fivethirtyeight--2020-10-26--Why Millions Of Americans Don’t Vote

Why Millions Of Americans Don’t Vote

The last time Richard Brown voted was in 2008 .
He had caught a couple of presidential debates on TV , and found himself liking what the Democratic candidate , Barack Obama , had to say .
And as a Black man , he was excited by the idea of voting for the country ’ s first Black president .
Then in 2012 , he decided not to bother casting a second ballot for Obama .
It wasn ’ t that he had soured on the president — he just didn ’ t think it was necessary .
“ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so ] I kinda figured he didn ’ t need my help , ” Brown said .
He was willing to take the time out of his day to cast his vote , but he didn ’ t think it would have an impact on the outcome .
“ I know it ’ s kind of a stupid thought , but I feel like one missed vote isn ’ t going to change anything.
” Twelve years later , though , he ’ s planning to vote again .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lives in the Midwest , is newly hopeful that his vote will matter .
In fact , he ’ s not at all confident that the candidate he ’ s supporting , Joe Biden , will win .
But the stakes of this election feel personal .
Over the past four years , some of his friends have changed the way they act and talk , saying hateful things about Obama or sharing racist memes on Facebook .
“ I ’ m not even really keen on Biden , ” Brown said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump is bringing racist rhetoric out of a lot of people.
” Those kinds of comments are “ really hurtful to me , disrespectful to me , ” he said .
So he ’ s decided to vote again this year : “ This way , if [ Biden ] does lose the election , I can ’ t say that it was my fault because I didn ’ t vote.
” Every election , millions of Americans go through a similar thought process and , it turns out , lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting doesn ’ t matter or isn ’ t worth their time .
In any given election , between 35 and 60 percent of eligible voters don ’ t cast a ballot .
It ’ s not that hard to understand why .
Our system doesn ’ t make it particularly easy to vote , and the decision to carve out a few hours to cast a ballot requires a sense of motivation that ’ s hard for some Americans to muster every two or four years — enthusiasm about the candidates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a sense that anything can change as the result of a single vote .
“ I guess I just don ’ t think that one person ’ s vote can swing an election , ” said Jon Anderson , who won ’ t be voting for president this year because of moral objections to both candidates .
I don ’ t think if President Trump is reelected or if Joe Biden wins , it ’ s going to be complete chaos .
So I don ’ t want to vote out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t — vote is complex .
Most Americans don ’ t fall neatly into any one category .
Instead , as we found in our new poll with Ipsos , most are like Brown .
They vote inconsistently , or at moments when they feel like their vote has a chance to make a difference , or when the stakes of not voting are just too high , which is how many Americans describe this upcoming election .
Of the 8,000-plus people we polled , we were able to match nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyzed the views of the respondents in that slightly smaller group , and found that they fell into three broad groups : 1 ) people who almost always vote ; 2 ) people who sometimes vote ; and 3 ) people who rarely or never vote .
People who sometimes vote were a plurality of the group ( 44 percent ) , while 31 percent nearly always cast a ballot and just 25 percent almost never vote .
And as the chart below shows , there weren ’ t huge differences between people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who vote less consistently .
Yes , those who voted more regularly were higher income , more educated , more likely to be white and more likely to identify with one of the two political parties , but those who only vote some of the time were also fairly highly educated and white , and not overwhelmingly young .
There were much bigger differences between people who sometimes vote and those who almost never vote .
Nonvoters were more likely to have lower incomes ; to be young ; to have lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t belong to either political party , which are all traits that square with what we know about people less likely to engage with the political system .
Many of the people we spoke with described their decision to vote as very personal , boiling down to the specific candidates , their own ability to navigate the electoral system that year , or whether they thought their vote would matter .
But for others , being a “ nonvoter ” or a “ sometimes voter ” wasn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to casting a ballot that many of them experienced .
Those barriers and feelings build on each other in ways that are complicated to tease out .
But that complexity actually helps us understand why so many Americans don ’ t consistently vote — and why they vote , when they do .
When JeMare Williams went to vote for the first time in Macomb County , Michigan , he had a plan .
Tucked inside his wallet were several forms of identification and his voter registration card .
He was still smarting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to vote , when he lived in Wayne County , outside Detroit .
That time , he had come to the polling place with his driver ’ s license but without his voter registration card , and was told he had to fill out a provisional ballot ( separate ballots used when a voter ’ s eligibility is uncertain ) .
After he moved , he was determined that he wouldn ’ t have to fill out another ballot that might not get counted .
“ I was like — you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away , ” he said .
“ Whatever you need for me to vote , I have it.
” For Williams , voting has never been especially easy .
He ’ s missed elections in the past because his job working for a railroad takes him away from home for 24-hour stretches , making it impossible to vote on Election Day .
When he has been able to vote , he ’ s stood in line for hours .
Williams is certainly not alone in experiencing these barriers .
Of the three groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who only vote some of the time were actually the likeliest to report having stood in line for more than an hour ; they were also likelier than those who vote more regularly to say they couldn ’ t get off work to vote .
Take Christopher McDonald , 28 .
He voted for the first time in 2016 , but the steps he had to take to vote felt intimidating , especially for someone who wasn ’ t that interested in politics .
“ A lot of it was that I didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what to do -- I didn ’ t even know where the voting centers were , ” he said .
When he did end up voting , he was told that the precinct didn ’ t have his address on file and , like Williams , had to fill out a provisional ballot .
He still doesn ’ t know if his vote actually got counted .
“ They said , ‘ Oh you have to call the commissioner ’ s office or the courthouse or something , ’ ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place , it just went out of my head.
” This year , some of these occasional voters are also dealing with pandemic-specific challenges that could make voting less of a priority .
For instance , people who vote more irregularly are a little more likely than those who almost always vote to have lost a job in the past year ( 13 percent vs. 10 percent ) or to have worried about expenses ( 21 percent vs. 16 percent ) , although those who almost never vote are even likelier than those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiences .
Adam Sanchez , 27 , isn ’ t sure if he ’ s voting this year , in part because he doesn ’ t want to risk his health by voting in person , but also because he doesn ’ t trust mail-in ballots .
“ The last time I tried to vote by mail , it didn ’ t get counted — it was too late , ” he said .
As a result , Sanchez told us , “ I do n't know where my ballot is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see it put into the voting machine.
” On the whole , though , those who don ’ t vote as frequently didn ’ t view methods of voting — like in-person voting or mail-in ballots — all that differently than people who always vote .
Nonvoters , on the other hand , trusted these methods less across the board .
There are , of course , other systemic reasons why some people might vote more inconsistently .
Our survey found , for instance , that occasional voters were slightly more likely than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 8 percent vs. 5 percent ) , and nonvoters were even more likely to fall into this category ( 12 percent ) .
Black and Hispanic voters are also more likely to experience hurdles , perhaps in part because there tend to be fewer polling places in their neighborhoods .
About 24 percent of Black respondents said that they had to stand in line for more than an hour while voting , and Hispanic respondents were more likely to say they had trouble accessing the polling place or couldn ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every year , people make it sound like it 's doomsday all over .
But I do think this election will determine the direction of the country .
Some people , like Donna Thompson , 59 , told us that a long line or complicated voting system is something that ’ s just baked into the process for them .
“ I ’ m going to have to take time off work to go get in line , because my job doesn ’ t give me time off to vote , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to wait five or six hours in past elections .
“ It ’ s very frustrating.
” But she added that while she ’ s not as consistent about voting in state and local elections , she tries to always vote in national elections despite the hassle .
As a Black woman , “ it ’ s very important that my vote counts because my people died trying to get the right to vote , ” she said .
“ I think I owe it , if nothing else , to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was guaranteed for us.
” Thompson thinks a lot of the problems on Election Day come down to logistical issues that could be fixed .
Others agreed that there ’ s more the U.S. could be doing to encourage people to vote .
