Nate Silver's Blog, page 88

What Does It Take To Flip A State From Red To Blue (Or Blue To Red)?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): OK, we have a special politics chat team gathered today to talk about this: When do states flip? From red to blue, or blue to red, or whatever.

The impetus for this question is a Quinnipiac poll published last week that showed Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in real danger of losing his re-election bid to Democrat Beto O’Rourke. But I also want to use Texas as a way to talk about flipping states more broadly.

Our special guest today: Meghan Ashford-Grooms, FiveThirtyEight editor and former Texan.

Meghan, give us your Texas bona fides.

meghan (Meghan Ashford-Grooms, copy chief): I worked at PolitiFact Texas, which is housed at the Austin American-Statesman, in the late 2000s. So I was an Austin resident for eight years! (All other Texans will now groan, considering that Austin is such an oddball space in terms of state politics. But that’s what I have.)

micah: So, Meghan, you’re playing the role of blue-Texas skeptic.

Nate, you’re playing the role of blue-Texas believer.

meghan: I can’t believe that the blue-Texas skeptic is now the conventional wisdom peddler.

micah: Let’s start with Texas and then we’ll broaden it out … can O’Rourke turn Texas blue in 2018?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Wait, I didn’t know the chat had started!

I don’t think Beto can turn Texas blue. But I think Texas might already be maroon (somewhere between purple and red), and a Democrat can maybe win in a maroon state in this sort of political environment.

meghan: I think that makes sense, but let me channel our dear friend Harry in exclaiming that all of this ruckus that’s been created is based on one poll.

ONE POLL

That seems like a lot of talk, right, Nate? Or should I care about this one?

micah: Also, is maroon really between purple and red?

natesilver: I was going to call it a “burgundy state,” but then you’d all laugh at me for being a snob.

meghan: Very true.

I’m googling it now.

“Maroon is a dark brownish red color which takes its name from the French word marron, or chestnut.” — according to Wikipedia.

natesilver: The thing about the one poll is that … it’s not like there are a whole bunch of other polls that contradict it. There haven’t really been a lot of reliable polls of Texas, period.

I mean, here’s what the Always Reliable (TM) Wikipedia lists as the polls in the race:

The U.S. Senate race in Texas: Ted Cruz vs. Beto O’Rourke




Poll
Dates
Cruz
O’Rourke
Other
Undecided




Quinnipiac University
April 12-17, 2018
47%
44%
1%
8%


Public Policy Polling*
Jan. 17-18, 2018
45
37
—
18


WPA Intelligence*
Dec. 12-14, 2017
52
34
1
13


Texas Lyceum
April 3-9, 2017
30
30
3
37

*Partisan poll

meghan: The difference in the number of undecided voters from last year to this year is interesting.

natesilver: So, you’ve got two partisan polls that are several months old, both of which showed a bigger Cruz lead than Quinnipiac did. Then a nonpartisan poll from like a year ago that showed a tie, but with a huge number of undecideds. It’s all sort of a mess.

meghan: Texas is the second-largest state in the country, and knowing what’s going on down there seems like it should be a bigger deal among the polling community.

micah: Yes!

natesilver: Well, to its credit, Quinnipiac added Texas to its list of states!

And they kinda got crap for it from polling know-it-alls. The fact is that Texas isn’t one of those states with a highly reputed local pollster, so getting Q-Pac down there is a pretty good get.

meghan: Does that mean Quinnipiac will keep doing polls of Texas through November? I’d be more willing to reconsider my blue-Texas skeptic position with more data.

micah: I think so, yeah.

meghan: Progress!

micah: That Quinnipiac poll also found that a majority of Texans still don’t know much about O’Rourke: “O’Rourke gets a 30-16 percent favorability rating, but 53 percent of Texas voters don’t know enough about him to form an opinion of him.”

So I feel like the race is still super fluid.

natesilver: Yeah, I think O’Rourke is the least interesting part of the story here.

