House Republicans

The 5 Main Factions Of The House GOP

And how they’re likely to govern for the next two years.

By Alex Samuels

Feb. 1, 2023, at 6:00 AM

In the first few years after former President Donald Trump assumed office, he essentially became a one-man litmus test for the Republican Party. Conservatives’ bona fides hinged less on their voting records, and more on their fealty to him.  

Then something weird happened. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who worked hard over the years to establish his loyalty to Trump, was suddenly being called a “moderate” as he suffered through more than a dozen unsuccessful votes for House speaker. The defectors who initially refused to vote for him were now part of the “hardline” or “extremist” faction of the party — depending on which news article you read. That group also included Trump boosters who nevertheless said when it came to the speaker vote, the former president should be taking cues from them. 

So what does it actually mean to be a “moderate” or “conservative” U.S. House member in the Republican Party of 2023? Don’t look for big policy divides to explain the difference — members are largely unified around an agenda of cutting certain spending programs, limiting abortion and keeping a lid on taxes. That’s not a new phenomenon: Four years ago, when my former colleague Perry Bacon Jr. analyzed what he believed were the five wings of the Republican Party, the categorizations revolved around Trump because, well, Trump defined the party.

The goalposts for what makes a “moderate” versus “conservative” lawmaker are always shifting. But as Republicans settle back into control of the House of Representatives, I set out to update Perry’s analysis — and concluded that while Trump still holds outsized influence over the party, he’s no longer its central pivot point.

Instead, I’d argue that a number of important fissures define the current House congressional GOP — and the embrace of Trump and Trumpism is just one of them. Voting records, ties to the establishment and caucus membership, for instance, all played a role in how I measured Republican House members against one another, drawing on data as well as expert opinion.

I’ll be honest and say that these categories may not be perfect and that there’s a potential for change in just a few years (Perry’s article was only written in 2019!) as loyalties switch and new issues come to the fore. And, as I’ll explain in more detail below, some members have their feet in multiple camps — or at least a pinky toe. Still, I’d put congressional Republicans in five main camps. I’ve ordered from most moderate to most conservative — or extreme:

Moderate establishment

• These Republicans side with the broader GOP on most issues but are the members most likely to find common ground with Democrats. They’ve been known to attack leadership or their colleagues who are further to the right — or at least disagree with them. They’re often members of bipartisan groups like the Problem Solvers Caucus.
• Prominent members: Reps. David Joyce of Ohio, Young Kim of California, Nancy Mace of South Carolina. 

Don’t expect members of this shrinking, often quiet group to rise into notable positions of party leadership anytime soon. “It seems like they’re increasingly becoming an incredibly endangered species,” said Julia Azari, a FiveThirtyEight contributor and political science professor at Marquette University.

Case in point: If I were writing this story last year, I probably would have put former Ohio Rep. Anthony Gonzalez or Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger in this camp. But after both publicly assailed the former president and advocated for his impeachment, neither ran for another term.

These members have to toe a fine line to keep their jobs. They likely won’t agree with the mainstream GOP on everything — just look at how Mace spoke about abortion messaging costing Republicans in the 2022 midterms, or how Joyce said that he’s on the fence about kicking certain Democrats off of Republican-led committees — but expect to see them largely in line with Republicans’ anti-Biden messaging, or be outspoken about things important to their base, like preserving “family values” or slowing inflation. In short, the people I’d put in this category are those who are willing to buck party leadership sometimes — but not so much that they’re in imminent danger of losing their seats. And, in general, their voting records tend to be more moderate compared with other Republicans. 

Conservative establishment

• They’re part of the establishment and/or party leadership but still boast conservative records. They’re sometimes willing to speak out against members to their right, but generally try to be peacekeepers. In a nutshell: These Republicans straddle the line between the moderate and pro-Trump wings of the party.
• Prominent members: Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Tom Emmer of Minnesota and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

I would put most Republicans in prominent leadership positions (regardless of whether they’re in the House or Senate) in this group. While they do adhere to some tenets of Trumpism — like admonishing the “fake news” media, at least in Stefanik’s case — they simultaneously need to be seen as having the best interests of the GOP’s ideologically diverse caucus at heart. You likely won’t see these members attacking the former president like more moderate Republicans, or driving a wedge within the caucus like the pro-Trump insurgent wing does. But it’s clear that these members still espouse some type of loyalty to Trump, as they’ve been known to broker deals for him — or on his behalf.