Fifty-one percent of respondents thought that making Election Day a national holiday would allow more people to cast a ballot .
Similar shares agreed that more information about the candidates from unbiased sources ( 51 percent ) or early in-person voting ( 52 percent ) would help , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consensus around a single fix — and notably , those who voted less frequently were less likely than people who always vote to agree that any one solution would boost turnout .
And that might be because concrete barriers are only one piece of the puzzle .
Kelly Bryan isn ’ t voting this year — not because the process is too difficult , or she ’ s uninformed about politics .
“ I genuinely feel like my vote doesn ’ t matter , ” she said .
For most of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two states , Illinois and Oregon , which both overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in presidential elections .
“ If I lived in Pennsylvania or Michigan , I ’ d be first in line to vote , ” she said .
In the survey , we asked voters who have missed at least one national election — which included some people who almost always vote — why they didn ’ t cast a ballot .
Nearly a quarter cited some of the structural barriers we mentioned above .
But another 31 percent said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disliked the candidates or they thought nothing would change as a result of the election ( 26 percent ) .
That sense that the candidates are too flawed to be worth voting for — or that the system is rigged , or can ’ t be fixed by voting — came up in many of our conversations with survey respondents .
For most of his life , Eduardo Martinez thought that politics just didn ’ t impact his life .
“ I ’ m ashamed to say it , but like a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My vote doesn ’ t count.
’ … Generally what the politicians do doesn ’ t affect me , ’ ” he said .
That changed in 2018 , when Beto O ’ Rourke ran for Senate in Texas .
“ That ’ s where I said ‘ Hey , the guy needs my help , ’ ” Martinez said .
He cast his first vote for O ’ Rourke in 2018 , at the age of 70 .
This year , he ’ s voting again — when we spoke , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was planning to fill it out that evening .
But getting to a similar place might be harder for other occasional voters or nonvoters .
For one thing , occasional voters ( 80 percent ) and nonvoters ( 68 percent ) are less likely to believe that politicians have an impact on their lives than consistent voters ( 84 percent ) .
Similarly , people who vote sometimes ( 78 percent ) or rarely ( 60 percent ) are much less likely than voters who vote almost all of the time ( 85 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in politics who look like them — which could in turn make it harder to trust or identify with the candidates running for office .
For me , not voting sends a bigger message .
Another hurdle for Martinez were politicians and the political parties , which he described as “ not for the people.
” Many of the other survey respondents felt similarly : A substantial chunk of respondents said they don ’ t think either party wants people like them to vote .
( Twenty-three percent said this of Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black and Hispanic people were especially likely to say the Republicans don ’ t want people like them to vote : Fifty-four percent of Black respondents and 35 percent of Hispanic respondents agreed with this statement , compared to just 26 percent of white respondents .
That perception may be turning off some voters who might otherwise be more likely to cast a ballot .
Martinez , who identifies as Mexican American , said he thinks Republicans benefit from lower turnout from people like him .
“ The only reason the Republicans win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ Latinos , brown people and Black people don ’ t vote .
That ’ s why Democrats lose.
” JeMare Williams even said that he was a “ Republican by nature ” in terms of his policy views — but as a Black man , he couldn ’ t vote for Republican candidates .
“ They shunned the African American vote because of everything they do to suppress it , ” he said .
“ When you do so much to suppress the vote , you can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me into your party.
” Andrea Johnson , meanwhile , has voted in the past but thinks that not voting this year is the best way to send a message to the parties .
Like other voters in relatively noncompetitive states , she was skeptical that her vote can make a difference in Virginia , where she ’ s currently a graduate student .
And although she admitted that she ’ s ideologically closer to Biden than to Trump , she supported more progressive candidates in the Democratic primary and resents the assumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line behind the Democrats ’ chosen candidate .
“ If Trump were to get reelected , it would send a bigger message to the Democratic Party that ‘ Hey , we 're tired of you giving us candidates that we do n't necessarily agree with , ’ ” she said .
This year , though , there are signs that we could be heading for record-breaking voter turnout .
And if that happens , it could be due in large part to the fact that a lot of people who vote only sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our survey , 82 percent of these voters are following the 2020 election somewhat or very closely , and 93 percent are planning to vote in 2020 — very close to the share of those who say they always vote ( 97 percent ) .
A much smaller but still non-negligible share of nonvoters ( 51 percent ) also say they ’ re planning to vote this year .
( Of course , many people who say they will vote don ’ t end up casting a ballot . )
For voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election feels like a chance to hit the reset button .
Robey said that although she generally tries to turn out for national elections , she didn ’ t vote in 2016 .
“ I knew enough about Trump at that point to know that I didn ’ t want to vote for him , ” she said .
But she added that she had misgivings about Clinton that she now chalks up to “ Russian bots and misinformation , ” so she sat the election out .
She regretted that decision almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think there was any way Trump was going to win , ” she said .
“ It felt like a nightmare when I woke up in the middle of the night to check the vote and found out he had won the election.
” But this year , Robey told us , the stakes of the election are high enough that she ’ s considering voting in person if that ’ s what it takes , even though she is at moderate risk for COVID-19 .
Overall , most voters agree that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important issues facing the country is concerned , the winner of this year ’ s election really matters .
However , those who rarely vote were the likeliest to say the election doesn ’ t matter .
That ’ s true of voters of all political leanings , not just people like Robey who dislike Trump .
Trump supporters like Jared Gaffney , 42 , agreed that this year ’ s choice feels more weighty than any election in recent memory .
” There ’ s definitely more importance to this election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because I thought the last election had quite a bit of importance to it too , ” Gaffney said .
“ But these two candidates are like polar opposites of each other.
” In interviews and the survey , we found , time and again , an increased sense of urgency to vote among less-frequent voters .
And in some instances , that ’ s prompting them to get more engaged with all aspects of the political system , not just the presidential race .
The statewide restrictions put in place during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lila Haddad , 31 , to start paying more attention to down-ballot races .
“ I ’ m a mom with three kids and sometimes I don ’ t have the time to do the research that I need to in those races , so I just don ’ t vote , ” she said .
Now , though , she said she ’ s going to make those contests more of a priority .
“ Before this year , it felt like the presidential elections were the really important ones , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me that who we have for city council , governor — that also makes a huge difference in people ’ s lives.
” There ’ s really nothing about [ Biden ] that makes me want to vote for him .
It ’ s just the idea of not voting for Trump .
But those feelings might not persist .
It ’ s one reason why voter turnout tends to ebb and flow .
Take someone like Thomas Jones , 56 , who didn ’ t vote in 2016 but plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Jones ’ s daughter was sick with COVID-19 earlier this year ( she ’ s since recovered ) ; however , he is still unhappy with Trump ’ s response to the pandemic .
“ The lies that they 've told , his insistence that it 's going to disappear , his idea that he can use bleach to kind of get rid of it and then say , ‘ Oh , I was just joking , ’ ” Jones said .
“ There are too many people dying to joke about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for Biden , Jones didn ’ t have much enthusiasm for the Democratic Party .
“ There ’ s no voice of reason on either side , ” he said .
That deeply rooted disgust with the state of the country ’ s politics was also evident in our survey and interviews .
This year , many Americans on both sides of the political divide feel a need to participate that overrides their distaste for the candidates and the system , but it might not may not last .
Each individual voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years from now , when the political context could be quite different .
Eduardo Martinez , for instance , said that if Trump loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College , he might not bother voting in the future .
“ That would really be very upsetting , ” he said .
“ I probably wouldn ’ t vote again.
” High voter turnout this year shouldn ’ t be taken as a sign that Americans are newly confident in their electoral system — instead , the driving emotion seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his part , thinks he probably won ’ t vote again for a while after 2020 .
“ I just really feel like if voting really made a difference , [ the government ] wouldn ’ t let us vote , ” he said .
But things feel bad enough right now that he doesn ’ t care — and he wants to have his say anyway .