He’s a competent candidate who will raise plenty of money … but the question is less about Beto and more about whether a “generic Democrat” can beat Ted Cruz.

micah: OK, so let’s forget about the poll and O’Rourke for a second …

Without the poll, and given President Trump’s poor approval rating, Democrats’ advantage on the generic ballot, special election results and the candidates (experience, fundraising, etc.), how competitive would you expect this race to be?

natesilver: I mean … it depends on whether you’re using 2016 or 2012 as a baseline.

meghan: I’m deeply biased by my ties to the state, so I’m not sure my answer would actually be based on the parameters you laid out there, Micah. I expect the national media to tell me it’s going to be close and then Cruz to win by way more than we expected.

micah: Wait, both of you need to say more on what you just said.

natesilver: Texas is about 12 percentage points more Republican than the country overall. If the national environment favors Democrats by, like, 7 points (where the generic ballot has been lately), that might make Texas have a 5-point Republican lean in this political environment.

If the national environment is more favorable to Democrats than that — say a 12-point lead, which is what you might infer if you’re looking at a blend of the generic ballot and special elections — then Texas is pretty purple in this climate.

However, that all describes an open-seat election, and Cruz is an incumbent.

micah: And, Meghan, you seem to be making the case that Texas is somewhat immune from national factors?

meghan: Maybe everyone thinks this about the states that they come to know well, but Texas is different from many other places. Although I definitely agree with Nate and others who have said that the national environment will have some effect … I just don’t think it’ll be what some of the media narratives will predict.

micah: Texas is special at thinking it’s special.

meghan: Dammit.

natesilver: Haha.

meghan: Also true. (Please don’t send me emails reminding me that I’m not a native Texan, dear readers.)

natesilver: Texas exceptionalism

micah: Nate, how big an effect does Cruz’s incumbency have?

[Editor’s note: Nate’s has owed me an article about that incumbency question for like three months.]

natesilver: Well, it mostly helps to be an incumbent. Even though it doesn’t help as much as it once did. But you might expect an incumbent to have an advantage of, say, 7 points above and beyond an open-seat candidate.

On the other hand, Cruz’s approval ratings are pretty middling.

meghan: I should have set up the Wendy Davis bot for my answer above.

natesilver: So the way I see it is something like this: Texas has a 12-point Republican lean, but the national environment favors Democrats by, say, 9 points, but then Cruz has like a 5-point incumbency advantage (slightly less than normal). So that would put Cruz ahead by mid-to-high single digits. That’s my prior, anyway.

micah: You on board with that, Meghan?

meghan: So … yes.

micah: But maybe with a 3-point GOP special Texas BBQ sauce?

meghan: Micah, you cannot make BBQ jokes.

micah: Jeez.

meghan: Do y’all think the media’s coverage of that Quinnipiac poll reflected Nate’s view of the race and the landscape — or was it more like, “WAIT CRUZ COULD LOSE?!?!?”

micah: OK, so yeah, I’m not sure how I would characterize media coverage of the Q poll.

HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE MEDIA COVERAGE!?!

natesilver: I’d characterize it as a little overheated on both sides, which is of course how media coverage always is about everything.

micah: So people yelling “Texas will never flip!” and people yelling “Texas is blue!”?

meghan: I thought the local Texas coverage was super interesting. You could definitely tell that reporters there have been spending more time thinking about what polling is — they seemed to be avoiding just reporting the topline numbers.