Part of getting to a position of leadership in the first place is moderating your views so that a larger swath of members think you’ll prioritize their interests. In practice, that could mean pushing a fairly traditional Republican agenda, like cutting taxes or entitlements, without wading too much into the culture wars that have animated the furthest right House members. McCarthy is a great example of this. The current House speaker entered Congress as a conservative “Young Gun” but moved toward the middle to help get the position he’s in now, according to Hans Noel, a professor of government at Georgetown University who has researched how Trump shifted the meaning of what it meant to be a conservative. 

“At first, [McCarthy] was the upstart person who was challenging things,” Noel told me. “But now he’s been around for a while, and he’s likely realized that, in order to have a career, you have to moderate your positions a bit.” The shift was cosmetic — his policy positions remained largely the same — but his stature within the party grew. 

You might be wondering, too, why I put Stefanik in this category, given that she has a fairly moderate voting record. That’s largely because, since entering the lower chamber ahead of the 114th Congress, Stefanik has gotten more conservative. According to ideology metrics based on her voting record, Stefanik went from a fairly moderate member of Congress between 2015 and 2021, to a more conservative one from 2021 to 2023. Plus, she’s explicitly embraced Trump as she’s climbed into leadership roles over the past few years — which means she arguably embodies elements of both this wing and the pro-Trump insurgent wings. 

One difficulty I ran into in writing about this group, though, was in pinpointing where its loyalties really lie. Are they loyal to Trump? Or to the GOP as a whole? Politicians often take their cues from leadership in their own party, and if Trump were no longer in the picture, it’s unclear where members of this faction would swing.

Far-right establishment 

• These are the conservatives who likely align with the Freedom Caucus ideologically but make fewer waves. They’re the preferred leaders of the Tea party conservatives and pro-Trump insurgent factions.
• Prominent members: Reps. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina.

Here, you have the members whom far-right members are comfortable with in leadership roles. In fact, I’d go one step further and argue that they’re the glue that holds Freedom Caucus and the conservative establishment together, as this wing won’t broker all that much with Democrats and/or the more moderate GOP House members. 

That dynamic was on full display during the House speaker fight, when Scalise was floated as a possible consensus speaker who could speak to the 20 anti-McCarthy Republicans. On average, these members’ voting records tend to be more conservative compared with Republicans in other top leadership positions. 

These members might not agree with everything the Freedom Caucus proposes, though. For example, Scalise, for his part, has sometimes quietly staked out neutral or mainstream positions when his colleagues have gone the other way. For example, he broke with most other top House leaders when he didn’t get involved in Cheney’s GOP primary. And, perhaps most notably, as Freedom Caucus members continued to promote the false claim that it was fraudulent, McHenry voted to certify the 2020 election’s results.

Watch: https://abcnews.go.com/fivethirtyeight/video/whats-deal-freedom-caucus-fivethirtyeight-96551491

Tea party conservative 

• Here are the Freedom Caucus members who are driven by ideology. They’re often associated with conservative groups like the Club for Growth.
• Prominent members: Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Byron Donalds of Florida, Chip Roy of Texas.

Members of this group are some of the most conservative in the House. In fact, I’d lump a good chunk of the Freedom Caucus into this wing. But what I think differentiates these members from, say, the pro-Trump insurgent (more on them below) is that Tea party conservatives are more clearly motivated by ideology — e.g., supporting less government spending — than by grievance.

Tea party conservatives can veer between fiery House floor speeches, wonky strategizing over procedural quirks and breezy talks with members of the various GOP factions. Their brand of conservatism, at times, might compel them to break form with Republican allies. For example, when Trump said in a tweet that four Democratic members of Congress — all women of color — should “go back” to “where they came from,” Roy denounced his actions. Jordan has had streaks of independence, too, including, in June when he broke from Freedom Caucus members and voted to honor Capitol police for their response to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Members of this group support Trump, too, but their loyalties aren’t tied to a specific leader. And they often strategically show their support for the former president (i.e., vociferously defending him during impeachment hearings), since they arguably also want to increase their power in the House. Yes, members of this group can be obstructionists at times, but their politics are often guided by a strong adherence to their ideas — regardless of whether it is politically expedient or in line with Trump’s wishes. 