Why Many Americans Don't Vote And why for some, this year could be different.
The last time Richard Brown voted was in 2008. He had caught a couple of presidential debates on TV, and found himself liking what the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, had to say. And as a Black man, he was excited by the idea of voting for the country’s first Black president. Then in 2012, he decided not to bother casting a second ballot for Obama. It wasn’t that he had soured on the president — he just didn’t think it was necessary. “He’s already in office … [so] I kinda figured he didn’t need my help,” Brown said. He was willing to take the time out of his day to cast his vote, but he didn’t think it would have an impact on the outcome. “I know it’s kind of a stupid thought, but I feel like one missed vote isn’t going to change anything.” Twelve years later, though, he’s planning to vote again. It’s not because Brown, who is now 53 and lives in the Midwest, is newly hopeful that his vote will matter. In fact, he’s not at all confident that the candidate he’s supporting, Joe Biden, will win. But the stakes of this election feel personal. Over the past four years, some of his friends have changed the way they act and talk, saying hateful things about Obama or sharing racist memes on Facebook. “I’m not even really keen on Biden,” Brown said. “It’s more so that Trump is bringing racist rhetoric out of a lot of people.” Those kinds of comments are “really hurtful to me, disrespectful to me,” he said. So he’s decided to vote again this year: “This way, if [Biden] does lose the election, I can’t say that it was my fault because I didn’t vote.” Every election, millions of Americans go through a similar thought process and, it turns out, lots of people feel like Brown: They think voting doesn’t matter or isn’t worth their time. In any given election, between 35 and 60 percent of eligible voters don’t cast a ballot. It’s not that hard to understand why. Our system doesn’t make it particularly easy to vote, and the decision to carve out a few hours to cast a ballot requires a sense of motivation that’s hard for some Americans to muster every two or four years — enthusiasm about the candidates, belief in the importance of voting itself, a sense that anything can change as the result of a single vote. “I guess I just don’t think that one person’s vote can swing an election,” said Jon Anderson, who won’t be voting for president this year because of moral objections to both candidates. I don’t think if President Trump is reelected or if Joe Biden wins, it’s going to be complete chaos. So I don’t want to vote out of fear. But who does — and doesn’t — vote is complex. Most Americans don’t fall neatly into any one category. Instead, as we found in our new poll with Ipsos, most are like Brown. They vote inconsistently, or at moments when they feel like their vote has a chance to make a difference, or when the stakes of not voting are just too high, which is how many Americans describe this upcoming election. Of the 8,000-plus people we polled, we were able to match nearly 6,000 to their voting history. We analyzed the views of the respondents in that slightly smaller group, and found that they fell into three broad groups: 1) people who almost always vote; 2) people who sometimes vote; and 3) people who rarely or never vote. People who sometimes vote were a plurality of the group (44 percent), while 31 percent nearly always cast a ballot and just 25 percent almost never vote. And as the chart below shows, there weren’t huge differences between people who vote almost all the time and those who vote less consistently. Yes, those who voted more regularly were higher income, more educated, more likely to be white and more likely to identify with one of the two political parties, but those who only vote some of the time were also fairly highly educated and white, and not overwhelmingly young. There were much bigger differences between people who sometimes vote and those who almost never vote. Nonvoters were more likely to have lower incomes; to be young; to have lower levels of education; and to say they don’t belong to either political party, which are all traits that square with what we know about people less likely to engage with the political system. Many of the people we spoke with described their decision to vote as very personal, boiling down to the specific candidates, their own ability to navigate the electoral system that year, or whether they thought their vote would matter. But for others, being a “nonvoter” or a “sometimes voter” wasn’t really a choice. There are clear barriers to casting a ballot that many of them experienced. Those barriers and feelings build on each other in ways that are complicated to tease out. But that complexity actually helps us understand why so many Americans don’t consistently vote — and why they vote, when they do.
Barriers To Voting When JeMare Williams went to vote for the first time in Macomb County, Michigan, he had a plan. Tucked inside his wallet were several forms of identification and his voter registration card. He was still smarting from the last time he’d tried to vote, when he lived in Wayne County, outside Detroit. That time, he had come to the polling place with his driver’s license but without his voter registration card, and was told he had to fill out a provisional ballot (separate ballots used when a voter’s eligibility is uncertain). After he moved, he was determined that he wouldn’t have to fill out another ballot that might not get counted. “I was like — you’re not going to take this right away,” he said. “Whatever you need for me to vote, I have it.” For Williams, voting has never been especially easy. He’s missed elections in the past because his job working for a railroad takes him away from home for 24-hour stretches, making it impossible to vote on Election Day. When he has been able to vote, he’s stood in line for hours. Williams is certainly not alone in experiencing these barriers. Of the three groups of voters we identified, those voters who only vote some of the time were actually the likeliest to report having stood in line for more than an hour; they were also likelier than those who vote more regularly to say they couldn’t get off work to vote. Take Christopher McDonald, 28. He voted for the first time in 2016, but the steps he had to take to vote felt intimidating, especially for someone who wasn’t that interested in politics. “A lot of it was that I didn’t know where to go or what to do -- I didn’t even know where the voting centers were,” he said. When he did end up voting, he was told that the precinct didn’t have his address on file and, like Williams, had to fill out a provisional ballot. He still doesn’t know if his vote actually got counted. “They said, ‘Oh you have to call the commissioner’s office or the courthouse or something,’” he said. “And when I left the voting place, it just went out of my head.” This year, some of these occasional voters are also dealing with pandemic-specific challenges that could make voting less of a priority. For instance, people who vote more irregularly are a little more likely than those who almost always vote to have lost a job in the past year (13 percent vs. 10 percent) or to have worried about expenses (21 percent vs. 16 percent), although those who almost never vote are even likelier than those who sometimes vote to have reported these experiences. Adam Sanchez, 27, isn’t sure if he’s voting this year, in part because he doesn’t want to risk his health by voting in person, but also because he doesn’t trust mail-in ballots. “The last time I tried to vote by mail, it didn’t get counted — it was too late,” he said. As a result, Sanchez told us, “I don't know where my ballot is going to end up, if I don't see it put into the voting machine.” On the whole, though, those who don’t vote as frequently didn’t view methods of voting — like in-person voting or mail-in ballots — all that differently than people who always vote. Nonvoters, on the other hand, trusted these methods less across the board. There are, of course, other systemic reasons why some people might vote more inconsistently. Our survey found, for instance, that occasional voters were slightly more likely than frequent voters to have a long-term disability (8 percent vs. 5 percent), and nonvoters were even more likely to fall into this category (12 percent). Black and Hispanic voters are also more likely to experience hurdles, perhaps in part because there tend to be fewer polling places in their neighborhoods. About 24 percent of Black respondents said that they had to stand in line for more than an hour while voting, and Hispanic respondents were more likely to say they had trouble accessing the polling place or couldn’t get off work in time to vote. Every year, people make it sound like it's doomsday all over. But I do think this election will determine the direction of the country. Some people, like Donna Thompson, 59, told us that a long line or complicated voting system is something that’s just baked into the process for them. “I’m going to have to take time off work to go get in line, because my job doesn’t give me time off to vote,” she said, adding that she’s had to wait five or six hours in past elections. “It’s very frustrating.” But she added that while she’s not as consistent about voting in state and local elections, she tries to always vote in national elections despite the hassle. As a Black woman, “it’s very important that my vote counts because my people died trying to get the right to vote,” she said. “I think I owe it, if nothing else, to them because it wasn’t something that was guaranteed for us.” Thompson thinks a lot of the problems on Election Day come down to logistical issues that could be fixed. Others agreed that there’s more the U.S. could be doing to encourage people to vote. Fifty-one percent of respondents thought that making Election Day a national holiday would allow more people to cast a ballot. Similar shares agreed that more information about the candidates from unbiased sources (51 percent) or early in-person voting (52 percent) would help, too. But there wasn’t a lot of consensus around a single fix — and notably, those who voted less frequently were less likely than people who always vote to agree that any one solution would boost turnout. And that might be because concrete barriers are only one piece of the puzzle.
Trust In The System Kelly Bryan isn’t voting this year — not because the process is too difficult, or she’s uninformed about politics. “I genuinely feel like my vote doesn’t matter,” she said. For most of her life, the 33-year-old has lived in two states, Illinois and Oregon, which both overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in presidential elections. “If I lived in Pennsylvania or Michigan, I’d be first in line to vote,” she said. In the survey, we asked voters who have missed at least one national election — which included some people who almost always vote — why they didn’t cast a ballot. Nearly a quarter cited some of the structural barriers we mentioned above. But another 31 percent said that they decided not to vote because they disliked the candidates or they thought nothing would change as a result of the election (26 percent). That sense that the candidates are too flawed to be worth voting for — or that the system is rigged, or can’t be fixed by voting — came up in many of our conversations with survey respondents. For most of his life, Eduardo Martinez thought that politics just didn’t impact his life. “I’m ashamed to say it, but like a lot of people, I said, ‘My vote doesn’t count.’ … Generally what the politicians do doesn’t affect me,’” he said. That changed in 2018, when Beto O’Rourke ran for Senate in Texas. “That’s where I said ‘Hey, the guy needs my help,’” Martinez said. He cast his first vote for O’Rourke in 2018, at the age of 70. This year, he’s voting again — when we spoke, he had just received his absentee ballot and was planning to fill it out that evening. But getting to a similar place might be harder for other occasional voters or nonvoters. For one thing, occasional voters (80 percent) and nonvoters (68 percent) are less likely to believe that politicians have an impact on their lives than consistent voters (84 percent). Similarly, people who vote sometimes (78 percent) or rarely (60 percent) are much less likely than voters who vote almost all of the time (85 percent) to say that there are people in politics who look like them — which could in turn make it harder to trust or identify with the candidates running for office. Every vote should count. The way our electoral system operates now, it’s just not true. Another hurdle for Martinez were politicians and the political parties, which he described as “not for the people.” Many of the other survey respondents felt similarly: A substantial chunk of respondents said they don’t think either party wants people like them to vote. (Twenty-three percent said this of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans.) Black and Hispanic people were especially likely to say the Republicans don’t want people like them to vote: Fifty-four percent of Black respondents and 35 percent of Hispanic respondents agreed with this statement, compared to just 26 percent of white respondents. That perception may be turning off some voters who might otherwise be more likely to cast a ballot. Martinez, who identifies as Mexican American, said he thinks Republicans benefit from lower turnout from people like him. “The only reason the Republicans win is because of people like me,” he said. “Latinos, brown people and Black people don’t vote. That’s why Democrats lose.” JeMare Williams even said that he was a “Republican by nature” in terms of his policy views — but as a Black man, he couldn’t vote for Republican candidates. “They shunned the African American vote because of everything they do to suppress it,” he said. “When you do so much to suppress the vote, you can’t tell me you’re welcoming me into your party.” Andrea Johnson, meanwhile, has voted in the past but thinks that not voting this year is the best way to send a message to the parties. Like other voters in relatively noncompetitive states, she was skeptical that her vote can make a difference in Virginia, where she’s currently a graduate student. And although she admitted that she’s ideologically closer to Biden than to Trump, she supported more progressive candidates in the Democratic primary and resents the assumption that she’ll simply fall in line behind the Democrats’ chosen candidate. “If Trump were to get reelected, it would send a bigger message to the Democratic Party that ‘Hey, we're tired of you giving us candidates that we don't necessarily agree with,’” she said.
Beliefs About Politics This year, though, there are signs that we could be heading for record-breaking voter turnout. And if that happens, it could be due in large part to the fact that a lot of people who vote only sometimes cast a ballot this year. According to our survey, 82 percent of these voters are following the 2020 election somewhat or very closely, and 93 percent are planning to vote in 2020 — very close to the share of those who say they always vote (97 percent). A much smaller but still non-negligible share of nonvoters (51 percent) also say they’re planning to vote this year. (Of course, many people who say they will vote don’t end up casting a ballot.) For voters like Amanda Robey, 38, this election feels like a chance to hit the reset button. Robey said that although she generally tries to turn out for national elections, she didn’t vote in 2016. “I knew enough about Trump at that point to know that I didn’t want to vote for him,” she said. But she added that she had misgivings about Clinton that she now chalks up to “Russian bots and misinformation,” so she sat the election out. She regretted that decision almost immediately. “I honestly did not think there was any way Trump was going to win,” she said. “It felt like a nightmare when I woke up in the middle of the night to check the vote and found out he had won the election.” But this year, Robey told us, the stakes of the election are high enough that she’s considering voting in person if that’s what it takes, even though she is at moderate risk for COVID-19. Overall, most voters agree that, as far as making progress on the important issues facing the country is concerned, the winner of this year’s election really matters. However, those who rarely vote were the likeliest to say the election doesn’t matter. That’s true of voters of all political leanings, not just people like Robey who dislike Trump. Trump supporters like Jared Gaffney, 42, agreed that this year’s choice feels more weighty than any election in recent memory. ”There’s definitely more importance to this election, which is kind of odd to say because I thought the last election had quite a bit of importance to it too,” Gaffney said. “But these two candidates are like polar opposites of each other.” In interviews and the survey, we found, time and again, an increased sense of urgency to vote among less-frequent voters. And in some instances, that’s prompting them to get more engaged with all aspects of the political system, not just the presidential race. The statewide restrictions put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, for one, convinced Lila Haddad, 31, to start paying more attention to down-ballot races. “I’m a mom with three kids and sometimes I don’t have the time to do the research that I need to in those races, so I just don’t vote,” she said. Now, though, she said she’s going to make those contests more of a priority. “Before this year, it felt like the presidential elections were the really important ones, but now it’s become really plain to me that who we have for city council, governor — that also makes a huge difference in people’s lives.” There’s really nothing about [Biden] that makes me want to vote for him. It’s just the idea of not voting for Trump. But those feelings might not persist. It’s one reason why voter turnout tends to ebb and flow. Take someone like Thomas Jones, 56, who didn’t vote in 2016 but plans to cast his ballot for Biden this year. Jones’s daughter was sick with COVID-19 earlier this year (she’s since recovered); however, he is still unhappy with Trump’s response to the pandemic. “The lies that they've told, his insistence that it's going to disappear, his idea that he can use bleach to kind of get rid of it and then say, ‘Oh, I was just joking,’” Jones said. “There are too many people dying to joke about something like that.” But despite his support for Biden, Jones didn’t have much enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. “There’s no voice of reason on either side,” he said. That deeply rooted disgust with the state of the country’s politics was also evident in our survey and interviews. This year, many Americans on both sides of the political divide feel a need to participate that overrides their distaste for the candidates and the system, but it may not last. Each individual voter will face a new calculus two or four years from now, when the political context could be quite different. Eduardo Martinez, for instance, said that if Trump loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College, he might not bother voting in the future. “That would really be very upsetting,” he said. “I probably wouldn’t vote again.” High voter turnout this year shouldn’t be taken as a sign that Americans are newly confident in their electoral system — instead, the driving emotion seems to be desperation. Richard Brown, for his part, thinks he probably won’t vote again for a while after 2020. “I just really feel like if voting really made a difference, [the government] wouldn’t let us vote,” he said. But things feel bad enough right now that he doesn’t care — and he wants to have his say anyway.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--What Kind Of Supreme Court Justice Will Amy Coney Barrett Be?

It ’ s official : Amy Coney Barrett will be the country ’ s next Supreme Court justice .
She was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote margin , and will be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House tonight — just in time for Election Day .
Barrett ’ s ascension to the court was incredibly swift — her confirmation hearings started less than a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , and this is the closest to an election a Supreme Court confirmation vote has been held .
Notably , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerged relatively unscathed from her confirmation hearings .
This is quite a feat considering both the partisan nature of the hearings and the looming questions over whether the rush to confirm her jeopardizes the court ’ s legitimacy .
Barrett ’ s confirmation is incredibly consequential , too , as she will likely shift the center of gravity away from Chief Justice John Roberts and toward the right edge of the court ’ s conservative wing , which could potentially result in rulings that are significantly outside the mainstream of public opinion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ long to see how Barrett rules , either .
She faces a slew of hot-button cases right off the bat , including a dispute over religious liberty exemptions , a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and several cases involving controversial Trump administration policies — not to mention any election-related fights that make their way to the court in the next few weeks , plus the fact that Mississippi recently asked the Supreme Court to consider its 15-week abortion ban , which directly challenges Roe v. Wade .
Why Barrett is poised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve written before , it ’ s hard to know exactly how a nominee to the Supreme Court will rule until they ’ re actually sworn in and begin weighing in on cases .
But we do have data on Barrett ’ s three years as a judge on the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , and as you can see in the chart below , she was very conservative .
We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month , and we found whether it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together , she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench .
And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues .
Those findings underscore the idea that Barrett is likely to be a reliable conservative vote on the court .
And her confirmation is even more significant because she ’ s replacing one of the court ’ s stalwart liberals .
If Barrett ends up being ideologically similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently the second-most conservative justice on the Supreme Court , her replacement of Ginsburg could be one of the biggest ideological swings in modern court history .
In this scenario , Justice Brett Kavanaugh would replace Roberts as the court ’ s new median justice , which could lead to a significant rightward turn on the court , as Roberts is often the lone conservative justice to side with the liberals .
He has cast several recent pivotal votes with the liberals , too , including a dispute in which the justices deadlocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court decision that allowed state officials to count ballots that arrive up to three days late .
With Barrett on the court , though , Roberts would lose that “ swing justice ” role .
In the short term , that means election-related cases could have very different outcomes — even including a new iteration of the Pennsylvania case , which Republican officials recently brought back to the court .
And in the long term , conservative legal advocates may respond by bringing even more ambitious cases , questioning long-held precedents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Barrett — and the court The idea of confirming anyone to replace Ginsburg before the election was quite unpopular only a few weeks ago .
While it ’ s true that most Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pretty partisan these days , around the time Barrett was named as the nominee , a majority of Americans said they wanted the winner of the election to choose the next justice .
And polling by the Economist in mid-October also found that Barrett was the most unpopular nominee in Supreme Court history .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warmed to the idea of Barrett joining the court before Election Day .
According to tracking polls by Morning Consult , support for confirming Barrett rose from 37 percent when she was nominated to 51 percent after the hearings were over and a Gallup poll conducted during Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings found a similar result .
Notably , according to that Gallup poll , this was substantially higher than the share who wanted the Senate to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 ( 41 percent ) , and is even slightly higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have received on average ( 48 percent ) .
To be sure , this isn ’ t universal support for Barrett ’ s confirmation .
Partisan opinion on her confirmation is really divided — according to Gallup , only 15 percent of Democrats wanted the Senate to vote to confirm her , for instance .
A deep partisan divide in support isn ’ t a good sign for the court in general either , as it can reinforce perceptions that the court is itself a partisan institution .
But Barrett could have emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — which is why the level of support she does enjoy is pretty notable , especially when you consider most Americans agreed that she ’ d push the court to the right ( 54 percent in that Morning Consult poll ) .
Barrett will be faced with highly controversial cases immediately Barrett could be immediately faced with tough decisions , too , including voting on the fate of ballot deadlines in several states .
There are a number of important or even precedent-altering cases at stake , too , and considering that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedents with slim 5-4 majorities than any other court in modern history , that trend could further accelerate with Barrett on the court .
The day after the election , for instance , the justices will hear a case in which they ’ re being asked to reconsider a 30-year-old religious liberty precedent .
In that case , the justices will consider whether that precedent makes it too hard for religious people to sue for exemptions .
The majority opinion in that precedent-setting case , Employment Division v. Smith , was actually written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but four of the current conservative justices have already signaled they may be willing to strike it down .
Barrett could overrule it , and make it much easier for nondiscrimination provisions to be challenged by religious litigants .
fAnd a week after the election , a case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will come before the court , in which the justices could declare the entire law invalid .
Another important signal will be whether Barrett ’ s presence on the court gives conservatives a fourth vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15-week abortion ban , which the state attorney general described as an “ ideal vehicle ” for “ clarifying ” how the court ’ s precedents on abortion should be interpreted .
There are also several important Trump administration policies on the docket a little later this term — including the administration ’ s attempt to exclude undocumented citizens from the census count used for redistricting , and whether Trump unconstitutionally commandeered Congress ’ s power when he diverted Defense Department funds to expand the border wall with Mexico .
Given that several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies — including an attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census — split 5-4 , with Roberts casting a deciding vote with the liberals against the Trump administration , Barrett ’ s presence on the court could make a decision in favor of Trump more likely .
Barrett made it through her confirmation hearings mostly without controversy , but we ’ ll see whether that lasts .
It won ’ t take long to get a sense for just how far the Supreme Court ’ s conservatives are willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisive majority for the first time in decades .

It’s official: Amy Coney Barrett will be the country’s next Supreme Court justice. She was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote margin, and will be sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House tonight — just in time for Election Day.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Barrett’s ascension to the court was incredibly swift — her confirmation hearings started less than a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, and this is the closest to an election a Supreme Court confirmation vote has been held. Notably, though, despite this accelerated timeline, Barrett emerged relatively unscathed from her confirmation hearings. This is quite a feat considering both the partisan nature of the hearings and the looming questions over whether the rush to confirm her jeopardizes the court’s legitimacy.
Could any surprises still affect the race for president?
Barrett’s confirmation is incredibly consequential, too, as she will likely shift the center of gravity away from Chief Justice John Roberts and toward the right edge of the court’s conservative wing, which could potentially result in rulings that are significantly outside the mainstream of public opinion.
We won’t have to wait long to see how Barrett rules, either. She faces a slew of hot-button cases right off the bat, including a dispute over religious liberty exemptions, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act and several cases involving controversial Trump administration policies — not to mention any election-related fights that make their way to the court in the next few weeks, plus the fact that Mississippi recently asked the Supreme Court to consider its 15-week abortion ban, which directly challenges Roe v. Wade.
Why Barrett is poised to remake the Supreme Court
As we’ve written before, it’s hard to know exactly how a nominee to the Supreme Court will rule until they’re actually sworn in and begin weighing in on cases. But we do have data on Barrett’s three years as a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and as you can see in the chart below, she was very conservative.
We looked at two separate analyses of her record on the court this month, and we found whether it was in regular opinions or in special en banc decisions in which the entire appeals court ruled together, she was consistently on the right-most edge — if not the most conservative judge on the bench. And she was especially likely to rule in a conservative direction on civil rights issues.
Those findings underscore the idea that Barrett is likely to be a reliable conservative vote on the court. And her confirmation is even more significant because she’s replacing one of the court’s stalwart liberals. If Barrett ends up being ideologically similar to Justice Samuel Alito, who is currently the second-most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, her replacement of Ginsburg could be one of the biggest ideological swings in modern court history.
In this scenario, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would replace Roberts as the court’s new median justice, which could lead to a significant rightward turn on the court, as Roberts is often the lone conservative justice to side with the liberals. He has cast several recent pivotal votes with the liberals, too, including a dispute in which the justices deadlocked 4-4 on whether to halt a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that allowed state officials to count ballots that arrive up to three days late. With Barrett on the court, though, Roberts would lose that “swing justice” role.
In the short term, that means election-related cases could have very different outcomes — even including a new iteration of the Pennsylvania case, which Republican officials recently brought back to the court. And in the long term, conservative legal advocates may respond by bringing even more ambitious cases, questioning long-held precedents.
The hearings could have gone much worse for Barrett — and the court
The idea of confirming anyone to replace Ginsburg before the election was quite unpopular only a few weeks ago. While it’s true that most Supreme Court confirmation hearings are pretty partisan these days, around the time Barrett was named as the nominee, a majority of Americans said they wanted the winner of the election to choose the next justice. And polling by the Economist in mid-October also found that Barrett was the most unpopular nominee in Supreme Court history.
Now, though, Americans may actually have warmed to the idea of Barrett joining the court before Election Day. According to tracking polls by Morning Consult, support for confirming Barrett rose from 37 percent when she was nominated to 51 percent after the hearings were over and a Gallup poll conducted during Barrett’s confirmation hearings found a similar result. Notably, according to that Gallup poll, this was substantially higher than the share who wanted the Senate to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 (41 percent), and is even slightly higher than the support previous nominees since 1987 have received on average (48 percent).
Barrett’s confirmation wasn’t that divisive Share of Americans who said they were or were not in favor of the Senate confirming each Supreme Court nominee Nominee In favor Not in favor No opinion Amy Coney Barrett 51% 46% 3% Brett Kavanaugh 41 37 22 Neil Gorsuch 45 32 23 Merrick Garland 52 29 19 Elena Kagan 46 32 22 Sonia Sotomayor 54 28 19 Samuel Alito 50 25 25 Harriet Miers 44 36 20 John Roberts 59 22 19 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 53 14 33 Clarence Thomas 52 17 31 Robert Bork 31 25 44 Average for previous nominees 48 27 25 Data was not available for Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Douglas Ginsburg. Source: Gallup
To be sure, this isn’t universal support for Barrett’s confirmation. Partisan opinion on her confirmation is really divided — according to Gallup, only 15 percent of Democrats wanted the Senate to vote to confirm her, for instance. A deep partisan divide in support isn’t a good sign for the court in general either, as it can reinforce perceptions that the court is itself a partisan institution. But Barrett could have emerged a lot less popular from her hearing — which is why the level of support she does enjoy is pretty notable, especially when you consider most Americans agreed that she’d push the court to the right (54 percent in that Morning Consult poll).
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020
Barrett will be faced with highly controversial cases immediately
Barrett could be immediately faced with tough decisions, too, including voting on the fate of ballot deadlines in several states. There are a number of important or even precedent-altering cases at stake, too, and considering that the Roberts court has already been overturning more precedents with slim 5-4 majorities than any other court in modern history, that trend could further accelerate with Barrett on the court.
The day after the election, for instance, the justices will hear a case in which they’re being asked to reconsider a 30-year-old religious liberty precedent. In that case, the justices will consider whether that precedent makes it too hard for religious people to sue for exemptions. The majority opinion in that precedent-setting case, Employment Division v. Smith, was actually written by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, but four of the current conservative justices have already signaled they may be willing to strike it down. Barrett could overrule it, and make it much easier for nondiscrimination provisions to be challenged by religious litigants.
And a week after the election, a case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act will come before the court, in which the justices could declare the entire law invalid. Another important signal will be whether Barrett’s presence on the court gives conservatives a fourth vote to hear a case involving Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which the state attorney general described as an “ideal vehicle” for “clarifying” how the court’s precedents on abortion should be interpreted. There are also several important Trump administration policies on the docket a little later this term — including the administration’s attempt to exclude undocumented citizens from the census count used for redistricting, and whether Trump unconstitutionally commandeered Congress’s power when he diverted Defense Department funds to expand the border wall with Mexico. Given that several recent Supreme Court decisions on Trump administration policies — including an attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census — split 5-4, with Roberts casting a deciding vote with the liberals against the Trump administration, Barrett’s presence on the court could make a decision in favor of Trump more likely.
Barrett made it through her confirmation hearings mostly without controversy, but we’ll see whether that lasts. It won’t take long to get a sense for just how far the Supreme Court’s conservatives are willing to go now that they hold a decisive majority for the first time in decades.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--Surprise! October Surprises Don’t Usually Decide Elections

