fivethirtyeight--2020-06-15--How To Read 2020 Polls Like A Pro

How To Read 2020 Polls Like A Pro

We ’ re about to enter the thick of general-election season , which means we ’ re about to get a boatload of polls .
Problem is , it can be hard to know which polls to trust or how to make sense of them all .
But don ’ t worry — it doesn ’ t take an advanced degree in statistics to interpret polling in a smart way .
So the next time you come across a poll and are wondering what to make of it , just follow these 10 steps .
• Check the pollster ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-standing reputations for accuracy , and others are more error-prone .
You can check which are which using the FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings , which assign ( most ) pollsters a letter grade based on their historical accuracy and whether they follow best practices in their methodologies .
In our view , the “ gold standard ” of polling methodology is using live phone interviewers , calling cell phones as well as landlines , and participating in the American Association for Public Opinion Research ’ s Transparency Initiative or the Roper Center for Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to be the most accurate , although there are exceptions — some online pollsters , like YouGov , are quite reliable as well .
If a pollster doesn ’ t show up in our pollster ratings , it ’ s probably new on the scene , which means you should treat it with more caution because it doesn ’ t have an established track record we can judge ; at worst , it might even be fake .
( If you ’ re not sure if a pollster is trustworthy and want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free to email us at polls @ fivethirtyeight.com . )
• Avoid comparisons between pollsters .
Anytime you see a new poll , check to see what the pollster said previously before declaring that the race has shifted .
Some pollsters consistently overestimate one candidate or party relative to what other pollsters find , a phenomenon called “ house effects.
” Similarly , especially for non-horse-race polls , pollsters often word the same questions in different ways — for example , asking someone ’ s opinion about “ Obamacare ” can yield different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Act ” — which makes direct comparisons difficult .
• Note who ’ s being polled .
For elections , polls of likely voters tend to be more accurate than polls of registered voters , which in turn tend to be more accurate than polls of adults .
That said , many pollsters won ’ t start surveying likely voters until the fall , and registered-voter polls are perfectly good substitutes until then — just be aware that the results may be a few points too Democratic .
And polls of adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you want to know how the entire nation feels about something , like the coronavirus .
• Pay attention to the margin of error .
Reputable polls will always include a margin of error or confidence interval — it ’ ll look something like “ ± 3 points.
” This reflects that polls can ’ t be exact , but they do promise to be within a certain number of percentage points ( in this example , 3 points ) almost all of the time ( the industry standard is 95 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms , that means that if a poll puts President Trump ’ s approval rating at 42 percent with a 3-point margin of error , his approval rating could be anything from 39 percent to 45 percent .
Note that , in head-to-head polls , the margin of error applies to each candidate ’ s vote share , so if the same poll gave Trump 46 percent and gave former Vice President Joe Biden 51 percent , Trump could actually be leading 49 percent to 48 percent .
( Though he could also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 54 , or fall anywhere in between those extremes . )
• Consider the source .
Partisan groups , or even campaigns themselves , will sometimes release their own polls , but of course , they have an ulterior motive in doing so : Make their side look good .
On average , these “ internal polls ” tend to be about 4 or 5 percentage points too favorable to their sponsor , so don ’ t take them at face value .
Be extra skeptical of internal polls that don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the name of the pollster or the dates of the poll .
Similarly , partisan media outlets may exaggerate their side ’ s standing by extensively covering good polls for their candidate while ignoring bad ones .
Even mainstream news outlets can mislead , albeit in a different way : They may be tempted to overhype polls they conduct themselves ( e.g.
, calling it a “ shock poll ” even if it ’ s not that shocking ) in order to get clicks .
• If a poll has an odd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it .
Check the poll ’ s wording — is it accurate and unbiased ?
For example , some campaigns will release polls showing their candidate doing better after respondents hear a positive statement about them .
Check when the poll was conducted ; the survey may reflect an outdated reality or have been taken after some major event ( e.g.
, a major military victory ) that temporarily swayed public opinion .
Even something as basic as the order in which questions are asked can affect the results ; for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on immigration but then asks about the presidential matchup , respondents may subconsciously choose the candidate they feel is best on immigration , not necessarily whom they support overall .
• That said , don ’ t try to outguess or “ unskew ” the polls .
People who pick apart a poll by claiming it has , say , too many Democrats or too few black voters in its sample are generally wasting their time ( and they usually have an agenda ) .
Polls are almost always weighted to match their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as race and age .
This doesn ’ t mean all pollsters assign weights in the same way , though , and there are practices like weighting by education on which the industry is split .
Not weighting by education likely contributed to some of the most consequential polling errors of 2016 , and many pollsters have now begun to factor education into their weighting , but others are still holding out .
In an era when graduating from college has a significant bearing on white people ’ s political preferences , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weight by education than those that don ’ t .
( On the other hand , weighting by partisanship , an idea that ’ s received some attention lately , is dicey and not something most pollsters do .
That ’ s because party identification , unlike many demographic traits , is fluid , so setting it as a constant risks predetermining the poll ’ s outcome . )
• Heed averages , not outliers .
If a poll ’ s result differs from every other poll , treat it with caution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beginning of a new trend ( especially after a major event like a debate ) , they ’ re usually just flukes .
Instead , we recommend looking at an average of the polls , which will more accurately reflect the polling consensus .
• In the aggregate , polls are pretty accurate but not perfect .
Since 2000 , polls of presidential general elections taken within 21 days of Election Day have a weighted average error of 4.0 points .
( Polls of Senate , House and gubernatorial races have slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can trust the polling average to get pretty close to the final result , but it will rarely nail the election exactly .
When an election is close enough that a normal-sized polling error could change who wins , prepare yourself for either outcome .
• Polls are snapshots , not predictions .
Even if a poll is a perfectly accurate measure of what would happen if the election were held today , things can always change between now and Election Day .
Early general-election polls have been pretty predictive in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge uncertainty surrounding major issues like the coronavirus pandemic and economic crisis , we don ’ t know if that will hold true this year .
In general , polls gradually become more accurate the closer you get to the election .

We’re about to enter the thick of general-election season, which means we’re about to get a boatload of polls.
Problem is, it can be hard to know which polls to trust or how to make sense of them all. But don’t worry — it doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to interpret polling in a smart way. So the next time you come across a poll and are wondering what to make of it, just follow these 10 steps.
‘I don’t buy that locations (of party conventions) matter’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-15--Politics Podcast: Public Opinion Of The Black Lives Matter Movement Has Shifted. What Happens Next?

Support for the Black Lives Matter movement has increased dramatically over the past few weeks .
In this installment of @ @ @ @ @ the team looks at whether public opinion on police and racism has moved in tandem @ @ @ @ @ request from President Trump ’ s re-election campaign that CNN retract and apologize for a @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden and ask whether the partisan positions on social distancing have broken @ @ @ @ @ to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above @ @ @ @ @ iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new @ @ @ @ @ to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners @ @ @ @ @ us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion @ @ @ @ @ bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the @ @

Support for the Black Lives Matter movement has increased dramatically over the past few weeks. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team looks at whether public opinion on police and racism has moved in tandem. They also discuss the request from President Trump’s re-election campaign that CNN retract and apologize for a poll showing him trailing former Vice President Joe Biden and ask whether the partisan positions on social distancing have broken down.
FiveThirtyEight Podcast: Views of Black Lives Matter have shifted. What happens next?
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-16--If The Supreme Court Lets The Electoral College Vote However It Wants, Will Chaos Ensue?