Pro-Trump insurgent

• These are the rabble-rousers. They’re led by Trump but largely avoid criticizing him publicly, even if they don’t fully embrace his views. Most of them voted against certifying President Biden’s 2020 electoral victory. Their beliefs are malleable, and more motivated by grievance more than ideology. 
• Prominent members: Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. 

This might not be the biggest wing, but it’s definitely the loudest — and wields a lot of power given the GOP’s narrow House majority. In fact, it’s the members in this camp who made it so difficult for McCarthy to attain the speakership in the first place. 

That’s in part because the politicians in this bloc are primarily motivated by grievance and, as such, are not afraid to take on the establishment even if it means being seen as unserious lawmakers by the rest of the caucus and GOP voters. Moreover, since this wing is defined by a fealty to Trump, these members are the most likely to defend anything the former president says or does. Of course, during the vote for House speaker, many in this camp — specifically Gaetz and Boebert — initially refused to vote for McCarthy, even though he was Trump’s chosen candidate. But many of these members had personal quibbles with McCarthy that led to them not wanting him to be speaker. And those intraparty arguments, I’d argue, stand separate from members’ support for Trump. Plus, reporting suggests that Trump helped encourage at least some defectors to come around to voting for McCarthy— or at least voting “present.” 

This group’s loyalty to the former president was arguably displayed most prominently during the Jan. 6 investigations. Its members not only diminished the events of that day but have been steadfast in promoting the debunked narrative that the 2020 election was stolen from the former president. 

But this bloc is more flexible than it appears. In fact, I’d argue that Greene, at least as of late, is trying to teeter between this category and the far-right establishment (or, at least, I think that’s where she wants to be). This tension was on full display during the House speaker vote, when she publicly chastised ideologically aligned members (like Boebert) for refusing to back McCarthy’s bid.

Azari told me that continued infighting among this group might be a good thing for the larger party. There’s also no incentive for the GOP, she said, to have this insurgent bloc grow in size. “It’s not to Republicans’ benefit for them to be at the forefront of the party,” she said. “They are really not super popular figures with the broader population.”

The speaker fight was just the beginning. I’d expect the fissures between these groups to become more noticeable as long as Republicans hold onto a narrow majority in the House. Up next, we’re likely to see debates over things like whether Democrats should be allowed to have committee seats, whether McCarthy should negotiate with Biden and Democrats over raising the debt ceiling and much more. 

But don’t get too cozy with these (albeit imperfect) categorizations. “Over time, conservatives have become more conservative on a number of more nativist, social and racial issues. And they’ve become slightly more moderate on at least some economic issues,” Noel said. “But there could be lots of new issues that come in, and those could become the cleavages that start to shake things up again.”

Alex Samuels: The brutal body cam footage showing 29-year-old Tyre Nichols being beaten to death by Memphis, Tennessee, police officers was released late Friday. The videos prompted outrage from all corners of D.C. since its release. But whether it will spark action is another question.

The video has revived some bipartisan calls for police reform legislation.The chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus also said that he and his group requested to meet with President Biden this week to quote “push for negotiations on much-needed national reforms to our justice system – specifically, the actions and conduct of our law enforcement.”

But the negotiations aren’t necessarily starting from a hopeful place. After George Floyd’s murder in 2020, both Democrats and Republicans drafted police reform bills. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act passed the House, but stalled out in the Senate in September 2021 after months of bipartisan negotiations. Essentially, the two sides couldn’t get past concerns about union involvement or qualified immunity — that’s the policy that often protects police officers from being held personally liable for their actions. And those sticking points haven’t necessarily been resolved.

And while there’s not a lot of recent polling gauging American’s views on policing, a spring 2022 study from the Gallup Center on Black Voices found overwhelming support for some level of change to how police officers do their jobs among Americans of multiple races and ethnicities.

But even if the public wants to see policing change, it’s not clear that lawmakers are on the same page. Let’s not forget, Republicans now control the U.S. House and reform legislation is likely not high on their to-do list. In fact, over the weekend, Republican representative Jim Jordan said the following:

Rep. Jim Jordan: I don’t know if there’s anything you can do to stop the kind of evil we saw in that video.

Samuels: In the meantime, reporting suggests that Sen. Cory Booker will re-introduce a version of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act as soon as this week — and negotiations should begin in earnest from there. So we’ll be keeping an eye on the police reform efforts and whether Congress makes any headway on this go-around.

Although much of our elections-related attention is already trained on 2024, there are consequential elections happening this very calendar year. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the gubernatorial, legislative, mayoral and judicial races to watch in 2023. They also look at how the Democratic Party’s effort to rearrange its presidential primary calendar is going, and ask whether a survey of Republican National Committee members was a good or bad use of polling.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

2024 Democratic Primary

If South Carolina Voted First In The Democratic Presidential Primary, Would Black Democrats Have A Stronger Voice?

By Alex Samuels

Graphics by Elena Mejía

Jan. 30, 2023, at 6:00 AM

Despite objections from leaders and state party officials in Georgia and New Hampshire, a Democratic National Committee panel voted on Wednesday to move forward with President Biden’s plan to drastically revamp the party’s 2024 presidential primary process. Biden wants to remove Iowa’s caucus as the leadoff in the nominating calendar — a position it has held since 1972 — and give the first-in-the-nation honor to South Carolina instead, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on the same day, then Georgia and finally Michigan.

The reason for the changes seem straightforward — and practical: Biden and other Democrats say they want a calendar that accurately reflects the party’s diverse slate of voters. Iowa is a smallish state whose demographic makeup is far less analogous to the larger Democratic Party than South Carolina, which is more racially diverse. (In 2020, Black voters made up a whopping 60 percent of the Democratic electorate.) Throwing the primary calendar into disarray, Biden wrote in a letter to the DNC committee that it was “unacceptable” that Black voters, who have been the backbone of the Democratic electorate for decades, “have been pushed to the back of the early primary process” and that it was “time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the process.”

But does earlier necessarily mean louder? And would Biden’s move really give all Black voters more of a voice — or is it more of a reward for the state that saved his bacon in 2020? At least in the last few contested cycles, South Carolina was arguably the decisive state. So moving it first could streamline the nomination process. But there’s another scenario that’s equally as likely: that South Carolina’s role changes from picking presidential candidates to winnowing large fields. And while the reshuffling would allow more diverse states to weigh in first, it wouldn’t necessarily give Black voters more power.

That’s, in part, because there’s a difference between removing overwhelmingly white states from the front of the queue and giving Black voters more power. And moving just one state cannot change the whole process. You’d have to diversify the order significantly for both of those things to be true — and that’s proving easier said than done. Already, two of the affected states, New Hampshire and Georgia, which would hold their primaries second and fourth, respectively, under Biden’s proposed lineup — are in defiance, though national Democrats are giving both states until June to comply with the party’s goal of a new early-state order. Iowa Democrats, for their part, aren’t thrilled by the news, either, and are reportedly debating bucking national Democrats’ wishes.

In putting this proposal forth, Biden offered an implicit rebuke of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two overwhelmingly white states that rejected him in 2020. But the odd thing about Biden’s proposal is that South Carolina — because of its geographic and demographic diversity — already has a lot of power. Typically, Iowa and New Hampshire’s role has been to narrow the candidate field. That’s an important function and one that officials from both states are vociferously trying to cling to. (New Hampshire is reportedly determined to maintain its first-in-the-nation primary status, which they say is solidified under state law.) But, over time, South Carolina has served an arguably more worthy function: rebuffing or embracing the earlier decisions made by the overwhelmingly white — and more liberal — Democrats in New England and the Midwest. Since 1992, the winner of the South Carolina Democratic primary has gone on to win the nomination — with one exception. In 2004, South Carolina native John Edwards won the state’s primary, but didn’t get the presidential nod.¹ So, at least in recent years, if a Democratic candidate couldn’t appeal to South Carolina’s Democratic voters, he or she was unlikely to win the nomination or the presidency.