So there was more context than there would have been even in the 2016 cycle, I think.

natesilver: I agree with that. Also, though, there was a little bit too much effort spent trying to pick apart the poll’s demographics.

micah: A Dallas Morning News piece cited our soon-to-be-updated Pollster Ratings! (Great paper with a great editor at the helm.)

meghan: I like that there’s more debate about the question of whether Texas will go blue in the national coverage now. When I was working in Texas, the national media reporting seemed to be very monolithic.

natesilver: We’re still 200 days out from the election, or something. No one poll should be getting all that much attention. The flip side of that is that people also shouldn’t be trying to “debunk” a poll they don’t like. I just don’t think it’s at all crazy to think that a Democrat is within single digits of a Republican there right now. The question is whether Beto can get 50 percent 1, or whether he might stall out at, say, 47 or 48 percent, which is what sometimes happens to Democrats in states like Georgia and Arizona.

micah: OK, so let’s broaden this …

There’s always this question in the run-up to every election of what the battleground is. Pollsters, for example, literally have to decide which states to poll. In the past, has that battleground been defined too narrowly — are analysts and reporters too unwilling to imagine “safe” states flipping? Or has it been defined too broadly?

And how do we define it?

natesilver: I mean, the Clinton campaign fucked up in 2016 by playing in too narrow a range of states.

People reduce the problem to Michigan and Wisconsin, which reflects a certain amount of hindsight bias. But what was foreseeable in advance is that the Clinton campaign was treating it as an eight-state election, and the Trump campaign was seeing it as a 15-state election. And the Trump campaign got it right.

To me, Texas is definitely worth watching because there aren’t that many Democratic targets. Tennessee is another state like that. Democrats could very well need one of those states, whether because something goes wrong in their attempt to take over Arizona or Nevada, or because they lose one or more of their own incumbents in Missouri, North Dakota, etc.

meghan: Guys, you are talking about both of my states today. I’m from Nashville. (btw, my sister had a baby this week in Nashville. Shoutout to the Volunteer State!)

I don’t watch polling in general the way that Nate does, so I don’t have a great sense of whether those battleground definitions have historically been too tight, but there were states in the 2016 election that voted differently than the media and others expected.

micah: I remember the Obama campaign had a really broad map. Which turned out to be kinda half right?

natesilver: Yes, the Obama campaign did play a broader map, especially in 2008.

They flipped a lot of states that had traditionally been Republican, some of which (e.g., Virginia) were harbingers of things to come, and some of which (Indiana) were one-off flukes.

meghan: I wonder if there’s any reason to think Texas and Tennessee won’t be flipping again any time soon because they only pretty recently went full Republican. (Tennessee had a Democratic governor as recently as 2011, and Texas’s Legislature didn’t become fully GOP-controlled until 2003.)

natesilver:I mean, I’d just say all of this is tied together. If Democrats are losing ground among non-college whites but gaining ground among college whites and minorities, you’d expect them to make gains in Texas.

Whereas Tennessee would be more of a one-off.

meghan: So the timing of this potential switch doesn’t matter? There are people in Texas who were Democrats and then became Republicans. Do we think they’d potentially switch back, by virtue of the fact that they have college educations? In that category, you would have to include Energy Secretary (and former Texas Gov.) Rick Perry! He used to be a Democrat, and he went to Texas A&M. (Which I admit is barely a college. Sorry, Aggies.)

natesilver: I mean, Texas has a pretty darn robust economy. So maybe people there increasingly see themselves as the “haves” and not the “have-nots,” and the “haves” are increasingly associating themselves with Democrats. Hillary Clinton did make some pretty big gains in Texas in 2016 relative to Obama in 2012. But I’ll defer to Meghan on that.

A lot of this, though, is that Texas’s population is changing. There’s a lot of domestic migration into Texas. And the younger population, which is now reaching voting age, is quite diverse.

meghan: Well, I have a perspective on the 2016 margins that is maybe a little out there. Here’s the “statement” I gave to Micah for the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast that published on Monday:

It seems like the Democrats do have something going for them this cycle — a lot of unusually good candidates (including Beto). BUT I have a hard time not being skeptical of the frequently resurrected coastal media narrative that we’re in for a big change in Texas voting. Harry did an article about that, kinda, before he left, and it’s a good reminder that the electorate in Texas is way more Republican-leaning than the state’s population at large.

