Bloomberg Will Spend $100 Million in Florida to help Biden

Earlier this year, Michael Bloomberg promised to spend $1 billion to defeat Donald Trump. Bloomberg is 78, $1 billion is less than 2% of his $54 billion net worth, and he knows you can't take it with you. So where is the $1 billion? Maybe he meant Mexico would pay for it. Now he has said that, no, he will spend (at least) $100 million to defeat Trump. After all, what's a zero? Nothing. But Bloomberg will spend all of that money in Florida. If he can turn Florida blue, Donald Trump will have to win all the other swing states, so it is possible that Bloomberg will achieve his goal at the bargain price of $100 million.

Trump responded immediately to his announcement:

I thought Mini Mike was through with Democrat politics after spending almost 2 Billion Dollars, and then giving the worst and most inept Debate Performance in the history of Presidential Politics. Pocahontas ended his political career on first question, OVER! Save NYC instead. https://t.co/WgbVvEUt2N

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020

He can't resist. Not that Bloomberg will suddenly be deterred. He's not the kind of guy to cower under his desk at a tweet. Bloomberg plans to run ads on TV and on the Internet in both English and Spanish. Voting begins in Florida on Sept. 24. His aim is to get Democrats to vote early in Florida because Florida releases the early voting totals and absentee ballot totals on Election Night, just after the polls close. If the networks call Florida for Biden on election night, it will make it very implausible for Trump to claim victory then, which will be a huge psychological blow to him. If North Carolina is also called for Biden on election night (which is possible since it also counts absentee ballots starting well before Election Day), then Trump won't have a leg to stand on.

On Saturday, a top Democratic consultant said that the Biden campaign was focusing on the "Midwest" due to the enormous cost of advertising in Florida. He thought it would take $15-20 million to improve Biden's numbers with Latinos and $50-60 million for a serious statewide TV campaign. If that is true, $100 million is a good place to start.

A consequence of Bloomberg's decision is that now Trump is on the spot. He suggested that he was willing to spend $100 million of his own money, but he is a known tightwad. Now it may be put up or shut up. Once Bloomberg's ads go up, Trump will have four choices:

1. Put up $100 million of his own money to match Bloomberg in Florida.
2. Have the campaign pull $100 million from the Midwest, North Carolina, and Arizona and move it to Florida.
3. Stick with the current plans and let Bloomberg dominate the airwaves in the Sunshine State.
4. Fly to Las Vegas, get down on his knees, and beg Sheldon Adelson for $100 million.

From a political point of view, (4) is the best, of course, but it might not work since Trump bawled Adelson out earlier this year for being a cheapskate. Second choice is (1), but Trump really hates spending his own money. He greatly prefers spending other people's money. In addition, Bloomberg could simply decide to negate Trump's money by tossing in another $100 million. After all, that is only 0.2% of his net worth. Trump definitely does not want to get into a bidding war with Bloomberg and it is not clear how much cash Trump has. A building worth $1 billion can't help with the campaign unless he can get a mortgage quickly, and no American bank is going to give him a mortgage, that's for sure. And maybe no Russian bank either.

An indirect effect of Bloomberg's promised donation is to relieve the Biden campaign of the need to put money into Florida. This allows it to focus more on the "Midwest" states Hillary Clinton lost last time, as well as North Carolina and Arizona.

Although he hasn't spent anywhere near $1 billion for Biden and other Democrats, Bloomberg has been quietly spending money to help Democrats here and there this year. He gave $60 million to a group whose message is gun control and has promised $60 million to help House Democrats. He has also given an unknown amount of money to groups supporting Democrats running for state legislatures. He also contributed to campaigns targeting veterans in Pennsylvania and other swing states. The one area where he has not been active is the Senate races.

Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) was obviously pleased with Bloomberg's decision. She said: "The bottom line is when you have additional resources, you can solidify your voters and then communicate with those who are still on the fence for some reason. One hundred million can do just that." (V)

Almost Two-Thirds of Americans Disapprove of Trump's Handling of the Pandemic

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll released yesterday shows that 65% of Americans disapprove of how Donald Trump has handled the pandemic, with only 35% approving. As usual, it splits along partisan lines, with 80% of Republicans, 31% of independents, and 5% of Democrats backing the President. A full 67% say he acted too slowly, although 69% of Republicans say he acted at the right pace. Additionally, 68% of all Americans don't believe what Trump says.

On account of Bob Woodward's book, Ipsos also asked people which candidate has more respect for the military. Biden won that easily, with 61% to Trump's 31%.