Watch: https://abcnews.go.com/fivethirtyeight/video/south-carolina-voted-democratic-primary-96780559

“The road to heaven and the White House runs through South Carolina,” said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic strategist based out of South Carolina. “I don’t care how red or blue any district is, and I don’t care how good of a candidate someone may be in any other scenario: No one can be the Democratic nominee for president without having strong support among Black voters.”

So how would putting South Carolina first change things? Putting the state in the position to winnow could have a big impact on which candidates are considered viable in the first place. Given that the state’s Democratic electorate skews older and more moderate, it’s possible that a certain type of candidate would stand to benefit most from the switch-up: one more like Biden himself. 

Would Black candidates benefit, though? Maybe not, because there’s both “a supply and demand issue,” said Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University. “I don’t assume that moving South Carolina first immediately privileges candidates of color — or candidates who bring other types of diversity,” she said, noting that it’s unlikely that a change to the order would have helped the Black candidates in the Democratic primary in 2020. “[Kamala] Harris dropped out of the race before we even got to the primaries, as did [Cory] Booker, so there were other factors that weeded them out beyond the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.”

It’s also not clear that moving South Carolina to the front of the queue would disenfranchise candidates without significant Black support, either, said Jennifer Chudy, a professor of political science at Wellesley College. That’s because there’s evidence that the party establishment favors certain presidential candidates, and, because of that, Chudy said she could envision a scenario in which the results of South Carolina’s primary are dismissed if they don’t line up with what the larger party wants. “I can see a narrative being created that dismisses winners and losers out of that system and does so on the basis of the state’s heavily Black vote,” she said.

All that’s to say that going first could lead to mixed results — both for South Carolina and Black voters. South Carolina could get more attention and advertising dollars and its local issues are likely to become national ones — but that doesn’t automatically translate into a more decisive role.

“Maybe, in a best-case scenario, candidates invest a lot of time in South Carolina and Black voters there whereas they used to go to corn fairs in Iowa,” Chudy said. “But even if there is some real effort in the ground game there, it doesn’t necessarily matter because there are many primaries that follow almost immediately after.” So even if there is a definitive result in South Carolina, she said, it’s not clear that it would carry to the states that follow.

There’s an argument, too, that choosing the nominee after the field has narrowed is actually a more powerful position. “There’s power and leverage in being the first place that candidates have to pass through,” Gillespie said. “But there’s also a case to be made for Black voters to want to hold their cards close to their chest until South Carolina to see whether certain candidates are viable.” In 2008, for example, Gillespie said that former President Barack Obama’s first-place win in Iowa was an important signal to South Carolinians that he could win non-Black votes, too. “And so you can see an argument, perhaps, for maintaining the status quo, especially when the leading candidates are non-white.”

Watch: https://abcnews.go.com/fivethirtyeight/video/californias-senate-primary-doozy-fivethirtyeight-politics-podcast-96493536

But the aspects of Biden’s plan that seem likeliest to empower Black voters actually have less to do with South Carolina and more to do with what happens to Michigan and Georgia since they also have large Black populations. And, at least right now, it’s unlikely that Georgia, which has the highest Black population share of the newly-proposed early states, plays ball given that the Republican secretary of state is steadfast on holding both the Republican and Democratic primary on the same day. (Republican officials in the state claim that holding two separate primaries would put an unnecessary strain on counties and poll workers.) 

So while it’s more clear how the state itself would benefit from going first, it’s far from obvious that the changes Biden is proposing would give the voters there — particularly Black ones — more power over the process. We also can’t say for certain that Black candidates would have a better chance of winning the nomination as a result. And even if Biden’s proposed order is used in 2024, the vote could lead to a convoluted scramble over what happens in 2028, and beyond. That’s primarily because the calendar approved in the coming months may not necessarily hold beyond for long. According to Politico, DNC members have privately noted that the review process is already in place to reconsider the 2028 lineup.

Ultimately, the impact of Biden’s proposal for Black voters only depends in part on what happens with South Carolina — the real question is whether additional diverse states get added to the initial round. If that doesn’t happen, then Biden is rewarding a subset of Black voters who support candidates like him, and it’s not even clear how much of a reward that will be.