Last month the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging state laws that bind Electoral College electors to vote for the presidential candidate they are selected to support .
The case was brought in response to four 2016 electors — three from Washington and one from Colorado — who tried to vote against their state ’ s popular vote winner , and , in the case of the Washington electors , faced fines for having broken their pledges .
These so-called “ faithless electors ” have long been a feature of American presidential elections , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shake up the Electoral College system , striking down state laws that try to guarantee electors ’ votes by replacing or punishing those who don ’ t vote as they promised to .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the overall lack of enforcement of electors ’ pledge to vote for the winner of their state troubled her , saying , “ I made a promise to do something , but that promise is unenforceable.
” But Justice Samuel Alito said that overturning the state laws could “ lead to chaos where the popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth to that .
In a system where a close national popular vote can produce a close-but-different Electoral College outcome , a handful of electors refusing to uphold their pledges could indeed sow chaos .
There is already controversy surrounding the Electoral College and its election of George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 — neither won the popular vote .
Adding in a few faithless electors who could flip the outcome of the election might pose a significant threat to the Electoral College ’ s continued legitimacy .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not exactly littered with faithless electors .
In fact , during the presidential elections of the 20th century just 15 electors broke their pledge and voted for someone other than their party ’ s nominee .
That means , on average , there was less than one faithless elector per election during this period , and none of them altered the course of any one election .
This trend continued into the 21st century as well , with just one faithless elector in the 2000 presidential election and one in 2004 ; however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was a sharp uptick .
Ten electors from six different states attempted to break ranks .
That ’ s still not enough to have changed the outcome of the 2016 election , but it is nonetheless a significant jump in the number of defections .
So perhaps this is a sign that something has changed in our era of hyper-partisan politics and faithless electors will become more common .
Then again , Hillary Clinton and Trump both faced long , drawn-out nomination battles , and they were the two most unpopular nominees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have been the impetus behind some of the faithless electors ’ moves in 2016 .
But let ’ s say the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the 2016 electors and says faithless electors can ’ t be penalized .
Would chaos ensue ?
First of all , not every state has laws in place to hold Electoral College electors to their pledges .
In fact , just 29 states and the District of Columbia had any type of rule on the books in 2016 .
The rules are inconsistent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , a penalty is levied , and all of the faithless electors were made to pay a $ 1,000 fine .
And in other states , like Michigan , the votes of faithless electors are not counted ; instead , those electors are replaced with someone who will vote for the nominee .
That provision obviously has more teeth to it , but again , many states don ’ t have any such provisions at all , and yet there aren ’ t countless faithless electors .
And that may be because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are likely to be loyal to their presidential nominee , so electors are motivated to vote as instructed even without a law punishing or removing them if they don ’ t .
But the national parties are not powerless in this process .
The Democratic National Committee , in particular , ramped up its efforts to fend off faithless electors after 2016 , adding a new requirement to its convention rules that state parties ’ delegate selection plans not only include their process for selecting electors , but also the steps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electors vote for the Democratic nominee .
Those measures , like the rest of the delegate selection process , had to be approved by the Democratic National Committee ’ s Rules and Bylaws Committee as part of the delegate selection plan .
The elector selection process still differs from state to state , but ultimately , it ’ s fairly centralized under the party , which helps ensure faithful electors are selected .
In states like Florida and Pennsylvania , for example , the presidential nominee and their campaign select the Democratic electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College delegations , like Oregon and Utah , state party officers like the state party chair , vice chair and treasurer automatically serve as the electors from those states .
There are , however , a number of states where the elector selection process is a bit more free-range .
And , perhaps unsurprisingly , it was the states that selected their electors by more decentralized means that had faithless electors in 2016 .
The six states where an elector tried to cast a faithless vote in 2016 — Colorado , Hawaii , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — all selected electors using congressional district and state conventions , which don ’ t receive as much oversight as other selection methods and can be dominated by supporters of candidates other than the eventual nominee .
And unlike the process for selecting delegates to the Democratic convention , the elector selection process does not give the candidate the right to review electors .
In Washington , where the faithless elector problem was the most acute in 2016 — there were four defectors — state Democrats made the process much more centralized for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and congressional district conventions to the party ’ s state central committee .
But 17 state parties will still select electors via conventions in 2020 , with 154 electors at stake in those meetings .
And only seven of these 17 states ( worth 53 electors ) voted Democratic in 2016 .
So it ’ s possible that if there were enough defections and the vote was close , it could matter .
That said , few electors chosen this way are actually faithless .
Few electors are faithless , period .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know if 2016 signaled a change in norms around faithless electors and if , therefore , we might see more defections in 2020 .
But the bottom line is that even if the Supreme Court were to strike down state-level laws , chaos is unlikely to erupt .
The guidelines put in place by parties to ensure most electors are faithful serve as a backstop .

Last month the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging state laws that bind Electoral College electors to vote for the presidential candidate they are selected to support. The case was brought in response to four 2016 electors — three from Washington and one from Colorado — who tried to vote against their state’s popular vote winner, and, in the case of the Washington electors, faced fines for having broken their pledges.
These so-called “faithless electors” have long been a feature of American presidential elections, but it’s possible that the Supreme Court could shake up the Electoral College system, striking down state laws that try to guarantee electors’ votes by replacing or punishing those who don’t vote as they promised to. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the overall lack of enforcement of electors’ pledge to vote for the winner of their state troubled her, saying, “I made a promise to do something, but that promise is unenforceable.” But Justice Samuel Alito said that overturning the state laws could “lead to chaos where the popular vote is close.”
There is some truth to that. In a system where a close national popular vote can produce a close-but-different Electoral College outcome, a handful of electors refusing to uphold their pledges could indeed sow chaos. There is already controversy surrounding the Electoral College and its election of George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 — neither won the popular vote. Adding in a few faithless electors who could flip the outcome of the election might pose a significant threat to the Electoral College’s continued legitimacy. Yet, the history of presidential elections is not exactly littered with faithless electors.
[Related: How Trump’s Approval Rating Compares With Past Presidents]
In fact, during the presidential elections of the 20th century just 15 electors broke their pledge and voted for someone other than their party’s nominee. That means, on average, there was less than one faithless elector per election during this period, and none of them altered the course of any one election. This trend continued into the 21st century as well, with just one faithless elector in the 2000 presidential election and one in 2004; however, in the 2016 presidential election, there was a sharp uptick. Ten electors from six different states attempted to break ranks. That’s still not enough to have changed the outcome of the 2016 election, but it is nonetheless a significant jump in the number of defections.
So perhaps this is a sign that something has changed in our era of hyper-partisan politics and faithless electors will become more common. Then again, Hillary Clinton and Trump both faced long, drawn-out nomination battles, and they were the two most unpopular nominees in modern history. Those factors alone could have been the impetus behind some of the faithless electors’ moves in 2016.
[Related: The Voters Who Don’t Like Trump Or Biden]
But let’s say the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the 2016 electors and says faithless electors can’t be penalized. Would chaos ensue?
First of all, not every state has laws in place to hold Electoral College electors to their pledges. In fact, just 29 states and the District of Columbia had any type of rule on the books in 2016. The rules are inconsistent, too. In some states, like Washington, a penalty is levied, and all of the faithless electors were made to pay a $1,000 fine. And in other states, like Michigan, the votes of faithless electors are not counted; instead, those electors are replaced with someone who will vote for the nominee. That provision obviously has more teeth to it, but again, many states don’t have any such provisions at all, and yet there aren’t countless faithless electors.
And that may be because the state parties are already selecting activists who are likely to be loyal to their presidential nominee, so electors are motivated to vote as instructed even without a law punishing or removing them if they don’t. But the national parties are not powerless in this process. The Democratic National Committee, in particular, ramped up its efforts to fend off faithless electors after 2016, adding a new requirement to its convention rules that state parties’ delegate selection plans not only include their process for selecting electors, but also the steps the state will take to ensure that those electors vote for the Democratic nominee. Those measures, like the rest of the delegate selection process, had to be approved by the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee as part of the delegate selection plan.
The elector selection process still differs from state to state, but ultimately, it’s fairly centralized under the party, which helps ensure faithful electors are selected. In states like Florida and Pennsylvania, for example, the presidential nominee and their campaign select the Democratic electors. And in states with smaller Electoral College delegations, like Oregon and Utah, state party officers like the state party chair, vice chair and treasurer automatically serve as the electors from those states. There are, however, a number of states where the elector selection process is a bit more free-range. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, it was the states that selected their electors by more decentralized means that had faithless electors in 2016.
The six states where an elector tried to cast a faithless vote in 2016 — Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Texas and Washington — all selected electors using congressional district and state conventions, which don’t receive as much oversight as other selection methods and can be dominated by supporters of candidates other than the eventual nominee. And unlike the process for selecting delegates to the Democratic convention, the elector selection process does not give the candidate the right to review electors.
[Related: Do You Buy That … The Location Of A Presidential Nominating Convention Matters?]
In Washington, where the faithless elector problem was the most acute in 2016 — there were four defectors — state Democrats made the process much more centralized for 2020, moving the selection process from state and congressional district conventions to the party’s state central committee. But 17 state parties will still select electors via conventions in 2020, with 154 electors at stake in those meetings. And only seven of these 17 states (worth 53 electors) voted Democratic in 2016. So it’s possible that if there were enough defections and the vote was close, it could matter.
That said, few electors chosen this way are actually faithless. Few electors are faithless, period. It’s true we don’t know if 2016 signaled a change in norms around faithless electors and if, therefore, we might see more defections in 2020. But the bottom line is that even if the Supreme Court were to strike down state-level laws, chaos is unlikely to erupt. The guidelines put in place by parties to ensure most electors are faithful serve as a backstop.
FiveThirtyEight Podcast: Views of Black Lives Matter have shifted. What happens next?