While we are on the subject of polling, a new Fox News/Braun Research poll of likely voters has Biden leading Trump 51% to 46%. This is a smaller lead than most other polls. On the other hand, only 2% are undecided. The rest will vote for minor parties. That doesn't give Trump much room to grow. (V)

Both Campaigns Are Targeting White Women

Hillary Clinton lost among white women in 2016. Quite a few of them are now sorry they voted for Trump and are not going to do it again, in part due to Trump's failure to contain COVID-19. Both campaigns are now actively targeting these women.

The Washington Post found a 47-year-old white woman who lives in the Philadelphia suburbs, Nin Bell, who works for an answering service that takes calls for 10,000 funeral homes. She used to get 20 calls a day from people who just experienced a death in the family and were looking for a funeral home. Now she is getting 60 calls a day just from people who lost a loved one to COVID-19. She voted for Trump last time because she saw him as a successful businessman. She is now horrified by her choice and is 100% certain that she will vote for Joe Biden.

White women with college educations have long been moving toward the Democrats, but now working-class women like Bell are coming along, too. The Post talked to many of them in Pennsylvania and heard similar stories. Nora Schreiber McDonough, a 60-year-old woman who is a secretary at a Catholic church in Bucks County, is frustrated that Trump cannot tolerate peaceful protests, like athletes kneeling. Tracey Christman-Epting, who lives in Kutztown and is also a church secretary, voted for Trump in 2016 but has since then seen that so many of his actions are inconsistent with her faith. She said: "I was very blinded. I listened to the evangelicals. I listened to the preachers and pastors that were telling us that he was so wonderful—and that's why I am so dismayed now. And they are continuing to support him. And it's like, don't you see?" If Trump loses white women like these who voted for him last time, he's going to have to make it up somewhere else, and it is hard to see where that might be. Even a few percent could matter in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. (V)

Could LDS Church Members Be Up for Grabs in 2020?

In 2016, Donald Trump won Utah by only 18 points, compared to the Republican victories of 48, 28, 46, and 40 points in the previous four elections. Much of the relative "closeness" was due to members of the LDS Church rejecting the thrice-married candidate with a tendency to have affairs with porn stars and Playboy models, as not reflecting their values. Now that they know Trump better, he may lose even more LDS votes. Utah is not going to be in play, but there are over 400,000 members of the LDS Church in Arizona. If Trump were to lose even a third of their votes, it could cost him Arizona's 11 electoral votes.

Both campaigns are actively going after the LDS vote. The best-known LDS politician in the country, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), has said he will not vote for Trump, although he has not endorsed Joe Biden. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also an LDS member, has said: "I don't understand how a member of the LDS Church could support somebody that is amoral and has shown his amorality from the time he came into our view." Evan McMullin, an LDS church member who ran as an independent in 2016 and got 22% of the vote in Utah, thinks that many LDS members will defect to Biden this time because they have soured on Trump's lies and immoral positions on so many issues. The chair of the RNC, Ronna Romney McDaniel, who is also LDS, is clearly worried as well. She tries her best to spin it for Trump, even though she knows that the LDS vote will be contested for the first time in more than a generation.

The Biden campaign expects that Trump will win the LDS vote, but if his margin is 10-15 points less than normal, that could help a lot in Arizona and Nevada. Quin Monson, a partner in the Utah-based polling firm Y2 Analytics, said that "would be the equivalent of the Republicans suddenly getting a quarter of the African-American vote."

The Trump campaign said that it is not focusing on Maricopa County (Phoenix), but on the LDS enclaves in the rural White Mountains. The problem with that is that 60% of Arizona's voters are in Maricopa County. In any event, LDS church members will enjoy being the center of attention in Arizona for the next 50 days. (V)

Far More Democrats Than Republicans Have Requested Absentee Ballots

Absentee ballot requests from Democrats are greatly outnumbering requests from Republicans in many states. In North Carolina and Pennsylvania the ratio is 3-to-1 in favor of the Democrats. In Florida the Democrats' lead is over 700,000 requests, 2.1 million to 1.4 million. Democrats also lead in Ohio, Iowa, and New Hampshire. This is not surprising since Donald Trump keeps bashing absentee voting while Democrats are encouraging it. Polling shows that at least half of Democrats plan to vote by mail, compared to less than 10% of Republicans.