Also, and this is totally my hot take: I think that the media types have gotten fired up by how badly Trump did in Texas in 2016 (relatively of course) but that that could be a misinterpretation of the data. I think it’s possible that Texans, who are very defensive and protective of their people, were upset at how Trump treated Ted Cruz in the Republican primary. But I think that effect (of punishing Trump for that particular sin) will wear off — eventually. Not sure what that means for the midterms though.

micah:

Politics Podcast: Should Ted Cruz Actually Be Worried?

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS
| Embed


Embed Code

The first major public poll of the U.S. Senate race in Texas showed Republican incumbent Ted Cruz leading Democratic congressman Beto O’Rourke by only 3 points. This week, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team debates whether there’s reason to believe that the race is actually that close. Fittingly, the crew also discusses new Associated Press guidelines for reporting on polls. The team also previews Tuesday’s special election in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button 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 Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. 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.

Is Comey Helping Or Hurting #TheResistance?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Here’s my plan, if it works for everyone: The overarching question will be “Is James Comey’s book/publicity tour helping or hurting the case against President Trump?”

You can interpret “the case” however you want, but I mostly mean it politically.

To give the convo some structure, we’ll go through the six claims Comey makes that are highlighted in this BBC article and say whether each helps or hurts.

Ready?

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Sure.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Let’s go!

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Ready.

micah: Also, FiveThirtyEight Features Editor Chad Matlin is obsessed with the Comey story, so he’s lurking in this chat and is going to chime in occasionally.

chad: Point of order: I am obsessed with Comey as essentially a character out of a literary political thriller. He’s flawed in all sorts of ways that make him extremely compelling and unable to be plopped into a villain or hero bucket. He essentially admits that he has an ego and a devotion to integrity, which makes it very fascinating to try to tease out where one starts and the other stops.

clare.malone: Hubris!

I agree, Chad.

He is a character who has tangled thoughts on his own actions.

micah: No. 1:

“When asked if he considered Mr Trump fit to lead, the former FBI director said he did not believe claims about Mr Trump’s mental health, but did see him as ‘morally unfit’ to be president.”

Help or hurt?

clare.malone: Hurt.

natesilver:

clare.malone: I’m less concerned with whether Comey thinks Trump should be in office: We care more about Comey’s observations of his interactions with Trump — whether or not he thinks the president obstructed justice, etc. At least, I think we should care more about those.

micah: The media doesn’t seem to care more about that, Clare.

clare.malone: Well, like Comey, I am a morally superior force in the world, Micah.

I am SANCTIMONY embodied!

natesilver: Yeah, I don’t really give a fig about Comey’s view on Trump’s character, except to the extent it reflects proprietary knowledge that Comey has based on working with him. Instead, the assessments Comey makes about Trump in the ABC News interview seem very arm’s-length — as though he’s a political pundit.

perry: Helps. I think someone of Comey’s stature saying that the president is “morally unfit” is important. He is kind of echoing the Never Trump/John McCain/Jeff Flake view, which is not a hugely influential one, but it does have some influence, so it’s part of why Trump is fairly unpopular.

micah: DISAGREEMENT!!!!!

Clare and Nate, why do you think Comey-as-pundit hurts the case against Trump?

clare.malone: Because it distracts from the narrative that actually matters: Comey’s word against Trump’s on a number of occasions where it is a he said/he said.

I don’t think Comey needs to bolster his argument by being bombastic about Trump being unfit.

natesilver: Yeah, it lowers his stature. Comey’s authority comes from having had a seat at the table and having seen Trump up close and personal — not from having particularly good judgment, since there are all sorts of questions about his judgment.

clare.malone: He already has a good reputation as a man-of-the-law, truth-teller type.

natesilver: Right — I think a Chief Justice John Roberts “My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat” demeanor would serve him better.

micah: I mean, let’s say Comey has the influence Perry mentions with ~3 percent of Americans — that’s something.