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-16--Black Americans Were Hit Hard By State Shutdowns, But Are Worried About Reopening Too

With even hard-hit states like New York allowing businesses to bring their stores back to life , Americans are wrestling with one of COVID-19 ’ s most painful tradeoffs : a damaged economy with millions out of work because of public health measures put in place to slow the spread of the virus .
And most Americans do think the public health risks of reopening the economy are still important to weigh .
But there is also growing evidence that several months of economic hardship have changed the way some people are evaluating the costs .
According to a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from May 21 to June 5 , 41 percent of Americans say the government should allow businesses to open back up even if it means putting some people at risk , up from 22 percent in late March .
But not all Americans are anxious for businesses to reopen .
In fact , there is a fairly stark divide among white , black and Hispanic Americans in their responses to this question .
Black Americans , in particular , still overwhelmingly favored keeping businesses closed .
The AEI poll found that 82 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better for the government to take all necessary steps to ensure the public is safe , even if means keeping businesses closed for longer and hurting the economy , while only 16 percent said that businesses should be allowed to open back up if some are put at risk — a finding that was basically unchanged since March .
A solid majority ( 65 percent ) of Hispanic Americans also thought public health needs should come first , although that has fallen from 81 percent in March .
The share of white Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has plummeted , however , from 76 percent in March to 50 percent now .
In the June survey , nearly half of white Americans ( 49 percent ) thought the government should reopen the economy , even if it means putting some people at risk .
Other polls have found a similar trend .
According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted from June 7 to 9 , only 8 percent of black Americans said it ’ s safe right now to reopen the economy nationally , compared to 15 percent of Hispanic Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And as the AEI survey underscores , huge racial disparities exist within the COVID-19 pandemic — with black and Hispanic Americans bearing the brunt of both the health and economic consequences of the virus .
The public health crisis is particularly acute for black Americans , who are dying of COVID-19 at a much higher rate than either white or Hispanic Americans .
In interviews , black Americans who participated in the survey spoke to those concerns , telling us that their desire for a government approach that prioritizes public safety isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some even said they ’ re afraid that more people may die as a result .
Dominique Anderson , 30 , said he ’ s been alarmed to see his home state of Texas allow restaurant occupancy levels to increase , even though case counts have been spiking .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s safe , how we ’ re going about [ the reopening of the economy ] right now , ” he said .
The topic was particularly emotional for him , he added , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 only a few weeks earlier .
“ I understand that this is threatening people ’ s livelihoods — I know a lot of people who have lost their jobs , ” he said .
“ But I fear that reopening so quickly is going to cost more people their lives.
” The AEI survey showed that Anderson ’ s experience is far from unique , particularly for black Americans , who were more likely than white or Hispanic Americans to know someone who has tested positive for COVID-19 .
As the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ) of black Americans reported that they or someone they know personally has tested positive for the virus , compared to 46 percent of Hispanic Americans and 40 percent of white Americans .
And a series of AP/NORC surveys conducted between April and June found that black Americans were much likelier than white Americans to report that someone close to them had died of COVID-19 .
Perhaps because of these personal connections , black Americans are more closely monitoring news about the pandemic ’ s impact and trajectory , too : Fifty-nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following news about the coronavirus outbreak very closely , compared to 44 percent of Hispanic Americans and 43 percent of white Americans .
And they ’ re much more pessimistic about what lies ahead .
Only 25 percent of black Americans believe the worst of the pandemic is behind us , compared to 37 percent of Hispanic Americans and 42 percent of white Americans .
In fact , 69 percent of black Americans believe the worst is yet to come , compared to 54 percent of Hispanic Americans and just 45 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news a lot , and I get really frightened and disturbed when I see the [ case ] numbers going up , ” said Leslie Ann Jordan , 59 , who lives in Virginia .
“ It feels like people think we ’ ve got this virus under control , and they can just go out and live their lives like normal , which is just not the reality we ’ re living in.
” It ’ s not hard to see why black Americans would have a bleaker outlook on the trajectory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to being more likely to know someone who tested positive for COVID-19 , they are also bearing the brunt of the economic hardships that have resulted from the shutdown orders .
According to the survey , black and Hispanic Americans were substantially more likely than white Americans to say that since February , they ’ ve fallen behind on rent or bills , had problems paying for food , withdrawn money from a savings account or 401k or borrowed money from family or friends .
What ’ s more , the survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely than white Americans to have said they had an emergency or rainy-day fund that would cover their expenses for three months , leaving them particularly vulnerable if they suddenly lost their jobs or became sick .
But the survey also found that the pandemic is forcing black Americans who do have savings to spend down their bank accounts at a much faster rate than white Americans .
Almost half ( 48 percent ) of black Americans said they ’ ve spent at least half of their rainy day funds over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said they ’ ve spent their entire emergency savings account .
Only 12 percent of white Americans , by contrast , said they ’ ve spent down at least half of their emergency fund , and only 3 percent said they have spent all of their rainy-day savings .
And black families are facing other kinds of stress .
The survey found that 28 percent of black parents with children under the age of 18 said that child care responsibilities have been very difficult for them to handle during the COVID-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans and 8 percent of white Americans .
One respondent , who asked that his name be withheld , said that figuring out schooling for his two small children while juggling lost income and trying not to visit stores has been unbelievably stressful .
“ You ’ re just living in this state of uncertainty , feeling very vulnerable , ” he said .
“ What if I lose my job and can ’ t support my family ?
What if I get sick ?
What if my kids don ’ t go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It all feels possible right now.
” In general , black Americans thought it will take longer for life to get back to normal .
In the survey , many black Americans said they were very uncomfortable with the idea of returning to many everyday activities that involve close contact with other people — like going to church , a nail salon , or a movie theater .
And a solid majority ( 61 percent ) of black Americans said that life in the U.S. will not mostly return to normal before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 53 percent of white Americans and 49 percent of Hispanic Americans .
That could be because they have a particularly negative view of how the federal government and President Trump are handling the COVID-19 outbreak .
Overall , Americans are down on how the federal government and Trump are responding to the pandemic , but that ’ s particularly true among black Americans .
For example , only 40 percent of black Americans thought the federal government is handling the pandemic well , down from 57 percent in March .
In contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white Americans still said the federal government is handling the pandemic well — which is a more modest 10-point drop from March .
Black Americans were also especially likely to think that the government needs to do more to help people who have been hurt by the crisis : Seventy-four percent of black Americans said the federal government should do more to help people who lost their jobs , compared to 59 percent of Hispanic Americans and 57 percent of white Americans .
“ We don ’ t have the leadership , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives in Massachusetts .
“ The response is about fighting and power and not [ about ] doing what we need to do to protect people.
” Jordan , who is particularly nervous about her own health because she has asthma , said she understands why some Americans want to mitigate the economic damage — she feels lucky to still have a paycheck .
But she told us that even though she also doesn ’ t know someone who tested positive for the virus , she sees that as luck , not something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I really don ’ t think we should be messing around with this disease , ” she said .
“ And yet everyone is out and about .
I ’ m worried we opened up too soon .
If I ’ m being honest , I ’ m more fearful now than I was before .
”