Theoretically, this doesn't matter since a vote on Election Day counts just as much as an early vote. However, once a vote is banked, it (generally) stays there, even if Biden makes a gaffe later, there is an October surprise, or the voter has a change of mind. Also, a voter who was planning to vote on Election Day might not if COVID-19 is running rampant then, 8-hour lines are predicted, or the weather is terrible. Consequently, the Democrats' lead in absentee voting could matter.

Even more important is that Democrats who didn't vote in 2016 are requesting ballots at a much higher rate than Republicans who didn't vote in 2016. In Pennsylvania, for example, 175,000 Democrats who didn't vote in 2016 have requested a ballot, more than double the number of Republicans who didn't vote last time. Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes. In Wisconsin, a state Trump won by 22,000 votes, requests from Democrats who skipped 2016 outnumber requests from Republicans who skipped 2016 by 10,000. The Republicans' one bright spot is Georgia, where they are ahead by 55,000 requests.

Many polls have shown that enthusiasm among Trump voters is higher than enthusiasm among Biden voters, but in the end, it's ballots that matter, not enthusiasm, and Democrats are doing better in that department so far. (V)

Many Felons Will Be Able to Vote This Year

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit struck down a lower court decision that would have allowed most felons in Florida to vote after they have served their time. However, the situation in other states is quite different. For example, last month Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) signed an executive order allowing felons to vote after they have served their time. Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) did the same thing, which affects 140,000 people in Kentucky. Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) restored the voting rights of 49,000 parolees last year. Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA) gave the right to vote back to 22,000 Virginians who have served their sentences. In all these cases, though, a future governor can take back these voting rights with a stroke of the pen.

In some states, the legislature passed a bill reenfranchising felons. The Nevada legislature passed such a bill last year and Gov. Steve Sisolak (D-NV) signed it, giving an estimated 77,000 Nevada felons the vote. No future governor can revoke that right without the legislature first passing a bill to do so. Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) has signed a bill giving an estimated 80,000 people out on parole the right to vote. Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) signed a similar bill giving an estimated 9,000 felons on parole the vote.

Although many states are expanding voting rights, there are a few that are contracting them. Gov. Bill Lee (R-TN) just signed a bill making it a felony to camp on state property (except state parks). This was in response to protesters camping out in front of the state Capitol. The penalty is 6 years in prison and loss of voting rights. Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation, whose previous speciality was voter suppression, is a strong opponent of restoring voting rights to felons, saying that people should understand that imprisonment is only one of the penalties for committing a crime. He is doing his best to convince Republican governors not to sign executive orders or bills reenfranchising felons.

None of the above are swing states. On the other hand, North Carolina is one of the swingiest states. Two weeks ago a three-judge panel ruled that a North Carolina law similar to the Florida one was a violation of the state constitution. However, the ruling stopped enforcement of only part of the law, not the whole thing. The legislature is sure to appeal. If the ruling is sustained, it will restore the right to vote to 60,000 people. The chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Michael Whatley, reacted to the ruling by saying what was needed was more "conservative" judges, by which, of course, he meant "partisan Republican" judges.

The judges in Florida and North Carolina who ruled against having felons pay fees before they could vote saw those fees as poll taxes, which are outlawed by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution. Poll taxes were historically used in the South during Reconstruction to keep Black citizens from voting. Whites were exempt from them due to a "grandfather clause" that stated anyone whose grandfather had the right to vote didn't have to pay the tax. Most whites had a grandfather who was eligible to vote but few Black voters did.

However, voting-rights advocates lost a different battle in North Carolina last week. A different three-judge panel sustained North Carolina's requirement that absentee ballots be signed by both the voter and a witness who watched the ballot being filled out, and who swears that the choices and the signature are valid. In short, the voting wars are in full swing and the courts are the battleground. (V)

When Is an Election Rigged?

Edward Foley, a professor of constitutional law at Ohio State University, has written an important piece about how to tell the difference between an imperfect election and a rigged election. It should be required reading for all Trump supporters and maybe Biden supporters as well. The central premise is that all elections have flaws. None of them are perfect. But the key difference between a flawed election and a rigged election is that in the former, the people's choice won despite the flaws whereas in the latter, the faults changed the winner.

The elections of 1876 and 1884 were incredibly close. Samuel Tilden (D) won the popular vote in 1876 and should have won the electoral vote but for multiple shenanigans. In the end, a congressionally appointed commission composed of eight Republicans and seven Democrats voted along party lines to hand Rutherford B. Hayes (R) the keys to the White House. This was a rigged election. In 1884, (Stephen) Grover Cleveland (D) won New York over James Blaine (R) by 1,047 votes despite allegations of ballot stuffing and more. But in the end, the leading Republican newspaper of its time, the New York Tribune, concluded that despite all the irregularities, Cleveland really did get more legitimate votes in New York, so Blaine conceded. This was a flawed election, but not a rigged one.