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses the October surprises we ’ ve seen so @ @ @ @ @ likelihood of another late development shaking up the race for president .
The gang also @ @ @ @ @

In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the October surprises we’ve seen so far this year and the likelihood of another late development shaking up the race for president. The gang also answers more listener questions.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-26--The Race Hasn’t Changed Much Since The Debate, And That’s Good For Biden

One question we posed after the last presidential debate was : Will the presidential race tighten ?
Since its peak on Oct. 19 , Joe Biden ’ s lead over President Trump in national polls narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points , while Biden ’ s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points during the same time period .
Although , as you can see in the chart below of how the forecast has changed , Biden ’ s odds have been relatively stable .
So what gives ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , why is our forecast different from our national polling average ?
Well , two things .
First , we ’ re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast , so we ’ re pricing that in a little in our model .
And second , the forecast is mostly based on state polls , which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we ’ ve seen nationally .
( Remember , if used properly , state polls actually give you a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than national polls , which is why our forecast so heavily relies on them ! )
But let ’ s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely ( or mostly ) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening .
Overall , we have six national surveys and eight battleground state polls , and on average , these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate .
In fact , the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden .
Gravis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in July , but now finds Biden in better shape in all three states , including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin .
Meanwhile , Ipsos and the New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania , Texas and Wisconsin .
Most national polls also showed little to no change , too .
International Business Daily/TIPP ’ s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining , but has recently found his lead back up in the high single-digits .
There may have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but at this point , there doesn ’ t seem to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate .
In fact , only two polls found clear , negative shifts for Biden , and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president ’ s chances in a positive light .
First , a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness , a conservative media think tank , gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania , which marks a 6-point swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-October .
We , of course , can ’ t discount that this might be the case , but the ideological leanings of the pollster ’ s sponsor do give us pause .
Similarly , a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point , a 4-point shift from its last survey , but Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect , or put another way , it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates than other polling firms .
We choose to be very inclusive when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toss almost everything into the polling kitchen sink .
But on the whole , these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening , especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt ( which we ’ d recommend ) .

One question we posed after the last presidential debate was, Will the presidential race tighten?
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Since its peak on Oct. 19, Joe Biden’s lead over President Trump in national polls has narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points, while Biden’s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points. Although, as you can see in the chart below, Biden’s odds have been relatively stable.
So what gives? Is the race tightening? And, if it is, why is our forecast different from our national polling average?
Well, two things. First, we’re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast, so we’re pricing that in a little in our model. And second, the forecast is mostly based on state polls, which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we’ve seen nationally. (Remember, if used properly, state polls give you a more accurate projection of the national popular vote than national polls do, which is why our forecast relies on them so heavily!)
Polling 101: Should You Trust The Polls In 2020? | FiveThirtyEight
But let’s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening. Overall, we have six national surveys and eight battleground-state polls, and on average, these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate.
Not much has changed since the debate State and national polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster Biden lead Pollster Now Before change MI Gravis Marketing +13 +9 +4 PA Gravis Marketing +7 +3 +4 PA InsiderAdvantage -3 +3 -6 PA Reuters/Ipsos +5 +4 +1 TX NYT Upshot/Siena -4 -3 -1 TX Data for Progress +1 +1 0 WI Gravis Marketing +11 +8 +3 WI Reuters/Ipsos +9 +8 +1 US IBD/TIPP +7 +5 +2 US Morning Consult +9 +9 0 US Rasmussen Reports -1 +3 -4 US RMG Research +7 +8 -1 US SurveyMonkey +6 +6 0 US Yahoo News/YouGov +12 +11 +1 Average 0 Source: Polls
In fact, the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden. Gravis Marketing, for instance, last tested Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in July, but now finds Biden in better shape in all three states, including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Ipsos and The New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Most national polls also showed little to no change. International Business Daily/TIPP’s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining, but it has recently found his lead back up in the high single digits.
There may have been a bit of tightening before the debate, but at this point, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate. In fact, only two polls found clear, negative shifts for Biden, and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president’s chances in a positive light.
First, a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness, a conservative media think tank, gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania, which marks a 6-point swing in margin from its previous poll in mid-October. We, of course, can’t discount that this might be the case, but the ideological leanings of the pollster’s sponsor do give us pause. Similarly, a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point, a 4-point shift from its last survey. But Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect, or put another way, it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates compared with other polling firms.
We choose to be very inclusive when it comes to our forecast, so we toss almost everything into the polling kitchen sink. But, on the whole, these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening, especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt (which we’d recommend).
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How the electorate will be different in 2020


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-26--Politics Podcast: Could Any Surprises Still Affect The Race For President?

Election Day is just eight days away , and more than 60 million Americans have already voted — that ’ @ @ @ @ @ all the votes counted in 2016 .
So could any new developments still affect the @ @ @ @ @ of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew looks at how October surprises have — @ @ @ @ @ shaped past elections and what issues are driving the final days of the 2020 campaign @ @ @ @ @ the mailbag and answer some listener questions .
You can listen to the episode by @ @ @ @ @ button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN @ @ @ @ @ platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The @ @ @ @ @ Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating @ @ @ @ @ Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” @ @ @ @ @ email , on Twitter or in the comments .

Election Day is just eight days away, and more than 60 million Americans have already voted — that’s about 45 percent of all the votes counted in 2016. So could any new developments still affect the race? In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew looks at how October surprises have — or haven’t — shaped past elections and what issues are driving the final days of the 2020 campaign. They also shake out the mailbag and answer some listener questions.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-26--Fewer Undecided Voters Is Good News For Biden In The Midwest

Will this election be a replay of 2016 , with President Trump unexpectedly winning Wisconsin , Michigan and Pennsylvania ?
@ @ @ @ @ Druke says that 2020 is shaping up to be a very different race in the @ @

Will this election be a replay of 2016, with President Trump unexpectedly winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast host Galen Druke says that 2020 is shaping up to be a very different race in the Midwest.


fivethirtyeight--2020-10-27--Is Joe Biden Toast If He Loses Pennsylvania?

Michigan and Wisconsin have been the focus of a lot of attention from nervous Democrats for the past four years , in part because Hillary Clinton spent relatively little time there and lost both states in 2016 .
So if you told Democrats that Joe Biden would be up by 7 points in Wisconsin and 8 points in Michigan in polls with a week to go , they ’ d feel … Actually , who are we kidding .
They ’ d still feel pretty nervous since the polls underestimated Donald Trump in these states four years ago !
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden could withstand 2016-style polling errors in those states and still win .
( Clinton led by 4 points in Michigan and 5 points in Wisconsin in our final polling averages in those states in 2016 , and then lost both states by less than one point .
But Biden ’ s extra cushion means he could survive a 2016-magnitude miss . )
The polls have been tighter in Pennsylvania , though .
Biden ’ s current lead is just 5.1 points , and in 2016 , polls were off by 4.4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won it by 0.7 points after trailing in our final polling average by 3.7 points there .
So with a 2016-style polling error in Pennsylvania , Biden would be cutting it awfully close , perhaps even so close that court rulings on factors like “ naked ballots ” could swing the outcome .
Whether it makes sense that Biden is polling worse in Pennsylvania than in Michigan and Wisconsin is a fair question .
Biden was born in Scranton , and it ’ s the most urban and the most racially diverse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Michigan are traditionally more Democratic ; Barack Obama won them by larger margins than Pennsylvania in 2012 , for instance .
So maybe there ’ s been some reversion to the mean here .
In any event , the polling has been consistent enough in showing Pennsylvania tighter than Michigan and Wisconsin that we probably need to take it at face value at this stage .
So here ’ s a question we can ask with our nifty scenario generator .
Is Pennsylvania a must-win for Biden ?
No , not quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must-win for Trump , who has only a 2 percent chance of winning the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania .
Biden , however , has a bit more margin for error .
He ’ d have a 30 percent chance if he lost Pennsylvania , which isn ’ t great but is also higher than , say , Trump ’ s overall chances on Election Day 2016 .
The reason losing Pennsylvania wouldn ’ t necessarily doom Biden is because he could still hold those other Midwestern/Rust Belt states .
Pennsylvania is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not that similar .
As I mentioned , it ’ s denser and more racially diverse .
It may or may not be in the Midwest .
It ’ s traditionally a bit more purple .
So if Biden is doing better than Clinton with rural whites but worse with Black voters — as a lot of polling shows — he might gain ground in Wisconsin but lose in Pennsylvania .
Say , then , that Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Michigan and Wisconsin .
For good measure , we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his chances look like then ?
Biden ’ s actually a slight favorite ( 55 percent ) in this scenario .
This map has a lot of interesting aspects that give you some hints about how our model works behind the scenes .
Here , for instance , are Biden ’ s chances of winning other swing states if he loses Pennsylvania but wins the other three Midwestern states : The biggest decline to Biden ’ s chances comes in Ohio .
That makes sense .
It ’ s not an easy state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be highly correlated with Pennsylvania , so if he can ’ t win in Pennsylvania , it ’ s very hard to imagine him winning there .
Iowa is a bit more viable for Biden because it ’ s more similar to Wisconsin and Minnesota than to Pennsylvania , but it would still be a long shot .
The model also thinks New Hampshire and Maine could be problems for Biden if he loses Pennsylvania , although he ’ d still be favored in those states .
Demographically , Maine is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Pennsylvania — it ’ s white and rural .
But geographically , it ’ s closer to Pennsylvania .
Our model considers both factors , as geography can often be a proxy for lots of hidden factors that cause correlated outcomes between states but are otherwise hard to detect .
Conversely , what happens in the Rust Belt doesn ’ t tell us much about what will happen in Nevada , Colorado or New Mexico — those groups of states just aren ’ t that similar .
Biden ’ s chances would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina , Georgia and Texas , however .
Part of that is because these states just aren ’ t that easy for a Democrat to win , period .
So if Biden is having a mixed night — as evidenced by his losing Pennsylvania even if he wins Wisconsin and Michigan — they could be fairly heavy lifts .
In addition , these states do have some things in common with Pennsylvania .
Florida , like Pennsylvania , has a fairly old electorate .
North Carolina has a similar racial mix to Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle-income with many transplants from Pennsylvania and the Midwest .
Still , Biden would be slightly favored to eke out a win in this scenario by winning one more more of those Sunbelt states .
The most likely would be Arizona , which has less in common with Pennsylvania than the others .
Biden ’ s work wouldn ’ t quite be done if he won Arizona , though .
Rather , his chances would be 85 percent , with a 5 percent chance of a 269-269 tie .
But he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could hold the other states Clinton won in 2016 and then flip either Iowa or a congressional district in either Maine or Nebraska , which award one electoral vote each .
Alternatively , he could even lose another state Clinton won , like Maine or New Hampshire , if he carried a second Sunbelt state such as Georgia .
We ’ re getting into the weeds .
But here ’ s the thing : Yes , Biden and Democrats should be nervous that he has only about a 5-point lead in Pennsylvania , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error , but not that much more .
And Biden does have some backup plans .
A regional polling error in the Midwest or the Northeast wouldn ’ t necessarily doom his chances in states like Arizona , for instance .
It wouldn ’ t be the blowout that Democrats hope for , but Biden would still retain an edge in the Electoral College even without winning his birth state .