Watch: https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/buy-gop-investigations-effectively-hurt-bidens-chances-2024-96448663

House Democrats

What Will New Leadership In Congress Mean For Democrats?

By Alex Samuels

Jan. 11, 2023, at 10:24 AM

House Democrats officially elected New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries to be their leader this past weekend, coalescing around a fresher face as the new Republican majority took control. The new top three leaders will consist of Jeffries, Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, who will serve as the new minority whip, and California Rep. Pete Aguilar, who will chair the Democratic caucus.

While all of these changes are noteworthy, Jeffries, in particular, makes history as the first Black politician to lead any major party in Congress. At 52, he also marks a stark generational shift for House Democratic leadership following two decades under Nancy Pelosi, who is leaving the position at 82 years old. 

This switch-up is a big deal. For the first time ever, the top tier of a major party’s House congressional leadership side is devoid of white men. But changes of the guard, no matter how historic, don’t always lead to big practical changes, and I’m skeptical whether this power shift will shepherd a new direction for the Democratic Party — either in the form of a new focus on the progressive policies that younger voters care about, or the issues that Black voters prioritize. One big difference from the end of Pelosi’s reign, of course, is that Democrats have lost control of the chamber, so Jeffries is coming in with much less power than his predecessor held during the past several years. His primary responsibility will be marshaling unified opposition among an ideologically diverse caucus since there’s not a ton he’ll be able to do legislatively. But, even then, Jeffries still has a choice to make: Will he use his new mantle to advocate for more progressive policies or continue the unspoken tradition of past rising Black political leaders and move more toward the middle?

The evidence I’ve gathered so far suggests that we shouldn’t expect a big pivot for the party under Jeffries. Yes, he has previously advocated for the passage of more racially progressive policies and that’s likely to continue given the Democratic Party’s embrace of these issues. But, overall, his rather traditional political resume (including his start as a lawyer, stint in New York’s state Assembly and now 10 years in Congress) and his sometimes-antagonistic relationship with members on his left flank suggests that his leadership will be more in the mold of Pelosi, whose true politics are a bit of an enigma, but is largely grouped with the party’s establishment wing by Democratic voters. That’s probably not a coincidence. In fact, I’ll go as far as to argue that America’s political structure primarily rewards a certain kind of Black leader: one who is constrained — if not less apt — to push beyond the status quo.

Various studies and research show that Black people who are the “firsts” in leadership roles often get there because of their facility for accommodation or because there’s an understanding that they’ll work under the system they’re in rather than try to transform it. There’s evidence, too, that Black leaders can become more moderate once in positions of power or even “deracialized,” meaning they downplay their racial identity in favor of more race-neutral policies.

That doesn’t mean Jeffries will ignore the issue of race — both because Jeffries has shown he cares about these issues and talking about race is now en vogue on the left. Indeed, given the party’s standing on issues dealing with race and racism, especially following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, Jeffries may find it easier to talk about racial issues more broadly. But as Jeffries ascends into leadership, there is a caveat: Appearing too progressive on race-specific policies is politically risky. According to Christopher Stout, an Oregon State University professor and author of a 2015 book on Black politicians, one of the unspoken institutional constraints of even being considered for a leadership role is that politicians often have to moderate their views — particularly on issues dealing with race — for fear of alienating certain (oftentimes white) voters. Stout added that members of Congress, and particularly those in leadership positions, are oftentimes wary of potential Black leadership so, “at least early on, [Black leaders] have to demonstrate that they’re not different from the other leadership that people are used to.” 

Jeffries has attempted to toe that line throughout the years, too, taking certain progressive stances while simultaneously distancing himself from that side of the party. For instance, he’s served as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and promoted issues like addressing police brutality, but did not sign on to the Green New Deal. And while he’s more liberal than most fellow House members, according to DW-NOMINATE, a political-science metric that uses roll-call votes to measure the ideology of members of Congress, Jeffries has tried to assert his independence from the party’s left wing, saying in 2021, “There will never be a moment where I bend the knee to hard-left democratic socialism.”