Foley says that a core tenet of the American electoral system is this: "Not every defect in the voting process renders an election invalid." There are some points to absorb here. If a foreign adversary spews out disinformation and manages to convince a large number of voters to vote a certain way and they vote that way of their own free will, that does not invalidate the election. Of course, if the adversary hacks the computers and changes vote totals, that is a different story. Also, disenfranchisement of voters through the legal process (as in Florida, where an appeals court upheld a state law requiring felons to pay fees and costs before voting) may be abhorrent, but does not invalidate the election. After all, the state legislature that passed the law was elected by the people and the judges were appointed by elected presidents and confirmed by the Senate according to law.

This year again, there is sure to be disinformation, both foreign and domestic. But an argument that "the voters were too stupid to realize they were acting like useful idiots" doesn't cut it. On the other hand, if thousands of voters are illegally removed from the voting rolls by a partisan secretary of state and their absence was more than the margin of victory in that state, that would invalidate that state's results. Similarly, if the postmaster general decides not to postmark absentee ballots and they are subsequently rejected for lack of a postmark, that would invalidate the election if the number of rejected ballots exceeds the winner's margin. Another thing that would invalidate the election is not letting people who arrived before the polls closed but who were still standing on line due to chaos in the polling place at closing time cast their ballots.

Foley suggests that if the election is flawed, but not so much that it has to be thrown out (i.e., the flaws didn't change the winner), leaders of the loser's party should declare that the other party won, even if the candidate won't. Of course, if the flaws change the result, we are in deep doodoo. As (Z) has pointed out before, the South's refusal to accept the result of the 1860 election (not because it had irrefutable flaws, but because it didn't like the result), led to the deaths of 800,000 Americans. There might be a lesson there. (V)

Chances of a New Stimulus Before the Election Are Close to Zero

Last week, a watered-down COVID-relief bill failed in the Senate, and now the leaders of the parties are not even talking about a new one. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) put it this way: "I wish I could tell you we were going to get another package but it doesn't look that good right now." (English translation: I don't want one). The main negotiators, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), are far apart on the total amount and also on many of the details. The Republicans want a minimal bill that gives some people $300/week and not much else except a provision that would exempt businesses from lawsuits if they fail to protect their workers, who then get sick. The Democrats want to give people $600/wk and want to help states and cities as well as funding the USPS and providing election security. They oppose the liability protection provision and say businesses that don't protect their workers should be sued. At this point, even if a bill passed this week, it would be weeks before checks could start going out.

Now the blame game will start. That's the important part, after all. The goal is to save the government a few trillion dollars and get the other party to take the blame for the lack of federal help. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) had this to say: "I am worried about another round of layoffs as companies run out of that money and, frankly, I think that is what some Democrats are counting on: bad economic news in October that helps them in November." There could be some truth in that. Generally, when the economy is in the toilet, the president gets blamed. For that reason, Republicans ought to be seriously trying to make a deal, but the parties are so far apart, that seems unlikely. (V)

Sabato's Crystal Ball Makes Electoral-College Predictions

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has come out with a couple of electoral-vote maps, in an attempt to bracket what might happen in November. The first map, which reflects probably Donald Trump's best realistic hope, is shown below:

In this scenario, Trump hangs on in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but barely loses Michigan. He also flips Nevada, giving him 295 electoral votes and a second term.

Joe Biden's best case looks quite different:

In this scenario, Biden not only wins the three states in the "Midwest" that Trump unexpectedly won in 2016, but he also wins Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. This gives him 350 EVs and a solid win. If you look at our electoral-vote graph for the last 2 or 3 months, it has been hovering around 350, so this scenario is not pie in the sky for Biden. Today we have Biden at 353, although we think it is more likely that he wins North Carolina and loses Ohio than the reverse.

The third map is what the Crystal Ball is predicting:

It is a fairly cautious map, with four key states—Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina—rated as toss-ups. Nevertheless, by assigning Michigan and Pennsylvania to Biden, Sabato puts Biden at 269, just one EV short of a majority. In this scenario, all Biden has to do is win one of the four yellow states. If each one is 50-50, statistically, Trump's chances are the same as flipping a coin and getting heads four times in a row: 6%.