I just don’t know if there are really any neutral observers anymore.

OK, No. 2:

“Another portion of the interview handled the sacking of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn in February 2017 for lying about contacts with the Russian ambassador in Washington. The former FBI head said Mr Trump had tried to pressure him into dropping any investigation into Mr Flynn. ‘I took it as a direction,’ he told Mr Stephanopoulos. ‘He’s — his words were, though, “I hope you can let it go”.’”

Help/hurt?

clare.malone: I think help. He’s being honest about the words, but also his interpretation of them — which presumably includes the way the president said it, the tone, emphasis, body language.

natesilver: Help, I guess … but wasn’t that news already public like six months ago?

clare.malone: It’s Comey being transparent about the interaction.

perry: I don’t know if this one matters as much, because this is basically what Comey said last year during the Senate hearing, as Nate said. He put the legal term “obstruction of justice” in there, but this is the core of what he told the Senate back last year.

natesilver: Yeah, I’m gonna say neutral because there’s no news there.

clare.malone: Repetition of relevant facts matters.

So, it doesn’t hurt.

natesilver: I’m a Bayesian, Clare, and it didn’t cause me to update my priors.

Politics Podcast: James Comey Has A Lot To Say. Is Any Of It New?

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS
| Embed


Embed Code

Former F.B.I. Director James Comey has a lot to say about President Trump and the 2016 presidential election in his new book. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew sorts through which, if any, of his revelations are new or meaningful.

The team also discusses the U.S. airstrikes in Syria and looks at what the public thinks of U.S. humanitarian intervention. Then they discuss whether House Speaker Paul Ryan’s decision not to run for reelection will affect Republican prospects in the midterms.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button 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 Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. 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.

What Would Happen If Trump Fired Mueller? Or Rosenstein? Or Sessions?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): There’s a lot going on, including tons of speculation about who might get the boot from President Trump next. On Tuesday night, in fact, The New York Times reported that Trump tried to fire special counsel Robert Mueller as recently as December. At about the same time as The Times story went online, CNN reported that Trump is thinking about booting Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who oversees Mueller.

But rather than guess at the likelihood of certain firings or venture into subjects we don’t have much expertise in, let’s focus on … politics! Specifically, what would the political repercussions be if Trump fired ____________?

I’ll fill in the blank, and we’ll discuss them one by one. Here’s the scale you have to rate each hypothetical firing on:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — I’m not sure

Politics Podcast: Will Trump Keep Pruitt?

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS
| Embed


Embed Code

Imagine if Russian hackers entered the U.S.’s election infrastructure, changed the information on voter rolls and switched votes from one candidate to another. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team dives into what that kind of nightmare scenario would look like, based on Clare Malone’s reporting about potential weaknesses in the system.

The crew also discusses the continuous scandals coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency and whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is long for the Trump administration.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button 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 Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. 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.

Emergency Politics Podcast: FBI Raids Trump’s Lawyer’s Office

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS
| Embed


Embed Code

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team reacts to the news that the FBI raided the home and office of President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. They debate how serious the raid is for Trump and what the implications could be for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button 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 Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. 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.

What Issues Should Democrats Ignore In 2018?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Today’s debate will center around this tweet from a political analyst:

Everybody always writes columns about why Democrats or Republicans should pay more attention to issue X. It would be actually way more useful if people wrote columns about what they should pay *less* attention to.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 2, 2018

So, we’re gonna try to do what Nate suggests here. The Republican side of this basically comes down to one person, President Trump — whatever he tweets or talks about stands in for the GOP’s message — so we’ll focus on Democrats today. In short: What topics/issues should Democrats focus on and what should they not focus on to set themselves up for the most success in this year’s midterm elections?

To give us a baseline, I made a list of topics by combining the options in Gallup’s “most important problem” survey and Pew Reseach Center’s “policy priorities” poll and then adding and subtracting stuff as I saw fit. (It’s surprisingly hard to make a list like this, so feel free to add stuff. Also, some of these obviously overlap.)