With even hard-hit states like New York allowing businesses to bring their stores back to life, Americans are wrestling with one of COVID-19’s most painful tradeoffs: a damaged economy with millions out of work because of public health measures put in place to slow the spread of the virus.
And most Americans do think the public health risks of reopening the economy are still important to weigh. But there is also growing evidence that several months of economic hardship have changed the way some people are evaluating the costs. According to a new poll from the American Enterprise Institute conducted from May 21 to June 5, 41 percent of Americans say the government should allow businesses to open back up even if it means putting some people at risk, up from 22 percent in late March.
But not all Americans are anxious for businesses to reopen. In fact, there is a fairly stark divide among white, black and Hispanic Americans in their responses to this question. Black Americans, in particular, still overwhelmingly favored keeping businesses closed. The AEI poll found that 82 percent of black Americans said it’s better for the government to take all necessary steps to ensure the public is safe, even if means keeping businesses closed for longer and hurting the economy, while only 16 percent said that businesses should be allowed to open back up if some are put at risk — a finding that was basically unchanged since March. A solid majority (65 percent) of Hispanic Americans also thought public health needs should come first, although that has fallen from 81 percent in March.
The share of white Americans who prioritized public health over the economy has plummeted, however, from 76 percent in March to 50 percent now. In the June survey, nearly half of white Americans (49 percent) thought the government should reopen the economy, even if it means putting some people at risk.
Other polls have found a similar trend. According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted from June 7 to 9, only 8 percent of black Americans said it’s safe right now to reopen the economy nationally, compared to 15 percent of Hispanic Americans and 25 percent of white Americans. And as the AEI survey underscores, huge racial disparities exist within the COVID-19 pandemic — with black and Hispanic Americans bearing the brunt of both the health and economic consequences of the virus. The public health crisis is particularly acute for black Americans, who are dying of COVID-19 at a much higher rate than either white or Hispanic Americans. In interviews, black Americans who participated in the survey spoke to those concerns, telling us that their desire for a government approach that prioritizes public safety isn’t reflected in many states’ plans. Some even said they’re afraid that more people may die as a result.
Dominique Anderson, 30, said he’s been alarmed to see his home state of Texas allow restaurant occupancy levels to increase, even though case counts have been spiking. “I don’t think it’s safe, how we’re going about [the reopening of the economy] right now,” he said. The topic was particularly emotional for him, he added, because a close family friend had died of COVID-19 only a few weeks earlier. “I understand that this is threatening people’s livelihoods — I know a lot of people who have lost their jobs,” he said. “But I fear that reopening so quickly is going to cost more people their lives.”
The AEI survey showed that Anderson’s experience is far from unique, particularly for black Americans, who were more likely than white or Hispanic Americans to know someone who has tested positive for COVID-19. As the table below shows, a majority (54 percent) of black Americans reported that they or someone they know personally has tested positive for the virus, compared to 46 percent of Hispanic Americans and 40 percent of white Americans. And a series of AP/NORC surveys conducted between April and June found that black Americans were much likelier than white Americans to report that someone close to them had died of COVID-19.
More black Americans know someone with COVID-19 Share of respondents who said they know someone in each of these categories who tested positive for the coronavirus Answer White, non-Hispanic Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Myself 1% 2% 2% Someone in my household 1% 1% 3% Someone outside my household 39% 44% 50% I don’t know anyone 60% 54% 46% Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding or because some respondents didn’t answer. Survey conducted from May 21 – June 5, 2020, with a sample size of 3,504 adults. Answers are not mutually exclusive, excluding “I don’t know anyone.” Source: American Enterprise Institute
Perhaps because of these personal connections, black Americans are more closely monitoring news about the pandemic’s impact and trajectory, too: Fifty-nine percent of black Americans said they were following news about the coronavirus outbreak very closely, compared to 44 percent of Hispanic Americans and 43 percent of white Americans.
And they’re much more pessimistic about what lies ahead. Only 25 percent of black Americans believe the worst of the pandemic is behind us, compared to 37 percent of Hispanic Americans and 42 percent of white Americans. In fact, 69 percent of black Americans believe the worst is yet to come, compared to 54 percent of Hispanic Americans and just 45 percent of white Americans. “I watch the news a lot, and I get really frightened and disturbed when I see the [case] numbers going up,” said Leslie Ann Jordan, 59, who lives in Virginia. “It feels like people think we’ve got this virus under control, and they can just go out and live their lives like normal, which is just not the reality we’re living in.”
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
It’s not hard to see why black Americans would have a bleaker outlook on the trajectory of the virus, either. In addition to being more likely to know someone who tested positive for COVID-19, they are also bearing the brunt of the economic hardships that have resulted from the shutdown orders. According to the survey, black and Hispanic Americans were substantially more likely than white Americans to say that since February, they’ve fallen behind on rent or bills, had problems paying for food, withdrawn money from a savings account or 401k or borrowed money from family or friends.
What’s more, the survey found that black and Hispanic Americans were less likely than white Americans to have said they had an emergency or rainy-day fund that would cover their expenses for three months, leaving them particularly vulnerable if they suddenly lost their jobs or became sick. But the survey also found that the pandemic is forcing black Americans who do have savings to spend down their bank accounts at a much faster rate than white Americans. Almost half (48 percent) of black Americans said they’ve spent at least half of their rainy day funds over the past few months — including 19 percent who said they’ve spent their entire emergency savings account. Only 12 percent of white Americans, by contrast, said they’ve spent down at least half of their emergency fund, and only 3 percent said they have spent all of their rainy-day savings.
And black families are facing other kinds of stress. The survey found that 28 percent of black parents with children under the age of 18 said that child care responsibilities have been very difficult for them to handle during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to 18 percent of Hispanic Americans and 8 percent of white Americans. One respondent, who asked that his name be withheld, said that figuring out schooling for his two small children while juggling lost income and trying not to visit stores has been unbelievably stressful. “You’re just living in this state of uncertainty, feeling very vulnerable,” he said. “What if I lose my job and can’t support my family? What if I get sick? What if my kids don’t go back to school in the fall? It all feels possible right now.”
In general, black Americans thought it will take longer for life to get back to normal. In the survey, many black Americans said they were very uncomfortable with the idea of returning to many everyday activities that involve close contact with other people — like going to church, a nail salon, or a movie theater.
And a solid majority (61 percent) of black Americans said that life in the U.S. will not mostly return to normal before the end of the year, compared to 53 percent of white Americans and 49 percent of Hispanic Americans. That could be because they have a particularly negative view of how the federal government and President Trump are handling the COVID-19 outbreak.
Overall, Americans are down on how the federal government and Trump are responding to the pandemic, but that’s particularly true among black Americans. For example, only 40 percent of black Americans thought the federal government is handling the pandemic well, down from 57 percent in March. In contrast, the majority (51 percent) of white Americans still said the federal government is handling the pandemic well — which is a more modest 10-point drop from March. Black Americans were also especially likely to think that the government needs to do more to help people who have been hurt by the crisis: Seventy-four percent of black Americans said the federal government should do more to help people who lost their jobs, compared to 59 percent of Hispanic Americans and 57 percent of white Americans.
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19
“We don’t have the leadership,” said Gregory Coney, 57, who lives in Massachusetts. “The response is about fighting and power and not [about] doing what we need to do to protect people.”
Jordan, who is particularly nervous about her own health because she has asthma, said she understands why some Americans want to mitigate the economic damage — she feels lucky to still have a paycheck. But she told us that even though she also doesn’t know someone who tested positive for the virus, she sees that as luck, not something she can count on going forward. “I really don’t think we should be messing around with this disease,” she said. “And yet everyone is out and about. I’m worried we opened up too soon. If I’m being honest, I’m more fearful now than I was before.”
FiveThirtyEight Podcast: Views of Black Lives Matter have shifted. What happens next?


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-16--Will The Shifting Views On Police And Racism Last?

In this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the team discusses how public opinion on racism has changed over @ @ @ @ @ how this will affect our politics .

Will The Shifting Views On Police And Racism Last?
In this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team discusses how public opinion on racism has changed over the past few weeks and how this will affect our politics.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-16--Many White Americans Are Ready To Reopen The Economy. Black Americans Aren’t.