If we had to make the call right now, we would give Biden Wisconsin and Arizona. We also agree with Sabato that Georgia is going to be tough for Biden, but not impossible. Also, Texas is a bridge too far this year. There have been 27 polls of Arizona since the beginning of March. Biden led in 26 of them and one was a tie. There is still time for things to change, but between Biden's months' long lead, the popularity of Mark Kelly in the Senate race, and Trump's LDS problem (see above), we think Arizona clearly leans Democratic.

As to Wisconsin, it has been polled 32 times since the beginning of March. Biden has led in 31 of them, and one was a tie. And the tie was in mid-March by a fairly inexperienced pollster (Baldwin Wallace University). Biden's lead has been outside the margin of error 23 times, all of them since mid-April. Again, we think Wisconsin leans blue. On the other hand, the only state the pollsters really got wrong in 2016 was Wisconsin. The prediction there was a Clinton win outside the margin of error. The polls said Clinton had a slight edge in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but also said they were really statistical ties. (V)

Could a COVID-Measures Resister Cost the Republicans a House Seat?

Colorado's sprawling 3rd congressional district is bigger than Mississippi and covers roughly the western 40% of the state. Much of it is in the Rocky Mountains, but there is also a piece sticking out as far east as Pueblo. It is full of ski resorts and has a PVI of R+6. Trump won it in 2016, following wins by Mitt Romney, John McCain, and George W. Bush twice. Rep Scott Tipton (R-CO) has represented it in Congress for a decade.

But this year change may be afoot. The 33-year-old gun-toting owner of the Shooters Grill restaurant in Rifle, CO, Lauren Boebert, defeated the Trump-endorsed Tipton in the Republican primary and could put the seat in play. When the state ordered restaurants to stop indoor dining, Boebert refused, leading officials to suspend her restaurant license. This made her a darling among people who think COVID-19 is a hoax (despite over 198,500 American deaths from it so far, including 2,000 in Colorado). She is probably the best-known COVID-backlash candidate.

Her stump speech urges people to ignore and protest measures to control the coronavirus, on the grounds of "the big bad gubmint can't tell me what to do." Boebert is not against the government providing information, but she believes people have to make their own decisions about whether to obey orders.

The waitresses in Boebert's restaurant wear holsters with guns as part of their uniform, which is legal in Colorado, but not everything Boebert has done is also legal. She has had eight tax liens filed against her in the past 4 years. A cafe she also owns served tainted pork sliders at a rodeo, sickening many participants. She has been arrested at least four times, once for harassing her neighbors, once for disorderly conduct at a music festival, and twice for failure to appear in court.

Boebert got her start in politics after 12 people were killed in an Aurora movie theater in 2012, when she began to oppose gun control measures passed in the wake of the shooting. She has since branched out into other issues, such as promoting the use of coal, which is mined in the district.

CO-03 has been hit hard by COVID-19. Oil and gas sales are down due to the economic slowdown. Tourism is way down and the many ski resorts are not expecting a banner 2020-2021 ski season. Travel bans have reduced the supply of foreign labor, which has forced some restaurants out of business. Much of Boebert's appeal is to people who want to reopen the economy, even if that means culling the herd (otherwise known as killing old people).

The Democratic candidate is Diane Mitsch Bush (70), a retired professor of sociology and former member of the Colorado House. She ran against Tipton for the CO-03 seat in 2018 and lost. She is a political moderate and a reasonably good fit for the district, but a lot less flamboyant and anti-government than Boebert. This is a race worth keeping an eye on to see if the anti-COVID backlash is going to be a big force in November. (V)

Today's Presidential Polls

Today we have another poll showing Biden ahead in Arizona, albeit by a smaller margin than most of the others. Remember that the margin of error on these polls is generally around ±3-4%, so there is going to be some variation from poll to poll. That is normal. On the other hand, Trump's dream of picking up Minnesota is apparently just that: a dream.

State	Biden	Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	47%	44%	Sep 09	Sep 11	YouGov
Minnesota	50%	41%	Sep 09	Sep 11	YouGov

Today's Senate Polls

If Biden wants to campaign in Arizona, he should do it with Mark Kelly, whose coattails he could use. It's rare for a Senate candidate to run ahead of his party's presidential candidate, but as a Navy veteran, a former astronaut, and the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, Kelly has the right stuff. As to Sen. Tina Smith (DFL-MN), like it or not, she is going to get a full term. (V)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Mark Kelly	49%	Martha McSally*	42%	Sep 09	Sep 11	YouGov
Minnesota	Tina Smith*	47%	Jason Lewis	40%	Sep 09	Sep 11	YouGov

* Denotes incumbent

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger