Main page    Jun. 10

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: IA MI TN
Dem pickups: AZ FL GA MI NC OH PA WI
GOP pickups: (None)

Tuesday's Results Are (Partly) In

The big story of the day, in terms of Tuesday's primary elections, had nothing to do with results, and everything to do with process. Georgia, a state that is already known for its shaky staging of elections, really botched things, such that people were left waiting in line for hours, masked, socially distanced, and sweltering in the heat. Oh, and the worst lines were in areas with lots of minority voters. The finger-pointing has already commenced, and investigations are being called for.

That said, there were some actual results, along with some semi-results and some non-results:

If counties can't get in-person voting right because of wonky machines, or lack of poll workers, or whatever the problem is, that would appear to give even more momentum to broadening and figuring out vote-by-mail. Of course, vote-by-mail has its own problems, but the good news there is that it has a paper trail. A really big paper trail, so audits are possible. Meanwhile, the next states up on the primary calendar are Kentucky and New York on June 23. (Z)

Floyd Laid to Rest; Biden Speaks

George Floyd's funeral took place on Tuesday, and his family welcomed a very high-profile list of speakers to address the attendees. None was higher-profile than Joe Biden, who delivered a pre-recorded five-minute address, avoiding an in-person appearance due to COVID-19 concerns, as well as the disruptions that his security detail would have caused. Here are his remarks:



Not bad; maybe a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. Biden started with a few appropriate words of condolence to Floyd's family, and then moved on to a call for racial justice, and an explanation of how his views on the matter are a product of his Catholic upbringing, an obvious pitch to Catholic voters to remind them of their church's stand on social justice. Certainly, the in-person audience responded well to the eulogy.

There was, of course, no way Donald Trump could have participated. He wasn't invited, first of all, and even if he had been, he's a lousy public speaker who doesn't do empathy at all. If he'd tried to participate, it would have come off as inauthentic and opportunistic. Biden's appearance was opportunistic, too, but at least he believed what he was saying. Now, what Trump could have done is declare a daylong moratorium on nasty tweets about looters, Antifa, etc., so as to show some level of reverence for the solemnity of the day. The President made a different choice, however (see below). (Z)

Trump Gotta Trump, Redux

For some sizable percentage of white Americans, the footage of George Floyd being choked to death by officer Derek Chauvin was a real eye-opener. There it was, literally in black and white—visual proof that the United States has a policing problem, particularly when it comes to the treatment of people of color.

It was not an eye-opener for Donald Trump, however, nor for much of his base. The President and his supporters are very much invested in the notions that: (1) nearly all police are good people/heroes, and (2) if America has a race problem, that problem is that white people are no longer given a fair shake. We've talked a bit about cognitive dissonance in the past few weeks, and the video created some big-time dissonance that needed to be resolved. Poking around in the various corners of the Internet (including the President's Twitter feed), there are a number of recurring "resolutions" to be found out there:

Clearly, these various justifications and obfuscations got the job done for a lot of people, including the fellow who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...er, Mar-a-Lago, er...wherever he lives as of today. However, another mighty wave of cognitive dissonance was unleashed by this video, which shows 75-year-old protester Martin Gugino being bulldozed by police officers in Buffalo (warning: graphic content):



For those who don't care to watch, Gugino stood his ground as a phalanx of riot-gear-equipped police officers approached, and after being violently shoved to the ground, lay there motionless, bleeding from his ear. And to add insult to injury (literally), the Buffalo PD initially lied and said that Gugino tripped and fell. It wasn't until the footage was released by the news station that captured it that Police Captain Jeff Rinaldo conceded the truth, though he insisted it was just an "honest mistake."

Let us note that now is surely a very difficult time to be a police officer. Let us further note that some police officers and departments have responded to recent events with empathy and promises to do better (notably, the Miami police officers who kneeled in solidarity with the protesters). However, there have also been hundreds or thousands of bad acts by police as they faced off against non-violent protesters, including improper arrests, beatings, and at least two killings. The Gugino video has come to be the embodiment of all of those subsequent bad acts, made worse by the fact that the police knew full well that America was watching closely, and that "best behavior" was called for.

