoming in several of them.
So let’s take a look at Sanders’s and Biden’s relative strength in each Michigan congressional district (this is in the average scenario of a 51-42 Biden statewide win):
Most districts are close, but Biden dominates in Detroit Average forecasted vote share for the top two Democratic presidential candidates in Michigan congressional districts, according to the FiveThirtyEight model as of 9 p.m. on March 8 District Biden Sanders MI-01 50% 43% MI-02 48 46 MI-03 49 44 MI-04 49 44 MI-05 52 41 MI-06 50 43 MI-07 49 44 MI-08 48 46 MI-09 49 44 MI-10 48 45 MI-11 47 46 MI-12 49 44 MI-13 60 33 MI-14 61 32 State 51 42
The 13th District and 14th District immediately jump out as the two best districts in the state for Biden. Not coincidentally, these two Detroit-based districts were also — by far — Clinton’s strongest districts in Michigan in 2016, as she crushed Sanders in each by more than 30 percentage points. The fact that both districts are majority black bodes well for Biden just as it did for Clinton; according to exit polls, Biden got 58 percent of the black vote in the median state on Super Tuesday, while Sanders got just 17 percent. In our average forecast, Biden gets 60-61 percent of the vote in these districts, while Sanders gets 32-33 percent. So on election night, if Sanders is leading statewide but the City of Detroit has yet to report, don’t jump to any conclusions — this is Biden’s base.
On the other hand, most other districts in the state figure to be close — none more so than the 11th District (which covers certain northern and western Detroit suburbs like Troy and Livonia), where we are forecasting Biden to get an average of 47 percent and Sanders to get an average of 46 percent. We also expect Sanders to overperform his statewide vote share in the 8th District (which runs from Lansing to the Detroit suburb of Rochester). The 8th and 11th districts have a lot in common, too, besides their expected affinity for Sanders: They are Michigan’s two wealthiest and most college-educated districts, and Democrats flipped both these seats in the 2018 elections.
Sanders is also forecasted to hit 46 percent and almost tie Biden in the 2nd District, which includes some suburbs of Grand Rapids and much of the Lake Michigan shoreline. The district was notably one of Sanders’s best districts back in 2016 (he beat Clinton by more than 20 points). And in the 10th District, a heavily non-college-educated white district covering Michigan’s “Thumb,” our forecast predicts Biden to get 48 percent and Sanders to get 45 percent. If Sanders is going to overperform on Tuesday, these four districts — the 2nd, 8th, 10th and 11th — will probably be leading indicators.
Finally, if it’s a bellwether district you’re after, look no further than the 5th District. Racially, this Flint- and Saginaw-based district looks like Michigan as a whole, although it is also one of the least wealthy and college-educated districts in the state. We’re forecasting Biden to get an average of 52 percent here and Sanders to get an average of 41 percent, which closely matches their expected statewide performance. Sanders winning here on election night could be the first sign that a statewide upset is brewing.
Of course, there’s also a lot of uncertainty as we move into Tuesday, not least because we don’t have many recent polls of Michigan to help us understand how close this race is. But as results come in, keep in mind some of these congressional-district benchmarks, as they can help you judge who might be on pace to win statewide.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-09--How The Rest Of The Primary Calendar Looks For Biden And Sanders

As hyped-up as Super Tuesday was , the Democratic primary is hardly over .
Thirty-eight states and other jurisdictions have yet to weigh in , and 62 percent of pledged delegates are still up for grabs .
The problem for Sen. Bernie Sanders is that former Vice President Joe Biden has jumped ahead of him in national polls — which is enough to make him favored almost everywhere that has yet to vote , according to our primary forecast .
But if Sanders were to mount a comeback , where might it start ?
Our forecast provides a clue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — especially Southern states , or places in the Northeast with a lot of diversity , like New York — look intractably in Biden ’ s camp .
But others — especially Western states — are still relatively good for Sanders compared with his national standing .
These states provide Sanders ’ s best chance to notch wins and potentially shift the balance of the race overall .
Here ’ s what percentage of the vote we are currently forecasting Biden and Sanders to get in each remaining contest ; you can see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let ’ s go through the rest of the calendar week by week to see which primary days might provide opportunities for Sanders to climb back into the race — and which present the most upside for Biden .
One of Sanders ’ s best opportunities is right on top of us : This Tuesday is actually about as favorable as it gets for Sanders .
The four remaining contests where Sanders has the best shot of winning are all being held this week : Democrats Abroad ( where Sanders has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , chance ) , Washington ( 1 in 2 , or 52 percent ) , Idaho ( 1 in 2 , or 50 percent — a pure toss-up with Biden ) and North Dakota ( 2 in 5 , or 41 percent ) .
But Biden is currently relatively strong in Missouri and Mississippi .
The key to Sanders using March 10 to turn around his campaign is probably winning Michigan , which conceivably could allow him to win a majority of the day ’ s states and delegates .
With Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) chance in the Wolverine State , it ’ s not out of the question either .
The reason this Tuesday is so important for Sanders is that his campaign needs a shot of momentum and good press to immunize them from the shellacking they could take on March 17 , on which several big , Biden-friendly states will vote .
One of them , Florida , is the single likeliest state to go for Biden ( he has a greater than 99 in 100 chance to win there ) .
In Illinois @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solid favorite .
However , if Sanders does manage to win Michigan the previous week , maybe these states are in play too ( our model gives Sanders similar odds in Michigan , Illinois and Ohio , so if he wins the first we ’ d expect him to be competitive in the second two — especially Ohio , Michigan ’ s demographic doppelganger ) .
Arizona is currently the likeliest March 17 primary to result in a Sanders win , but unfortunately for Sanders , it ’ s also worth the fewest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good news for Biden : Georgia and Puerto Rico both project as good places for Biden .
But the first week of April could present another opportunity for Sanders to win a bunch of states — if things break his way .
Relatively speaking , Sanders is in contention in Wyoming , Hawaii and Alaska , which vote on April 4 , and Wisconsin , which votes on April 7 .
But a lot will depend on how well Sanders holds up in March .
If he has been stronger than expected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outright favorite in these states once April rolls around .
But if Biden ’ s momentum continues , these states are unlikely to save Sanders .
Plus , even if Sanders wins Alaska , Hawaii and Wyoming , Biden may still win April 4 given his likely rout in Louisiana , which is worth one more delegate than those three states combined .
Next up , April 28 is both the biggest ( in terms of delegates ) election day left on the calendar and one that looks very favorable to Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hit on this day , even if his campaign has regained its strength ; April 28 includes Biden ’ s former stomping grounds of Delaware and Pennsylvania , where he is currently so far ahead it is unlikely he would relinquish first place there even in the event of a shift in the overall balance of the race toward Sanders .
Biden is also expected to secure a dominant share of New York ’ s vast pool of delegates .
Only in tiny Rhode Island is Sanders anywhere close to even money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point , Sanders hasn ’ t rejuvenated his campaign , he will have precious few remaining opportunities to do so .
As of right now at least , Biden enjoys healthy leads in most of the states to vote in May .
And then on June 2 comes the last big delegate-rich primary day , and one where Biden should run up the score in diverse places like New Jersey and the District of Columbia .
In summary , Sanders has a couple upcoming election days that hold upside for him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest , on March 17 and April 28 — are probably going to be Biden landslides .
With many of Sanders ’ s best states already having voted , demographics and geography are among the biggest challenges to his winning the nomination .