We have 100 “attention points” to divvy up between 34 topics. I’m going to unveil how I allocated them and then you all can refine and adjust. Ready?

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Ready player one.

Ready aim fire.

Ready or not here I come.

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Yup.

micah:

Corruption in government — 20
Trump’s behavior — 12
Situation with Russia — 10
Health care — 8
Civil rights — 8
Gap between rich and poor — 6
Immigration — 5
#MeToo — 5
Race relations/racism — 5
Elections/election reform — 5
Guns/gun control — 4
Criminal justice/police — 4
Environment/pollution — 2
Drugs — 2
Terrorism — 1
ISIS — 1
Trade — 1
Education — 1
Economy in general — 0
Unemployment/jobs — 0
Federal budget deficit/federal debt — 0
Taxes — 0
Corporate corruption — 0
National security — 0
Crime/violence — 0
Situation with North Korea — 0
Defense — 0
Abortion — 0
The media — 0
Care for the elderly/Medicare — 0
Social Security — 0
Energy — 0
Russia investigation — 0
Regulations — 0

I’ve thought this through carefully.

But, anything jump out to you as “WTF are you thinking, Micah!!!!”?

natesilver: Lol that’s a lot of issues

clare.malone: At first glance, the Russia stuff should get less attention.

natesilver: And this is purely for electoral expediency? Like, suppose I think criminal justice issues are really important, but not something that would influence the midterms much?

micah: Yes. To be clear, this is NOT importance. It’s just “best electoral message.” It’s not our job to tell people what issues should be important to them.

natesilver: OK, I think your list is really terrible then. Like, I literally think if I randomly assigned points, it would be better than your list.

micah: Make your argument!

clare.malone: Corruption seems like a great issue to run on. So I definitely agree with that receiving a substantial number of points. It’s also naturally tied to “gap between rich and poor,” which should get more points.

natesilver: First of all, you gave the most points to the vaguest stuff: corruption in government and Trump’s behavior.

clare.malone: They’re all vague, Nate!

micah: I mean, here was my general thinking: Given the news environment, you need to really hammer something to have it break through. So this list reflects what I think Democrats should hammer, and then I gave some points to a bunch of issues that are more definitional to the Democratic Party. To the party’s brand, that is.

But, Nate, you need to make an argument about where the points should go! You’re doing exactly what you criticized in that tweet.

natesilver: They should go to health care and to the Russia investigation — those are the most obvious ones. Assuming the Russia investigation includes firing the FBI director.

micah: It does. But so do other categories.

natesilver: Those two things — the health care debate and firing James Comey — are what moved Trump’s approval rating the most so far (down). I think health care needs 20 points, minimum.

micah: But given that Republicans mostly failed to pass a health care bill, can Democrats really campaign on that?

natesilver: Democrats have to talk about taxes more than ZERO, certainly — otherwise that cedes too much ground to Republicans. You’ve already seen the tax bill become more popular (although it’s still slightly unpopular on net) because Democrats have stopped talking about it.

Gun control probably needs to receive more than 4 measly points — it might not help that much with swing voters but will likely be an important way to rally the Democratic base and keep the GOP on its heels.

Although it seems to be going better for Trump recently, “situation with North Korea” probably deserves more than 0 points.

clare.malone: And we should clarify that the Russia investigation is separate from “situation with Russia.”

natesilver: Yeah, I don’t think much attention should be given to the geopolitical situation in Russia.

micah: So, here’s my argument on Russia: I think Democrats should mostly leave the Russia investigation alone — better to have special counsel Robert Mueller (a by-the-book Republican) be Trump’s antagonist on that than Chuck Schumer. But they should still try to keep it in the news, and they can do that with a focus on Trump “taking a soft line” (paywalled) on Russia internationally.

clare.malone: eh

natesilver: I feel like you’re overthinking this.

micah: That’s not an argument.

natesilver: You talk about Trump firing the FBI director — that’s what you talk about. And he’ll probably fire or pardon other people by the time we get to November.