Meanwhile, that video also wipes out most of the justifications/explanations for George Floyd. Gugino isn't a felon, was not suspected of having committed a crime, did not "put himself" in a bad situation, and was not a danger to anyone. The explanation favored by Occam's Razor is that America has a policing problem that requires some serious reform. But, again, Trump just won't go there. And so, he went here, instead:

Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2020

Future historians are going to look at things like this and will scratch their heads, figuring that things could not possibly have gotten so absurd. But absurd is indeed where we're at. It should go without saying that relying on OANN for information is a bad idea 100% of the time. When the story comes from a reporter (Kristian Rouz) who regularly moonlights for the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik News, that percentage jumps to 500%. It further goes without saying that neither Comrade Rouz, nor OANN, nor Trump has presented a shred of evidence that Gugino has any more connection to Antifa than he does to the KGB, the Illuminati, or the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Also, he's not waving a scanning device; he's holding his cell phone. Oh, and if he's faking it, then the blood coming out of his ears was a nice touch. Even Hollywood stunt coordinators, with squibs at their disposal, can't fake that (for fear of damaging their actors' hearing).

In short, this is the way, way, way wrong place to be on this particular issue. Dismissing or excusing what happened to George Floyd is very bad, and launching into conspiracy theories about Martin Gugino makes it even worse (if that is possible). While the base (or some of it, see below) might eat it up, Trump is also the preeminent spokesman for his political party. That party includes many members who are running for reelection this year, and who know a real stinker of a political position when they see one. Most of the folks running this year, particularly the ones running in swing or swing-y states or districts, will not be able to get away with victim-blaming if they want to keep their jobs. On the other hand, they fear alienating Trump and becoming the targets of a Tweet of Death.

So, how have other prominent Republicans responded to Trump's claims about Gugino, in particular? Like the three monkeys:

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

The members of Congress who spoke to reporters invariably said they hadn't read the tweets (even when printed copies were given to them), or that they just don't comment on tweets, or that they hadn't heard about the President's theorizing. You will notice that is, in order, see no evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil. It also brings to mind George Orwell's line from 1984: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

Obviously, the other politicians of the Republican Party have chosen to "punt"—at least for now. And maybe, this whole story will fade in a month, and the "see no evil" bit will have worked. But, as we wrote yesterday, we doubt it. Eventually, the folks who are up this year are going to have to do press conferences, and town halls, and debates, and other sorts of public events, and "punting" isn't going to work very well. They're going to have to decide if they are with the president and his theories, or they are not (they're going to have to make a similar decision about COVID-19). At the moment, sticking with the President is hurting the folks downticket a fair bit (see below). Going against him could be disastrous, too, though. Maybe they ought to just decide what they think is right, and do that. (Z)

A Really Bad Poll for Trump...

CNN has released its latest poll of the presidential race, and it's grim for Donald Trump. They have the President down by a staggering 14 points to Joe Biden, 55% to 41%. That is the best head-to-head result for Biden (and the worst for Trump) since way back in October of last year, when ABC News/The Washington Post gave Biden a 17-point lead. There have been 81 polls of the race since that one.

Naturally, the polls with big, surprising results tend to get the most attention. And this one is certainly an outlier, at least at the moment. That said, there have been 11 polls of the race conducted since George Floyd was killed and the protests began. Biden led in all of them, was up 6 points or more in nine of them, and was up double digits in four of them. It certainly appears that the responses of the two candidates to the last two weeks' events are affecting the race, and in the challenger's favor.

In any event, we thought we might take a macro view of things. To start, here is how Hillary Clinton's support in 2016 compares to Joe Biden's support in 2020, taking the monthly average of all "vs. Trump" polls:

Month Clinton 2016 Avg. Biden 2020 Avg. Margin
January 47.5 49.9 Biden +2.4
February 46.5 50.2 Biden +3.7
March 49.6 49.6 Even
April 48.5 47.4 Clinton +1.1
May 46.4 48.3 Biden +1.8
June 45.3 49.4 Biden +4.2

As you can see, Clinton had a small surge in March and April of 2016, allowing her to equal (in March) and slightly exceed (in April) Biden's numbers for those months. However, the clear overall trend is that Biden is running ahead of Clinton by several crucial points. Further, he is trending upward over the last three months (since clinching the nomination), while Clinton entered into a downward trend in July and August, due primarily to e-mail revelations.

Now, let's add Trump into the mix:

Month Clinton 2016 Avg. Trump 2016 Avg. Margin Biden 2020 Avg. Trump 2020 Avg. Margin
January 47.5 44.0 Clinton +3.5 49.9 44.9 Biden +5.0
February 46.5 42.5 Clinton +4.0 50.2 45.0 Biden +5.2
March 49.6 39.0 Clinton +10.6 49.6 43.2 Biden +6.4
April 48.5 40.3 Clinton +8.2 47.4 41.9 Biden +5.5
May 46.4 43.4 Clinton +3.0 48.3 42.6 Biden +5.7
June 45.3 39.2 Clinton +6.1 49.4 41.8 Biden +7.7

As we noted, Biden is outperforming Clinton, which is good news for the Democrats. On the other hand, Trump 2020 is generally outperforming Trump 2016, which would seem to be bad news for the Democrats. However, as you can see, even with Trump doing a bit better, the margin between him and Biden is larger than the one between him and Clinton (excepting that spring bump). That can only mean one thing: that Trump has a tougher hill to climb in 2020 than he did in 2016, and he's got to climb it with fewer undecided voters available to be won over. Notice, for example, that the average June poll has Biden up 7.7% with only 8.8% of voters undecided. This is entirely consistent with other analyses we've seen this cycle, suggesting that the number of undecided voters is already extraordinarily low.

At the moment, Trump is being hurt by two concurrent dynamics. The first is that, as everyone knows, he's running a base-only campaign. Tweets about Antifa, and e-mails about loony leftist Democrats, and videos about those persnickety rioters are great at firing up his devoted supporters. However, his support among Republicans is at 95% right now. It's reached its ceiling; it really can't grow any further.

The second problem is that the President is bleeding support among non-college educated white voters; dropping 10% among that demographic since spring. It used to be Trump 65.5% and Biden 34.5%, now it's Trump 60.5% and Biden 39.5%. If those figures hold, it is unsurvivable for Trump, since Biden leads among virtually every other key demographic—even seniors. That is doubly true in the Rust Belt states, where Trump won by narrow margins, powered by non-college white votes.

The obvious lesson here is that Trump needs to shift positions on the issue of the day, to stop slurring peaceful protesters like Martin Gugino, and to concede that there's a significant problem here that requires addressing. Maybe the President will get there; Chief of Staff/handler Mark Meadows says that Trump wants police reform "sooner rather than later." That said, Meadows is not Trump, and we've seen people presume to speak for the President before, without being correct. We've also seen the president pay lip service to change of various sorts, and then fail to follow through in any way (e.g., gun control after the Las Vegas shootings).

Indeed, the current preponderance of the evidence suggests that Trump, and some of his enablers, are taking a very different approach to his current polling woes. This weekend, news broke that the Trump campaign has purchased $400,000 in advertising to run in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., mostly on Fox News. There is, of course, zero chance that either of those states or the District are going to go for Trump in the election. So, what is the purpose? Allegedly, it is to reach Republican officeholders in Washington, and to make them feel better about the upcoming election. This is nonsense, however, as there is not a single Republican officeholder in Washington who pays more attention to silly TV spots than they do to polls. And they all know what the polls are saying right now. That leaves us, then, with the only real possibility: Those ads are meant for an audience of one, to help cheer him up during his "executive time."

But doesn't Trump see polls, too? Yes he does, but that brings us to the second part of the current (apparent) strategy. The campaign has just hired "pollster" John McLaughlin, whose work is so shoddy that he makes Scott Rasmussen look like Ann Selzer. McLaughlin has earned a reputation for comically overstating how well Republican candidates are doing (e.g., the time he told Eric Cantor he was up by 34 points, only to see Cantor lose his election by 10 points). McLaughlin is so bad, most Republican candidates and entities (including the National Republican Congressional Committee) won't use him anymore. For Trump 2020, his job will be to explain how wrong polls like the CNN poll are, and how people shouldn't pay attention to fake news like that. That's all well and good, unless the "fake" polls are...actually correct. Campaign manager Brad Parscale probably won't even look at McLaughlin's polls. He undoubtedly has hired a reliable pollster to tell him which states to focus on. But he probably won't show Trump those results for fear of being sued.

In short, it sure looks like the Trump campaign, outside of the occasional Mark Meadows, is carefully constructing the mother of all bubbles around the President. And that will presumably encourage him to double- and triple-down on his current approach, sticking to his gut and his guns, and allowing McLaughlin and others to convince him that the clocks are indeed striking 13. That is not only a losing approach, it is a lose-in-a-landslide approach.