As hyped-up as Super Tuesday was, the Democratic primary is hardly over. Thirty-eight states and other jurisdictions have yet to weigh in, and 62 percent of pledged delegates are still up for grabs. The problem for Sen. Bernie Sanders is that former Vice President Joe Biden has jumped ahead of him in national polls — which is enough to make him favored almost everywhere that has yet to vote, according to our primary forecast.
But if Sanders were to mount a comeback, where might it start? Our forecast provides a clue. Of the remaining primary contests, some — especially Southern states — look intractably in Biden’s camp. But others — especially Western states — are still relatively good for Sanders compared with his national standing. These states provide Sanders’s best chance to notch wins and potentially shift the balance of the race overall. Here’s what percentage of the vote we are currently forecasting Biden and Sanders to get in each remaining contest if the state or territory were voting today. (Note that these projections are a bit different than our topline forecast numbers, which account for the fact that Sanders, who’s trailing now, might drop out. The projections below better reflect how strong the candidates might be in each place in a world where we know they’re still in the race.) You can see that some places are closer than others.
A look ahead at Biden’s and Sanders’s upcoming states Average forecasted vote share for the top two Democratic presidential candidates in each remaining contest, according to the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast as of 9 s.m. Eastern on March 9 March 10 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Michigan 57.5% 40.5% +17.0 Washington 48.6 49.1 +0.5 Missouri 58.7 39.6 +19.1 Mississippi 71.7 27.3 +44.4 Idaho 49.5 47.9 +1.6 North Dakota 51.6 46 +5.6 Democrats Abroad 47.8 49.2 +1.4 March 14 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Northern Marianas 55.3% 41.8% +13.5 March 17 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Florida 66.7% 31.6% +35.1 Illinois 54.8 43.4 +11.4 Ohio 54.1 44.1 +10.0 Arizona 55 42.9 +12.1 March 24 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Georgia 61.5% 36.7% +24.8 March 29 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Puerto Rico 53.4% 44.4% +9.0 April 4 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Louisiana 66.9% 31.3% +35.6 Hawaii 45.5 44.4 +1.1 Alaska 50.6 47.2 +3.4 Wyoming 48 49.6 +1.6 April 7 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Wisconsin 49% 48.3% +0.8 April 28 Contest Biden Sanders Margin New York 52.8% 45.3% +7.5 Pennsylvania 57.4 40.9 +16.5 Maryland 59 40.1 +19.0 Connecticut 53.3 45.6 +7.6 Rhode Island 47.1 51.4 +4.2 Delaware 69.3 30.3 +39.0 May 2 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Kansas 51.6% 46.6% +5.0 Guam 54.2 43.5 +10.6 May 5 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Indiana 52.1% 46.1% +6.0 May 12 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Nebraska 51.9% 46.1% +5.8 West Virginia 54.1 43.6 +10.4 May 19 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Oregon 48.2% 49.1% +1.0 Kentucky 55.1 42.9 +12.3 June 2 Contest Biden Sanders Margin New Jersey 53.7% 44.2% +9.5 New Mexico 49.2 48.7 +0.5 District of Columbia 69.9 29 +40.9 Montana 54.4 42.5 +11.9 South Dakota 53.5 43.8 +9.7 June 6 Contest Biden Sanders Margin Virgin Islands 65.4% 32.5% +33.0
Let’s go through the rest of the calendar week by week to see which primary days might provide opportunities for Sanders to climb back into the race — and which present the most upside for Biden.
One of Sanders’s best opportunities is right on top of us: This Tuesday is actually about as favorable as it gets for Sanders. Four contests where Sanders has a good shot of winning are all being held this week: Democrats Abroad (where Sanders has a 1 in 2, or 54 percent, chance), Washington (1 in 2, or 52 percent), Idaho (1 in 2, or 50 percent — a pure toss-up with Biden) and North Dakota (2 in 5, or 41 percent).
But Biden is currently relatively strong in Missouri and Mississippi. The key to Sanders using March 10 to turn around his campaign is probably winning Michigan, which conceivably could allow him to win a majority of the day’s states and delegates. With Sanders’s 1 in 4 (23 percent) chance in the Wolverine State, it’s not out of the question either.
The reason this Tuesday is so important for Sanders is that his campaign needs a shot of momentum and good press to immunize them from the shellacking they could take on March 17, on which several big, Biden-friendly states will vote. One of them, Florida, is very likely to go for Biden (he has a greater than 99 in 100 chance to win there). In Illinois and Ohio, Biden is also strong. However, if Sanders does manage to win Michigan the previous week, maybe these states are in play too (our model gives Sanders similar odds in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio, so if he wins the first we’d expect him to be competitive in the second two — especially Ohio, Michigan’s demographic doppelganger and currently the likeliest March 17 primary to result in a Sanders win).
March rounds out with more good news for Biden: Georgia projects as a good place for Biden. But the first week of April could present another opportunity for Sanders to win a bunch of states — if things break his way. Relatively speaking, Sanders is in contention in Wyoming, Hawaii and Alaska, which vote on April 4, and Wisconsin, which votes on April 7.
But a lot will depend on how well Sanders holds up in March. If he has been stronger than expected, our forecast may well have Sanders as an outright favorite in these states once April rolls around. But if Biden’s momentum continues, these states are unlikely to save Sanders. Plus, even if Sanders wins Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming, Biden may still win April 4 given his likely rout in Louisiana, which is worth one more delegate than those three states combined.
Next up, April 28 is both the biggest (in terms of delegates) election day left on the calendar and one that looks very favorable to Biden. Sanders should be prepared to take a hit on this day, even if his campaign has regained its strength; April 28 includes Biden’s former stomping grounds of Delaware and Pennsylvania. In Delaware, in particular, he is so far ahead it is unlikely he would relinquish first place there even in the event of a shift in the overall balance of the race toward Sanders. Only in tiny Rhode Island is Sanders favored to win on April 28.
And if, by this point, Sanders hasn’t rejuvenated his campaign, he will have precious few remaining opportunities to do so. May holds a few decent contests for Sanders — he’s close in Kansas, Indiana, Nebraska and Oregon — but few delegates are at stake that month. And then on June 2 comes the last big delegate-rich primary day, and one where Biden should do well. Only New Mexico looks close.
In summary, Sanders has a couple upcoming election days that hold upside for him. But even more — including the two biggest, on March 17 and April 28 — are probably going to be Biden landslides. With many of Sanders’s best states already having voted, demographics and geography are among the biggest challenges to his winning the nomination.
CORRECTION (March 9, 2020 9:45 a.m.): To better reflect each candidate’s strength in the states, we’ve updated this article to use vote share projections from the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast that do not factor in the chance that Sanders, as the trailing candidate at the moment, will drop out. The topline forecast numbers originally used in this article account for that chance, which helps make Biden more of a favorite — especially in later states. The table and text have been updated as a result.


fivethirtyeight--2020-03-09--Politics Podcast: What Are The Political Repercussions Of The Coronavirus?

The new coronavirus has continued to spread in the United States , and markets reacted negatively on Monday .
In @ @ @ @ @ Politics podcast , the crew debates the meaning of a poll showing that Americans of @ @ @ @ @ to the virus differently .
They also discuss the state of the Democratic primary race @ @ @ @ @ .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in @ @ @ @ @ by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
@ @ @ @ @ podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays @ @ @ @ @ the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment @ @ @ @ @ “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on @ @ @ @ @ .

The new coronavirus has continued to spread in the United States, and markets reacted negatively on Monday. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew debates the meaning of a poll showing that Americans of different partisan persuasions are reacting to the virus differently. They also discuss the state of the Democratic primary race and preview the upcoming elections.
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.