Like, let’s say Trump fires Mueller — how many attention points does the Russia investigation get then?

clare.malone: But corruption in the administration is a really great way to play off the behavioral issues (like firing Comey, like tweeting) that plague the Republican Party of Trump.

And you can trickle down and say, “Look what a Republican Congress is putting up with in this administration.”

natesilver: Isn’t corruption pretty priced into voters’ views of Trump already? It doesn’t seem as “sexy” as Russia.

clare.malone: But what about Trump’s Cabinet and all its ethical problems? Didn’t he say he would drain the swamp?

natesilver: Maybe you can sorta make the argument that he didn’t drain the swamp, sure.

micah: See, I think Trump firing Comey and/or Mueller fits into corruption/behavior. Stay away from the collusion/interference in the 2016 election part of the Russia story, and weave Comey/Mueller/Cabinet shenanigans, etc., into a “Trump is corrupt against everyday people” narrative.

Nate, maybe you should give your own list?

natesilver: Well now we’re just debating semantics.

micah: This is a debate about messaging! It’s all semantics!

natesilver: OK here’s my list:

Health care — 20
Russia — 20
Gun control — 10
Election reform/civil rights — 10
Rich/poor gap — 10
Trump corruption — 10
Taxes — 5
Immigration — 5
North Korea — 5
#MeToo — 5

To explain a couple of these: Rich/poor gap is the Democrats’ best frame for talking about the economy. And I think election reform is a really important issue in the long run electorally for Democrats.

micah: What’s their message on health care?

natesilver: That almost the entire Republican Congress voted to repeal (suddenly-now-popular) Obamacare. And that Republicans will try again if they make gains in the Senate, etc. (Which could very well be true, BTW.)

micah: But they failed. (Mostly.)

Also, I think any time Democrats spend on the economy is fighting on GOP terrain.

natesilver: Which makes it an awkward issue for Republicans, because they have to promise their voters that they won’t fail again.

On the economy — I think you’re entirely neglecting the importance of defense.

micah: National defense?

The Department of Defense?

natesilver: No dude like DEEEEE-fence, not da-FENCE.

micah: Like the border wall?

clare.malone: So, my problem with your list, Nate, is that you give basically four issues even billing — gun control, election reform/civil rights, rich/poor gap and Trump corruption all get the same number of points.

One of those is going to have to lead, right? And I think the message of Trump corruption/propagating the gap between the rich and the poor should lead.

Those need … 15 points or so.

micah: Clare is right.

clare.malone: They’re more effective messages than gun control.

micah: Clare, you should give your list.

natesilver: I don’t think you’re giving enough weight to the fact that Democrats are super motivated by gun control right now. Especially young Democrats. So it’s a way to engender more turnout.

micah: I guess my main question is sorta: How valuable is a middle-tier issue?

Firing Comey, firing Mueller, attacking private companies, saying that we’ll send troops to the border — general instability and “besmirching” the office of the president.

natesilver: OK, but that’s like seven different things.

natesilver: Here’s my new list: Trump 80, GOP Congress 20.

clare.malone: Here’s how I would order them, without points:

Corruption in government
Gap between rich and poor
Regulations
Trump’s behavior
Health care
Race relations/racism
Guns/gun control

micah: You’re cheating!

clare.malone: OK, let me point one thing out: I moved regulations up. Democrats could really exploit that and talk about things that the Republican White House is allowing to get through: getting rid of EPA regulations that prevent corporations from polluting or getting rid of financial regulations — a move that might benefit Trump Cabinet members — etc.

natesilver: Wait … REGULATIONS? Are only Vox.com writers participating in the midterms?

micah: This chat is going off the rails. I’m inviting in Chad, FiveThirtyEight’s features editor, to save us …

chad (Chadwick Matlin, resident Micah antagonist): … at the risk of making this chat better, I have a question: Is there evidence about whether voters respond better to discrete events vs. the “aura” around a candidate/party? Russia, for example, is an aura issue, while corruption (depending on how you feel about various Cabinet officials’ actions) has discrete details to run against.

micah: To Chad’s point: I do think you’re wrong, Nate, that “corruption” is vague.

Part of the appeal there is that it has a lot of specifics …

Scott Pruitt.

Ben Carson.

Ivanka Trump.

Jared Kushner.

Etc.

And Clare … WE STILL NEED NUMBERS!

clare.malone: uuuuugh

Fine …

Corruption in government — 30
Gap between rich and poor — 20
Regulations — 5 (but it goes with the previous two, so it’s staying in this order)
Trump’s behavior — 20
Health care — 15
Race relations/racism — 5
Guns/gun control — 5

micah: I can get aboard with this ^^^

chad: How quickly you forget Tom Price, Micah.

micah: PRICE!

chad: And Steve Mnuchin.

Again, at the risk of grounding this chat: Do we know how much the “drain the swamp” message resonated for Trump? And WHO it resonated with? Because if it were reluctant Trump voters or independents, then perhaps Democrats can flip it and use it against the president.

clare.malone: That’s what I’m saying!

I think you could swing a portion of the Obama-Trump voters on that one.

natesilver: My guess is it resonated the most with relatively low-information voters — who are the sort of people who are less likely to turn out in the midterms either way.

micah: Well … this is from the 2016 exit poll:

chad: So maybe the better way to assign points is to look at what motivates the stay-at-home Democrats (the activists are coming out no matter what) and what wedge issues can be exploited among the indies and old-party Republicans.

natesilver: I mean, I think y’all are overcomplicating this.

As someone pointed out on Twitter the other day [Editor’s note: It was Vox’s Matt Yglesias], there’s currently a gap between Trump’s popularity and the generic congressional ballot — Trump’s numbers are worse than Republicans’.

Trump has a net approval rating of -12 points right now among likely and registered voters. Republicans, meanwhile, are more like a -7 or a -8 on the generic ballot — and almost all of those polls are also among registered voters — depending on when you look.

So from a very high level, the strategy is probably just to talk about Trump, and the things that most moved the needle on Trump last year were health care and Comey.

And then on top of that, talk about some of the things people don’t like about the GOP Congress — that Republicans are only out for the rich.

Then some gun control and #MetToo because those are important issues to excite the Democratic base.

And some stuff about voting rights because that’s a really important issue for Democrats in the long term and is a good way to frame civil rights discussions.

That’s my strategy.

Politics Podcast: Let’s Play Family Feud!

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS
| Embed


Embed Code

What are President Trump’s strengths and weaknesses? The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team plays “FiveThirtyEight Family Feud” — a new game we made up — to try to find an answer. The team also debates the merits of the census’s new citizenship question and discusses its potential effects on political representation in the U.S.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button 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 Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. 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.

Politics Podcast: What If Trump Fires Mueller?

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS
| Embed


Embed Code

Over the weekend, President Trump tore into special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. So the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew games out what would happen if Trump actually moved to fired Mueller. The team discusses possible congressional responses, public opinion and the effect on the midterms. According to Nate Silver, it would be a “catalyzing event”:

“There are two things that had a big negative effect on Trump’s approval rating, one of which was when they began to debate the health care bill and the other of which was firing [FBI Director James] Comey. That had a 3- or 4-point downward swing, which in this era is a lot. … People who are on the fence about ‘am I sympathetic to Trump or not?’ will come off the fence if Mueller is fired, and it will be a catalyzing event.”

The team also previews Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Illinois’s 3rd Congressional District, in which centrist incumbent Daniel Lipinski is being challenged from the left by political newcomer Marie Newman.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button 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 Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. 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.