To see what we mean, click on electoral-vote graphs in the menu to the left of the map above. Compare the second graph (electoral votes in states outside the margin of error in 2020) with the fourth graph (electoral votes outside the margin of error in 2016). Focus on June and you will see something that would get Parscale fired and sued if he were to show it to Trump. (Z)

...and the Generic Congressional Ballot Isn't Looking Much Better for the GOP

The generic Congressional ballot—"Would you prefer that Congress be controlled by the Democrats or the Republicans"—is a somewhat crude tool, but a useful one for getting a general sense of the temperature of the electorate. The newest poll from NBC News/The Wall Street Journal gives the blue team an 11-point lead right now, 51% to 40%, That's their first double-digit result since back in April, but it's also their fifth lead of 8 points or more (out of seven polls) in the last month. As with Donald Trump's support, there's a clear trend here.

FiveThirtyEight's poll of polls tells the same story:

Democrats are currently at an average of 48.6%, Republicans at 40.6%

When it comes to the Democrats' numbers, this is very near their best (they've crept up to 48.8% or 48.9% a couple of times). When it comes to the Republicans' numbers, this is very near their worst (they've slid down to the 40.0% range a few times, mostly last year). Meanwhile, echoing the Trump numbers from above, the gap between the Democratic tally and the Republican tally is as wide as it's been, and the number of undecideds is as low as it's been.

And so, that brings us back to the point made above: Barring a change in circumstances (and the election is getting closer and closer; 145 days and counting), Republicans who are running right now can grab on to Trump's ever-shrinking coattails and cross their fingers, or they can pull a Murkowski and distance themselves a little (or a lot), or they can walk the finest of fine lines between those two approaches, and hope that's enough. For a number of them (e.g., Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME; Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC) it could very well be that all three options are losers. (Z)

The World of Sports Is Going to Give Trump What He Wants (but Not Really)

A month ago, Donald Trump was pressing very hard for the return of sporting events, as he believes that will be a useful PR victory—a sign that life in America is returning to normal. He's not pressing very hard anymore, possibly because he realizes that even when sports return, to the extent they do, they are going to be a strong reminder of how not normal things actually are.

Here is where things stand at the moment:

What it amounts to is that the future of American sport, at least in the short-term, is very uncertain. Trump, and anyone else who wants sports back, is going to get some of what they want. The NBA, in particular, seems likely to salvage their season (though how happy that makes Trump, given his open warfare against the predominantly black league, is an open question).

At the same time, some portion of the 2020 sports calendar, perhaps a massive portion, will be lost. And even those things that do proceed will be packed with reminders that things are not normal, and that 2020 is a season unlike any other (e.g., no fans present during the games). So, there do not figure to be too many PR victories for the President here. (Z)

COVID-19 Diaries, Wednesday Edition

Today, let's take a closer look at individual risk, based on what we now know about COVID-19. What is your risk of getting COVID-19 and getting really sick? Here are the important questions you need to ask:

Have you already had COVID-19?

Even if you were told that you probably had COVID-19 by your health care provider, have you tested positive for the IgG antibodies (long term ones)? There is some evidence that having been exposed lessens your risk, but that is not definitive. Maybe you can get sick again, maybe not. The problem is that proving you are now resistant to the virus is a very expensive and complicated test that can be done only in a handful of labs. That work has just not yet been done (or I haven't yet found it). If you have had COVID, you are probably safer than if you haven't, but we don't really know. There is some evidence that you won't get it again. For example, lots of people get sick and are treated in the hospital and are then released. If they come back, they are not coming back because they have been re-infected. They are coming back because COVID damaged their organs and they are coming back with secondary complications.

Hot off the presses: One of my hobbies now is watching medical research COVID-19 videos. I just now watched a brand-new video from a lab doing research on COVID-19 immune response. It looks promising that having COVID-19 might provide some immunity. Based upon early reports from this study, there was a French news story that announced "Study Proves Immunity." The scientist in the video said loudly: "No, no, we didn't prove that at all!" The study looked at the production of T-cells, not at actual immunity in the patients themselves. The study was a sample of patients who had tested positive and had symptoms and therefore sought out testing, but were not hospitalized. The patients were called "average" in their response. There is still no data on asymptomatic patients. We may be months away from really knowing if having had COVID-19 provides some immunity against catching it again. Reuse the (oft-mentioned here) double handfuls of salt when reading anything that tells you COVID-19 immunity has been proven (or disproven).