Michigan and Wisconsin have been the focus of a lot of attention from nervous Democrats for the past four years, in part because Hillary Clinton spent relatively little time there and lost both states in 2016. So if you told Democrats that Joe Biden would be up by 7 points in Wisconsin and 8 points in Michigan in polls with a week to go, they’d feel …
Actually, who are we kidding? They’d still feel pretty nervous since the polls underestimated Donald Trump in these states four years ago! With that said, one key observation is that Biden could withstand 2016-style polling errors in those states and still win. (Clinton led by 4 points in Michigan and 5 points in Wisconsin in our final polling averages in those states in 2016, and then lost both states by less than one point. But Biden’s extra cushion means he could survive a 2016-magnitude miss.)
Fewer undecided voters is good news for Biden in the Midwest| FiveThirtyEight
The polls have been tighter in Pennsylvania, though. Biden’s current lead is just 5.1 points, and in 2016, polls were off by 4.4 points in the Keystone State — Trump won it by 0.7 points after trailing in our final polling average by 3.7 points there. So with a 2016-style polling error in Pennsylvania, Biden would be cutting it awfully close, perhaps even so close that court rulings on factors like “naked ballots” could swing the outcome.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Whether it makes sense that Biden is polling worse in Pennsylvania than in Michigan and Wisconsin is a fair question. Biden was born in Scranton, and it’s the most urban and racially diverse of the three states. Still, Wisconsin and Michigan are traditionally more Democratic; Barack Obama won them by larger margins than Pennsylvania in 2012, for instance. So maybe there’s been some reversion to the mean here. In any event, the polling has been consistent enough in showing Pennsylvania tighter than Michigan and Wisconsin that we probably need to take it at face value at this stage.
So here’s a question we can ask with our nifty scenario generator. Is Pennsylvania a must-win for Biden?
No, not quite. It is close to being a must-win for Trump, who has only a 2 percent chance of winning the Electoral College if he loses Pennsylvania. Biden, however, has a bit more margin for error. He’d have a 30 percent chance if he lost Pennsylvania, which isn’t great but is also higher than, say, Trump’s overall chances on Election Day 2016.
The reason losing Pennsylvania wouldn’t necessarily doom Biden is because he could still hold those other Midwestern/Rust Belt states. Pennsylvania is fairly similar to Michigan and Wisconsin, but not that similar. As I mentioned, it’s denser and more racially diverse. It may or may not be in the Midwest. It’s traditionally a bit more purple. So if Biden is doing better than Clinton with rural whites but worse with Black voters — as a lot of polling shows — he might gain ground in Wisconsin but lose in Pennsylvania.
Say, then, that Biden loses Pennsylvania but wins Michigan and Wisconsin. For good measure, we’ll also give Minnesota to Biden. What do his chances look like then? Biden’s actually a slight favorite (55 percent) in this scenario.
This map has a lot of interesting aspects that give you some hints about how our model works behind the scenes. Here, for instance, are Biden’s chances of winning other swing states if he loses Pennsylvania but wins the other three Midwestern states:
What Biden’s chances would look like after a Rust Belt split Biden’s chances of winning each swing state in FiveThirtyEight’s presidential forecast, as of 5:30 a.m. on Oct. 27 Biden chances of victory State Initial
chances PA Loss,
WI, MI, MN Win Virginia 99% 99% New Mexico 97 96 Colorado 96 95 Nevada 91 86 Maine 90 73 New Hampshire 87 65 Arizona 66 49 Florida 66 37 North Carolina 65 24 Georgia 46 22 Iowa 50 16 Ohio 42 3 Texas 33 10
The biggest decline to Biden’s chances comes in Ohio. That makes sense. It’s not an easy state for him to win anyway, and it should be highly correlated with Pennsylvania, so if he can’t win in Pennsylvania, it’s very hard to imagine him winning there. Iowa is a bit more viable for Biden because it’s more similar to Wisconsin and Minnesota than to Pennsylvania, but it would still be a long shot.
The model also thinks New Hampshire and Maine could be problems for Biden if he loses Pennsylvania, although he’d still be favored in those states. Demographically, Maine is more similar to Wisconsin than it is to Pennsylvania — it’s white and rural. But geographically, it’s closer to Pennsylvania. Our model considers both factors, as geography can often be a proxy for lots of hidden factors that cause correlated outcomes between states but are otherwise hard to detect.
Conversely, what happens in the Rust Belt doesn’t tell us much about what will happen in Nevada, Colorado or New Mexico — those groups of states just aren’t that similar.
Biden’s chances would decline in Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas, however. Part of that is because these states just aren’t that easy for a Democrat to win, period. So if Biden is having a mixed night — as evidenced by his losing Pennsylvania even if he wins Wisconsin and Michigan — they could be fairly heavy lifts.
How the media projects the winner of an election | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
In addition, these states do have some things in common with Pennsylvania. Florida, like Pennsylvania, has a fairly old electorate. North Carolina has a similar racial mix to Pennsylvania. And all of these states are middle-income with many transplants from Pennsylvania and the Midwest.
Still, Biden would be slightly favored to eke out a win in this scenario by winning one more of those Sunbelt states. The most likely would be Arizona, which has less in common with Pennsylvania than the others.
Biden’s work wouldn’t quite be done if he won Arizona, though. Rather, his chances would be 85 percent, with a 5 percent chance of a 269-269 tie. But he’d be in pretty good shape. He could hold the other states Clinton won in 2016 and then flip either Iowa or a congressional district in either Maine or Nebraska, which award one electoral vote each. Alternatively, he could even lose another state Clinton won, like Maine or New Hampshire, if he carried a second Sunbelt state such as Georgia.
We’re getting into the weeds. But here’s the thing: Yes, Biden and Democrats should be nervous that he has only about a 5-point lead in Pennsylvania, the most likely tipping point state. Five points is more than a normal-sized polling error, but not that much more. And Biden does have some backup plans. A regional polling error in the Midwest or the Northeast wouldn’t necessarily doom his chances in states like Arizona, for instance. It wouldn’t be the blowout that Democrats hope for, but Biden would still retain an edge in the Electoral College even without winning his birth state.
Nate Silver on how 6 key states could impact election results