With even hard-hit states like New York allowing businesses to bring their stores back to life , Americans are wrestling with one of COVID-19 ’ s most painful tradeoffs : a damaged economy with millions out of work because of public health measures put in place to slow the spread of the virus .
And most Americans do think the public health risks of reopening the economy are still important to weigh .
But there is also growing evidence that several months of economic hardship have changed the way some people are evaluating the costs .
According to a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from May 21 to June 5 , 41 percent of Americans say the government should allow businesses to open back up even if it means putting some people at risk , up from 22 percent in late March .
But not all Americans are anxious for businesses to reopen .
In fact , there is a fairly stark divide among white , black and Hispanic Americans in their responses to this question .
Black Americans , in particular , still overwhelmingly favored keeping businesses closed .
The AEI poll found that 82 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better for the government to take all necessary steps to ensure the public is safe , even if means keeping businesses closed for longer and hurting the economy , while only 16 percent said that businesses should be allowed to open back up if some are put at risk — a finding that was basically unchanged since March .
A solid majority ( 65 percent ) of Hispanic Americans also thought public health needs should come first , although that has fallen from 81 percent in March .
The share of white Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has plummeted , however , from 76 percent in March to 50 percent now .
In the June survey , nearly half of white Americans ( 49 percent ) thought the government should reopen the economy , even if it means putting some people at risk .
Other polls have found a similar trend .
According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted from June 7 to 9 , only 8 percent of black Americans said it ’ s safe right now to reopen the economy nationally , compared to 15 percent of Hispanic Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And as the AEI survey underscores , huge racial disparities exist within the COVID-19 pandemic — with black and Hispanic Americans bearing the brunt of both the health and economic consequences of the virus .
The public health crisis is particularly acute for black Americans , who are dying of COVID-19 at a much higher rate than either white or Hispanic Americans .
In interviews , black Americans who participated in the survey spoke to those concerns , telling us that their desire for a government approach that prioritizes public safety isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some even said they ’ re afraid that more people may die as a result .
Dominique Anderson , 30 , said he ’ s been alarmed to see his home state of Texas allow restaurant occupancy levels to increase , even though case counts have been spiking .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s safe , how we ’ re going about [ the reopening of the economy ] right now , ” he said .
The topic was particularly emotional for him , he added , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 only a few weeks earlier .
“ I understand that this is threatening people ’ s livelihoods — I know a lot of people who have lost their jobs , ” he said .
“ But I fear that reopening so quickly is going to cost more people their lives.
” The AEI survey showed that Anderson ’ s experience is far from unique , particularly for black Americans , who were more likely than white or Hispanic Americans to know someone who has tested positive for COVID-19 .
As the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ) of black Americans reported that they or someone they know personally has tested positive for the virus , compared to 46 percent of Hispanic Americans and 40 percent of white Americans .
And a series of AP/NORC surveys conducted between April and June found that black Americans were much likelier than white Americans to report that someone close to them had died of COVID-19 .
Perhaps because of these personal connections , black Americans are more closely monitoring news about the pandemic ’ s impact and trajectory , too : Fifty-nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following news about the coronavirus outbreak very closely , compared to 44 percent of Hispanic Americans and 43 percent of white Americans .
And they ’ re much more pessimistic about what lies ahead .
Only 25 percent of black Americans believe the worst of the pandemic is behind us , compared to 37 percent of Hispanic Americans and 42 percent of white Americans .
In fact , 69 percent of black Americans believe the worst is yet to come , compared to 54 percent of Hispanic Americans and just 45 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news a lot , and I get really frightened and disturbed when I see the [ case ] numbers going up , ” said Leslie Ann Jordan , 59 , who lives in Virginia .
“ It feels like people think we ’ ve got this virus under control , and they can just go out and live their lives like normal , which is just not the reality we ’ re living in.
” [ Related : How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump ’ s Response ] It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have a bleaker outlook on the trajectory of the virus , either .
In addition to being more likely to know someone who tested positive for COVID-19 , they are also bearing the brunt of the economic hardships that have resulted from the shutdown orders .
According to the survey , black and Hispanic Americans were substantially more likely than white Americans to say that since February , they ’ ve fallen behind on rent or bills , had problems paying for food , withdrawn money from a savings account or 401k @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What ’ s more , the survey found that black and Hispanic Americans were less likely than white Americans to have said they had an emergency or rainy-day fund that would cover their expenses for three months , leaving them particularly vulnerable if they suddenly lost their jobs or became sick .
But the survey also found that the pandemic is forcing black Americans who do have savings to spend down their bank accounts at a much faster rate than white Americans .
Almost half ( 48 percent ) of black Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of their rainy day funds over the past few months — including 19 percent who said they ’ ve spent their entire emergency savings account .
Only 12 percent of white Americans , by contrast , said they ’ ve spent down at least half of their emergency fund , and only 3 percent said they have spent all of their rainy-day savings .
And black families are facing other kinds of stress .
The survey found that 28 percent of black parents with children under the age of 18 said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for them to handle during the COVID-19 pandemic , compared to 18 percent of Hispanic Americans and 8 percent of white Americans .
One respondent , who asked that his name be withheld , said that figuring out schooling for his two small children while juggling lost income and trying not to visit stores has been unbelievably stressful .
“ You ’ re just living in this state of uncertainty , feeling very vulnerable , ” he said .
“ What if I lose my job and can ’ t support my family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What if my kids don ’ t go back to school in the fall ?
It all feels possible right now.
” In general , black Americans thought it will take longer for life to get back to normal .
In the survey , many black Americans said they were very uncomfortable with the idea of returning to many everyday activities that involve close contact with other people — like going to church , a nail salon , or a movie theater .
And a solid majority ( 61 percent ) of black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not mostly return to normal before the end of the year , compared to 53 percent of white Americans and 49 percent of Hispanic Americans .
That could be because they have a particularly negative view of how the federal government and President Trump are handling the COVID-19 outbreak .
Overall , Americans are down on how the federal government and Trump are responding to the pandemic , but that ’ s particularly true among black Americans .
For example , only 40 percent of black Americans thought the federal government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 57 percent in March .
In contrast , the majority ( 51 percent ) of white Americans still said the federal government is handling the pandemic well — which is a more modest 10-point drop from March .
Black Americans were also especially likely to think that the government needs to do more to help people who have been hurt by the crisis : Seventy-four percent of black Americans said the federal government should do more to help people who lost their jobs , compared to 59 percent of Hispanic Americans and 57 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have the leadership , ” said Gregory Coney , 57 , who lives in Massachusetts .
“ The response is about fighting and power and not [ about ] doing what we need to do to protect people.
” Jordan , who is particularly nervous about her own health because she has asthma , said she understands why some Americans want to mitigate the economic damage — she feels lucky to still have a paycheck .
But she told us that even though she also doesn ’ t know someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she sees that as luck , not something she can count on going forward .
“ I really don ’ t think we should be messing around with this disease , ” she said .
“ And yet everyone is out and about .
I ’ m worried we opened up too soon .
If I ’ m being honest , I ’ m more fearful now than I was before.
” FiveThirtyEight Podcast : Views of Black Lives Matter have shifted .
What happens next ?


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-17--Republicans And Democrats Think Different Groups Are Discriminated Against

Democrats and Republicans have very different views about how much discrimination various demographic groups face in American society .
That disagreement underlies virtually everything happening in American politics today , from the discussions about race and policing in the wake of George ’ s Floyd ’ s killing by Minneapolis police to the 2020 presidential election .
We wrote about these differing perceptions near the start of President Trump ’ s term in 2017 .
Those perceptions have not changed that much , but we felt like these questions of discrimination are more relevant than ever , with Trump running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rethinking its racial policies in the wake of Floyd ’ s death .
Here are some recent findings about perceptions of discrimation and perceptions of various groups in American society , based on recent polling from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape project .
The survey we relied on was administered after Floyd ’ s death , from May 28 to June 3 , but previous sets of polls from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape had similar results — except for shifts in responses to questions about black people and policing , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Democrats thought black and Muslim Americans face “ a great deal ” or “ a lot ” of discrimination in America today , as opposed to “ a moderate amount , ” “ little ” or “ none at all.
” Perceptions of discrimination against black people have surged among all groups , including Republicans , in the wake of Floyd ’ s death .
But the vast majority of Democrats thought that black people in America faced high levels of discrimination even before Floyd ’ s death .
About half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of discrimination .
Very few Democrats thought that Christians , men or white people face high levels of discrimination in America .
In contrast , only about half of Republicans thought that black people and Muslims face high levels of discrimination , and only about a quarter thought that women do .
The majority of Republicans thought those groups face “ a moderate amount , ” “ little ” or “ no ” discrimination at all .
Generally , Republicans were less inclined to say that any group in America faces high levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this polling .
But significantly more Republicans than Democrats thought there is discrimination against Christians and white people .
These views of discrimination line up closely with partisanship , among both voters and elected officials .
Among voters , black Americans , Muslims and women are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates ; Christians , men and white Americans are more likely to vote for Republicans .
At the political elite level , former President Obama ’ s administration took a number of steps to reverse discrimination against black Americans and women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Obama policies aimed at blacks in particular , while adopting policies that the administration said created a more level playing field for Christians , men and native-born Americans , who are more likely than immigrants to be white .
There are similar numbers of people in both parties who thought that Jewish Americans face high levels of discrimination .
What explains that ?
Well , Jewish Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates .
But Trump has cast himself as a defender of Jewish people in America and particularly in Israel , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also viewed Jewish Americans as facing high levels of discrimination .
In other words , it ’ s likely that voters would see discrimination through partisan lenses anyway , but decisions by leading politicians are probably reinforcing those dynamics .
In fact , partisans shift their support on policies to align with their party ’ s leaders , and not the other way around .
There are partisan gaps in favorability To get another assessment of feelings about different groups and how partisanship might shape those feelings , we looked at measures of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Do you have a very or somewhat favorable or very or somewhat unfavorable view of group X ?
” Although questions about group favorability are fraught because of “ social desirability bias ” — basically , even if someone feels intensely negative feelings towards , say , black or white people , they might not admit it to a pollster — we can still learn something by analyzing responses .
We focused here on “ very ” and “ somewhat ” unfavorable views because we are assuming you must really dislike a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nearly half of Democrats expressed unfavorable views about police and evangelicals .
Unfavorable views of the police have substantially increased from polling before Floyd ’ s death , but Democrats ’ unfavorable views of evangelicals were already very high and remain so .
About a quarter of Democrats said they had unfavorable views of white Americans ; a quarter said the same of undocumented immigrants , even though the Democratic Party is increasingly supportive of immigration and immigrants .
In contrast , large shares of Republicans expressed unfavorable views of undocumented immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 20 percent of Republicans said that they had unfavorable views of black Americans and police , with the latter group having increased in unfavorability substantially since Floyd ’ s death .
On both perceptions of discrimination and favorability measures , Americans ’ views seem to be shaped more by partisanship than age , race or gender .
So , Republicans — men and women — generally see discrimination in similar ways and view the same groups favorably or unfavorably .
So do black and white Democrats .
A helpful illustration of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Democratic men ( 44 percent ) than Republican women ( 28 percent ) thought that women in the U.S. face high levels of discrimination .
But there is a big GOP split on age .
Republicans under the age of 45 were more likely to say that they saw high levels of discrimination than those over 45 .
And that cuts across the traditional divisions — younger Republicans saw more discrimination than older Republicans against blacks ( a more Democratic group ) and against whites ( a more Republican group ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ death , a clear majority of Republicans under 45 thought there was a lot of discrimination in America against black people .
The over-45 GOP cohort did not share that view .
Older Republicans were much more likely than younger Republicans to say that they had negative views of undocumented immigrants and Muslims .
There were also some notable differences among Democrats .
For example , Democrats under 45 were significantly more likely than those over 45 to say they had an unfavorable view of the police ( 54 percent compared to 38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely than white Democrats to have unfavorable views of the police ( 58 percent to 41 percent ) .
Black and Hispanic Democrats were about twice as likely as white Democrats to view LGBT Americans unfavorably , and about 30 percent of both groups expressed unfavorable views of white Americans .
And white Democrats , in particular , viewed evangelicals unfavorably ( 50 percent ) .
We should be careful not to overstate these identity-based divides .
There are plenty of women in the Republican Party .
There are plenty of non-religious Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also , it ’ s not that the two parties are on different planets in terms of perceptions of discrimination — Republicans and Democrats agree that Muslims face more discrimination than Christians , and that black people face more discrimination than white people .
Most Republicans and Democrats view Asian , black , Latino and white people favorably .
( Or at least feel compelled to say so in a survey . )
But this also isn ’ t a “ both sides ” situation — Democratic perceptions of discrimination line up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No candidate has recently run for president with a plan for banning Christians from entering the U.S. And by most measures , whatever discrimination they might face , Christians , men and white people remain fairly powerful in American society today , certainly more so than black people , Muslims and women .
This data is important because it illustrates a serious identity-based disconnect at the heart of American politics .
When social identities are threatened ( real or imagined threats , often made salient by group leaders ) , individuals retreat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and react defensively with more negative feelings toward outside groups .
And given the effectiveness of in-group retreating for political outcomes , there is little chance of this changing anytime soon , at least from political leaders who stand to gain the most from these identity-based fights .
The activation of social identities can have positive democratic outcomes , too .
For instance , Trump ’ s anti-Latino rhetoric led to increased political activity from Latinos with a stronger racial identity .
And as we wrote about last week , strong racial identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend group interests .
Moreover , if a sense of shared identity can be triggered , partisans can come together to prioritize national interests .
But so long as the parties remain largely distinct in terms of the group identities of their members — and how those members feel about other groups — ingroup and outgroup conflict is easily activated .

Democrats and Republicans have very different views about how much discrimination various demographic groups face in American society. That disagreement underlies virtually everything happening in American politics today, from the discussions about race and policing in the wake of George’s Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police to the 2020 presidential election.
We wrote about these differing perceptions near the start of President Trump’s term in 2017. Those perceptions have not changed that much, but we felt like these questions of discrimination are more relevant than ever, with Trump running for a second term and the country rethinking its racial policies in the wake of Floyd’s death.
Here are some recent findings about perceptions of discrimination and perceptions of various groups in American society, based on recent polling from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape project. The survey we relied on was administered after Floyd’s death, from May 28 to June 3, but previous sets of polls from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape had similar results — except for shifts in responses to questions about black people and policing, as we explain below.
Perceptions of discrimination differ across party
An overwhelming majority of Democrats thought black and Muslim Americans face “a great deal” or “a lot” of discrimination in America today, as opposed to “a moderate amount,” “little” or “none at all.” Perceptions of discrimination against black people have surged among all groups, including Republicans, in the wake of Floyd’s death. But the vast majority of Democrats thought that black people in America faced high levels of discrimination even before Floyd’s death. About half of Democrats also thought women face a lot of discrimination.
Very few Democrats thought that Christians, men or white people face high levels of discrimination in America.
In contrast, only about half of Republicans thought that black people and Muslims face high levels of discrimination, and only about a quarter thought that women do. The majority of Republicans thought those groups face “a moderate amount,” “little” or “no” discrimination at all.
Who faces discrimination? Percentage of respondents who said each group experiences “a great deal” or “a lot” of discrimination, by party identification Group All Democrats Republicans Gap Blacks 61.2% 77.5% 45.4% D+32.1 Muslims 57.5 70.0 48.2 D+21.8 Women 37.8 47.8 27.7 D+20.1 Jews 34.4 36.1 34.7 D+1.4 Men 15.8 12.9 18.5 R+5.6 Whites 18.0 11.8 25.3 R+13.5 Christians 22.7 15.9 32.5 R+16.6 Survey conducted from May 28 to June 3. “Democrats” and “Republicans” refer to self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans. Source: Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape
Generally, Republicans were less inclined to say that any group in America faces high levels of discrimination, at least according to this polling. But significantly more Republicans than Democrats thought there is discrimination against Christians and white people.
These views of discrimination line up closely with partisanship, among both voters and elected officials. Among voters, black Americans, Muslims and women are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates; Christians, men and white Americans are more likely to vote for Republicans.
[Related: Republicans And Democrats Increasingly Agree On The Protests … But Not Why People Are Protesting]
At the political elite level, former President Obama’s administration took a number of steps to reverse discrimination against black Americans and women. The Trump administration reversed some of the Obama policies aimed at blacks in particular, while adopting policies that the administration said created a more level playing field for Christians, men and native-born Americans, who are more likely than immigrants to be white.
There are similar numbers of people in both parties who thought that Jewish Americans face high levels of discrimination. What explains that? Well, Jewish Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates. But Trump has cast himself as a defender of Jewish people in America and particularly in Israel, which may explain why a lot of Republicans also viewed Jewish Americans as facing high levels of discrimination.
In other words, it’s likely that voters would see discrimination through partisan lenses anyway, but decisions by leading politicians are probably reinforcing those dynamics. In fact, partisans shift their support on policies to align with their party’s leaders, and not the other way around.
There are partisan gaps in favorability
To get another assessment of feelings about different groups and how partisanship might shape those feelings, we looked at measures of favorability, where people are asked, “Do you have a very or somewhat favorable or very or somewhat unfavorable view of group X?” Although questions about group favorability are fraught because of “social desirability bias” — basically, even if someone feels intensely negative feelings towards, say, black or white people, they might not admit it to a pollster — we can still learn something by analyzing responses. We focused here on “very” and “somewhat” unfavorable views because we are assuming you must really dislike a group to admit this on a survey.
Nearly half of Democrats expressed unfavorable views about police and evangelicals. Unfavorable views of the police have substantially increased from polling before Floyd’s death, but Democrats’ unfavorable views of evangelicals were already very high and remain so. About a quarter of Democrats said they had unfavorable views of white Americans; a quarter said the same of undocumented immigrants, even though the Democratic Party is increasingly supportive of immigration and immigrants.
(Un)favorability is partisan Percentage of respondents who have a unfavorable impression of each group, by party identification Group All Democrats Republicans Gap Evangelicals 31.1% 43.1% 19.9% D+23.1 The police 35.7 45.8 25.2 D+20.6 Whites 18.2 22.5 13.1 D+9.5 Jews 12.2 11.6 12.4 R+0.8 Asians 13.4 12.1 16.7 R+4.6 Latinos 13.7 10.5 17.9 R+7.4 Blacks 16.8 12.6 22.2 R+9.6 LGBT 23.5 15.5 33.7 R+18.1 Muslims 26.8 17.1 41.9 R+24.8 Undocumented immigrants 42.4 27.8 64.6 R+36.8 Survey conducted from May 28 to June 3. “Democrats” and “Republicans” refer to self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans. Source: Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape
In contrast, large shares of Republicans expressed unfavorable views of undocumented immigrants, LGBT Americans and Muslims. More than 20 percent of Republicans said that they had unfavorable views of black Americans and police, with the latter group having increased in unfavorability substantially since Floyd’s death.
Younger and older Republicans diverge
On both perceptions of discrimination and favorability measures, Americans’ views seem to be shaped more by partisanship than age, race or gender. So, Republicans — men and women — generally see discrimination in similar ways and view the same groups favorably or unfavorably. So do black and white Democrats. A helpful illustration of the partisan dynamics is that a greater share of Democratic men (44 percent) than Republican women (28 percent) thought that women in the U.S. face high levels of discrimination.
But there is a big GOP split on age. Republicans under the age of 45 were more likely to say that they saw high levels of discrimination than those over 45. And that cuts across the traditional divisions — younger Republicans saw more discrimination than older Republicans against blacks (a more Democratic group) and against whites (a more Republican group). In the wake of Floyd’s death, a clear majority of Republicans under 45 thought there was a lot of discrimination in America against black people. The over-45 GOP cohort did not share that view.
Older Republicans were much more likely than younger Republicans to say that they had negative views of undocumented immigrants and Muslims.
More of the younger Republicans see discrimination Percentage of respondents who said each group experiences “a great deal” or “a lot” of discrimination, by age category Group All Republicans Under 45 45 and older Diff Blacks 45.4% 56.2% 37.8% -18.4 Women 27.7 35.8 22.0 -13.8 Men 18.5 26.3 12.8 -13.5 Whites 25.3 32.8 19.9 -13.0 Muslims 48.2 55.8 42.8 -13.0 Christians 32.5 37.7 28.7 -9.0 Jews 34.7 36.7 33.3 -3.5 Survey conducted from May 28 to June 3. Source: Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape
There were also some notable differences among Democrats. For example, Democrats under 45 were significantly more likely than those over 45 to say they had an unfavorable view of the police (54 percent compared to 38 percent). Black Democrats were more likely than white Democrats to have unfavorable views of the police (58 percent to 41 percent). Black and Hispanic Democrats were about twice as likely as white Democrats to view LGBT Americans unfavorably, and about 30 percent of both groups expressed unfavorable views of white Americans. And white Democrats, in particular, viewed evangelicals unfavorably (50 percent).
We should be careful not to overstate these identity-based divides. There are plenty of women in the Republican Party. There are plenty of non-religious Republicans. There are plenty of Christian Democrats. Also, it’s not that the two parties are on different planets in terms of perceptions of discrimination — Republicans and Democrats agree that Muslims face more discrimination than Christians, and that black people face more discrimination than white people. Most Republicans and Democrats view Asian, black, Latino and white people favorably. (Or at least feel compelled to say so in a survey.)
But this also isn’t a “both sides” situation — Democratic perceptions of discrimination line up more with the evidence than Republican perceptions. No candidate has recently run for president with a plan for banning Christians from entering the U.S. And by most measures, whatever discrimination they might face, Christians, men and white people remain fairly powerful in American society today, certainly more so than black people, Muslims and women.
[Related: Do You Know How Divided White And Black Americans Are On Racism?]
This data is important because it illustrates a serious identity-based disconnect at the heart of American politics. When social identities are threatened (real or imagined threats, often made salient by group leaders), individuals retreat to the safety of their in-groups, and react defensively with more negative feelings toward outside groups. And given the effectiveness of in-group retreating for political outcomes, there is little chance of this changing anytime soon, at least from political leaders who stand to gain the most from these identity-based fights.
The activation of social identities can have positive democratic outcomes, too. For instance, Trump’s anti-Latino rhetoric led to increased political activity from Latinos with a stronger racial identity. And as we wrote about last week, strong racial identity among black Americans leads to collective voting to defend group interests. Moreover, if a sense of shared identity can be triggered, partisans can come together to prioritize national interests.
But so long as the parties remain largely distinct in terms of the group identities of their members — and how those members feel about other groups — ingroup and outgroup conflict is easily activated.
CORRECTION (June 17, 2020, 3:52 p.m.): An earlier version of a footnote in this article incorrectly said that the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape survey did not ask respondents whether Asians faced discrimination. Respondents were, in fact, asked whether Asians faced discrimination.
FiveThirtyEight Podcast: Views of Black Lives Matter have shifted. What happens next?


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-17--Republicans And Democrats Increasingly Agree On The Protests … But Not Why People Are Protesting

Public opinion is now in favor of the protesters who have spent the last three weeks advocating for police reform in response to the death of George Floyd , a black man killed by a police officer in Minneapolis .
This is notable , because public opinion around the protests was initially split .
But as the protests have grown larger and spread to more parts of the country , there ’ s evidence they have become more popular .
For instance , in a Morning Consult survey conducted June 10-12 , 64 percent of Americans said they supported the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time the pollster asked in late May and early June .
In fact , the protests are so popular that they ’ re now supported by majorities of Democrats and Republicans .
But this bipartisan support masks some of the enormous differences that still exist between the two parties on issues of race and discrimination .
For starters , there ’ s a pretty big gap in just how strongly Democrats and Republicans back the protests .
In last week ’ s Economist/YouGov poll , for instance , 73 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonviolent protests , compared with just 27 percent of Republicans .
And according to the most recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll , Democrats and Republicans are also fairly split on how peaceful the protests have been , how long they should last and what ’ s driving them .
In that poll , Democrats were 40 points more likely than Republicans to say that the protests have been mostly peaceful and three-quarters of Republicans said they wanted the protests to stop now , compared to less than one-quarter of Democrats .
Republicans were also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say the protests were primarily motivated by long-standing biases against the police , whereas most Democrats said the protests were motivated by a genuine desire to hold police accountable .
The fact that Democrats and Republicans are so polarized when it comes to the motives driving the protests is important because it conveys just how differently Republicans and Democrats view racism in America .
In its polling , YouGov asked respondents a number of questions on whether systemic racism was a problem or whether police killings signaled a bigger issue within American life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chart below , Democrats and Republicans are divided , with as much as a 60-point gap separating them on some of these issues .
Recent surveys by CBS , CNN and Monmouth University have found equally large partisan divides on race and policing as well .
The thing is , public opinion about race hasn ’ t always been this polarized .
In fact , some attitudes about race were entirely unrelated to partisanship before Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 .
But after he was elected , racial attitudes and party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that by 2012 , opposition to interracial relationships or overtly negative views of African Americans predicted whether someone identified as Republican for the first time in decades .
Of course , Donald Trump ’ s political rise took this growing partisan polarization over race to new heights .
Democrats , in particular , quickly consolidated their views in reaction to Trump ’ s offensive statements about racial and ethnic minorities .
CBS News polls from the last 10 years underscore just how much Democrats have changed their opinion of systemic racism in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can see in the chart below , it wasn ’ t that long ago when Democrats and Republicans responded pretty similarly to the question of whether white Americans had an easier time of getting ahead .
Democrats , however , are now much more likely to agree that societal advantages exist for white Americans than they were five years ago .
A similar shift has happened on questions of police brutality and institutional racism within the criminal justice system .
For instance , the percentage of Democrats who think that the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased by more than 30 points since CBS News first asked the question in August 2014 .
Meanwhile , Republicans ’ views have remained steady — just 24 percent think the police disproportionately use deadly force against African Americans .
It ’ s certainly not surprising , then , that Democrats and Republicans are so divided over race and policing after Floyd ’ s death .
The upshot of this growing polarization is that Democrats and Republicans increasingly inhabit separate realities about race in America , worlds apart on everything from the causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s meaning to the N-word ’ s offensiveness to the value of teaching black history in schools .
The current partisan divide over race may be predictable , but it ’ s still incredibly important — especially considering this is a presidential election year .
Race has long been an effective wedge issue for the Republican Party , as demonstrated by the 2016 election , when Republicans split up the Democrats ’ diverse coalition of nonwhite voters , white racially liberal voters and racially conservative white voters .
But after 12 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have mostly defected or converted .
That means Democrats are now united about many of the racial issues that once splintered the party .
Take the Black Lives Matter movement , for example .
In a June 2016 Pew Research Center poll , only 64 percent of white Democrats and 20 percent of white Republicans supported the Black Lives Matter movement .
Those numbers are now up to 92 percent among white Democrats and 37 percent among white Republicans in the latest Pew survey .
The fact that Republicans experienced a nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t bode well for them either , considering polls at this point indicate that it is Democrats — and not Republicans — who are now more unified on many issues of race .
In fact , congressional Democrats ’ efforts to pass sweeping legislation to help remedy some of the racial biases in the criminal justice system could even be an effective racial wedge issue for the Democratic Party heading into November .

Public opinion is now in favor of the protesters who have spent the last three weeks advocating for police reform in response to the death of George Floyd, a black man killed by a police officer in Minneapolis.
This is notable, because public opinion around the protests was initially split. But as the protests have grown larger and spread to more parts of the country, there’s evidence they have become more popular. For instance, in a Morning Consult survey conducted June 10-12, 64 percent of Americans said they supported the protests, up 10 percentage points from the first time the pollster asked in late May and early June.
[Related: There’s A Huge Gap In How Republicans And Democrats See Discrimination]
In fact, the protests are so popular that they’re now supported by majorities of Democrats and Republicans. But this bipartisan support masks some of the enormous differences that still exist between the two parties on issues of race and discrimination.
For starters, there’s a pretty big gap in just how strongly Democrats and Republicans back the protests. In last week’s Economist/YouGov poll, for instance, 73 percent of Democrats said they strongly approve of the nonviolent protests, compared with just 27 percent of Republicans. And according to the most recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll, Democrats and Republicans are also fairly split on how peaceful the protests have been, how long they should last and what’s driving them. In that poll, Democrats were 40 points more likely than Republicans to say that the protests have been mostly peaceful and three-quarters of Republicans said they wanted the protests to stop now, compared to less than one-quarter of Democrats. Republicans were also 44 points more likely than Democrats to say the protests were primarily motivated by long-standing biases against the police, whereas most Democrats said the protests were motivated by a genuine desire to hold police accountable.
FiveThirtyEight Podcast: Views of Black Lives Matter have shifted. What happens next?
The fact that Democrats and Republicans are so polarized when it comes to the motives driving the protests is important because it conveys just how differently Republicans and Democrats view racism in America.
In its polling, YouGov asked respondents a number of questions on whether systemic racism was a problem or whether police killings signaled a bigger issue within American life. As you can see in the chart below, Democrats and Republicans are divided, with as much as a 60-point gap separating them on some of these issues. Recent surveys by CBS, CNN and Monmouth University have found equally large partisan divides on race and policing as well.
The thing is, public opinion about race hasn’t always been this polarized.
In fact, some attitudes about race were entirely unrelated to partisanship before Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. But after he was elected, racial attitudes and party identification became increasingly intertwined to the extent that by 2012, opposition to interracial relationships or overtly negative views of African Americans predicted whether someone identified as Republican for the first time in decades.
[Related: Do You Know How Divided White And Black Americans Are On Racism?]
Of course, Donald Trump’s political rise took this growing partisan polarization over race to new heights. Democrats, in particular, quickly consolidated their views in reaction to Trump’s offensive statements about racial and ethnic minorities.
CBS News polls from the last 10 years underscore just how much Democrats have changed their opinion of systemic racism in a relatively short period of time. As you can see in the chart below, it wasn’t that long ago when Democrats and Republicans responded pretty similarly to the question of whether white Americans had an easier time of getting ahead.
Democrats, however, are now much more likely to agree that societal advantages exist for white Americans than they were five years ago. A similar shift has happened on questions of police brutality and institutional racism within the criminal justice system. For instance, the percentage of Democrats who think that the police disproportionately use deadly force against black Americans increased by more than 30 points since CBS News first asked the question in August 2014. Meanwhile, Republicans’ views have remained steady — just 24 percent think the police disproportionately use deadly force against African Americans.
It’s certainly not surprising, then, that Democrats and Republicans are so divided over race and policing after Floyd’s death. The upshot of this growing polarization is that Democrats and Republicans increasingly inhabit separate realities about race in America, worlds apart on everything from the causes of racial inequality to the Confederate flag’s meaning to the N-word’s offensiveness to the value of teaching black history in schools.
[Related: How Black Americans View Their Racial Identity]
The current partisan divide over race may be predictable, but it’s still incredibly important — especially considering this is a presidential election year. Race has long been an effective wedge issue for the Republican Party, as demonstrated by the 2016 election, when Republicans split up the Democrats’ diverse coalition of nonwhite voters, white racially liberal voters and racially conservative white voters. But after 12 years of Obama and Trump, racially conservative Democrats have mostly defected or converted. That means Democrats are now united about many of the racial issues that once splintered the party.
Take the Black Lives Matter movement, for example. In a June 2016 Pew Research Center poll, only 64 percent of white Democrats and 20 percent of white Republicans supported the Black Lives Matter movement. Those numbers are now up to 92 percent among white Democrats and 37 percent among white Republicans in the latest Pew survey.
[Related: Public Opinion Of The Black Lives Matter Movement Has Shifted. What Happens Next?]
The fact that Republicans experienced a nearly 20-point increase in support since 2014 doesn’t bode well for them either, considering polls at this point indicate that it is Democrats — and not Republicans — who are now more unified on many issues of race. In fact, congressional Democrats’ efforts to pass sweeping legislation to help remedy some of the racial biases in the criminal justice system could even be an effective racial wedge issue for the Democratic Party heading into November.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-15--How To Read Polls In 2020

How To Read Polls In 2020