Are you in an at-risk group?

This is the most important question about outcome if you are exposed. COVID-19 is not a typical virus. Many people who get it are not even aware that they ever had it. Those who are at risk tend to have a higher chance of getting really sick. Of course, some young, healthy people can get really sick as well, but not very many. At-risk means:

a. Over 65 in general. If you are over 65, consider yourself "at-risk" even if you eat your vegetables, are walking 10 miles a day and can wear the same clothes you wore in college.

b. Any chronic conditions affecting your health. This includes obesity, diabetes, hypertension, asthma/COPD, auto-immune (e.g. lupus), cancer, heart disease, etc.

The older you are and the more chronic conditions you have, the more at-risk you are.

Are COVID-19 carriers common in your area?

This is also a very important question, but we have little data. In New Jersey, we probably have 30% (or more) of the population exposed. However, most of this exposure was weeks ago, so fewer people are still likely carriers capable of infecting anyone. Across the country, COVID-19 seems to mostly be in decline. People recover and become non-infectious after a time. There may be relatively few people wandering around who can infect you. I am loving the decreases in hospitalizations in most of the country and particularly in New Jersey, where I live. I am not going to a restaurant anytime soon nor am I ready to fly on a plane, but I went over to neighbors' house and sat outside by a bonfire and had a beer with them.

What is your risk of exposure?

It is not enough to simply examine the risks associated with your behavior. You also have to look at the level of risk associated with the people you contact. Consider the people in your household and their individual risky behaviors. Here we get to play with the probabilities so let's throw out some guesstimate numbers:

  1. No-risk: 0%. "Hiding under the bed." No direct contact with anyone outside the household, ever. Work from home, 100% social distancing.

  2. Very low-risk: 5%. "Really, really careful". Makes sure everyone washes and changes their clothes when they come in the house. Interacts with very few people, all of whom are also careful.

  3. Low risk: 10% Very careful. Trips to the grocery store, but you always wear a mask and are careful to socially distance.

  4. Moderate risk: 20% "As careful as you can be." You have a job that is not work-from-home and contact with people is common.

  5. High risk: 30% "It's all a hoax."

In a multi-person household, the risks quickly compound. As an example, think of a household with two adults and two children. Both adults are working from home. Both are very careful (very low risk). One of the children has a job outside the home but is careful (moderate risk) and the other child only pretends to care about social distancing and can't be bothered (high risk). The household risk of exposure is 1 -((1-.05)*(1-.05)*(1-.2)*(1-.3)) = 50%.

Household size is helping to exacerbate the impact of COVID on black people (who have a higher average household size than white people) as well as helping Sweden (which has a significantly lower average household size than the US).

For the next few months, with relatively few people wandering around with an active virus and most of us being careful, the household risk can be managed. However, public school will put every child in the moderate-risk category and the household risk will be immediately impacted. (PD)

Today's Presidential Polls

Two polls in a row that say Iowa is most definitely in play. We still look forward to hearing from Ann Selzer, though.

Meanwhile, Michigan has entered "lost cause" territory for the President's campaign. There have been 19 polls, and Trump hasn't led any of them. Sorry, Gretchen, but your services as a running mate are not needed. But you are very popular in your state so your reelection as governor in 2022 should be easy peasy.

Good news for Trump in Tennessee, though, right? Maybe, maybe not. It's nice to have a 9-point margin. On the other hand, he won that state by 26 in 2016. It's not so nice to have a 17-point slide. (Z)

State Biden Trump Start End Pollster
Iowa 46% 46% Jun 06 Jun 08 Civiqs
Michigan 50% 35% May 31 Jun 07 Kiaer Research
Tennessee 42% 51% May 05 May 22 SSRS

Today's Senate Polls

And that is three polls in a row that tell us that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) is in the fight of her life. She's one of the folks that we describe above, who just may not have a way to juggle the need to hold the President close while also holding him at arm's length.

Meanwhile, Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) is clearly safe as long as he doesn't do anything to ruffle any feathers. As he might well be the most milquetoast member of the Senate, it's safe to assume that no feather-ruffling is forthcoming. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
Iowa Theresa Greenfield 48% Joni Ernst* 45% Jun 06 Jun 08 Civiqs
Michigan Gary Peters* 48% John James 32% May 31 Jun 07 Kiaer Research

* Denotes incumbent

Back to the main page