It’s also possible that his position could shift as time goes on. As the visualization above shows, the Black leaders in the last Congress, at least according to their legislative records in the last session, were more politically moderate and closely linked to the establishment, and it’s likely that Jeffries will move in their direction.² Moderating his politics would arguably make his job easier because he’d be able to reach more members of his caucus.

And according to Katherine Tate, a political science professor at Brown University, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’d have to cut back on representing Black voters, whose interests are nearly identical to that of the party’s, in part, given their “captured” status. And, to be clear, Jeffries’s legislative record shows that his priorities have been on issues important to Black voters in particular, such as voting rights and addressing police brutality. So it’s possible that he continues working in that same vein while in leadership. It’s also possible that unlike just ten or fifteen years ago, when some scholars contend that former President Barack Obama used universal rhetoric to advance his agenda to keep from alienating racially conservative white voters, Jeffries might actually have an easier time discussing issues of race because mainstream Democratic messaging is more in-line with the priorities of Black voters. 

Chryl Laird, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland College Park who has contributed to FiveThirtyEight, predicted that we may see Jeffries tackle issues related to race. “It may be less than he did in the past, but I don’t think there will be a complete disregard for issues dealing with race because doing that doesn’t necessarily help the Democratic Party,” she said.

The trouble is that there’s a Catch-22 in pushing for policies that have Black support. Despite gains in participation and representation, Black Americans continue to fare worse than whites in converting policy preferences into law. One 2015 study found that federal policies with no white support had only about a 10 percent chance of getting enacted versus one with universal white support which had around a whopping 60 percent chance of adoption. On the flip side, a proposal with no Black support had a roughly 40 percent chance of becoming law, while one with unanimous Black approval had only around a 30 percent chance of enactment. In other words, as more Black people begin to support a policy, the chance of that policy being achieved actually declines.

So Jeffries has his work cut out for him. A cynic (like myself) might even say that this change of the guard is mostly cosmetic. While I’m willing to be proven wrong, radical change is hard for any “first” to deliver, especially considering the fact that the older group of former leaders is still in Congress and very much dominates the operational fabric of the Democratic Party. That said, I’ll wait to see what Jeffries actually does before pooh-poohing his new role. What constitutes “progress” means different things to many people. At the very least, I’d expect him to continue his work on issues important to Black communities. That might not be the radical change some Democrats are looking for. But it still matters.

Twitter

How Americans Really Feel About Elon Musk

Hint: His unscientific polls don’t tell us much.

By Alex Samuels

Dec. 23, 2022, at 6:00 AM

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.

Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, might not have any credibility as a pollster in FiveThirtyEight’s rating system, but he’s a pollster nonetheless. Kinda.

Soon after he took control of Twitter in October, the once-richest person in the world implemented a new management style that allowed users to make key decisions via polls. Should former President Donald Trump be allowed to rejoin the platform after supposedly being permanently banned last year? A slim majority of users said yes, so — “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” as Musk wrote — he was back. Should Musk bring back Vine, the short-form video app which shut down in 2016? Sure! Maybe! The people have spoken!

The stakes of the polls escalated quickly. On Sunday, Musk put his own job security on the line, vowing to abide by the results of his own, unscientific poll. “Should I step down as head of Twitter?” he asked users. By Monday, he had an answer: By a 15-point margin — 57.5 percent to 42.5 percent — respondents said he should resign from his post atop the social media giant. Musk said on Tuesday he plans to honor the poll’s results as soon as he finds “someone foolish enough” to succeed him. It’s unclear when that will happen, or how much power he will actually be relinquishing.

It’s too bad for Musk that he didn’t take a more scientific approach, though, because according to a number of professionally conducted polls, Americans still have a somewhat favorable opinion of him — although they do hold negative views of social media companies generally. 

Let’s kick things off with Musk’s own question of whether he should quit. Though a majority of respondents in his own survey said “yes,” an overnight poll conducted by HarrisX in mid-December found that a whopping 61 percent of U.S. Twitter users and 53 percent of U.S. adults actually want Musk to stay at the helm. Meanwhile, another December poll, this one from Quinnipiac University, found that Americans were almost evenly split on their feelings toward how Musk runs the social media giant: 37 percent said they approved of the way he’s operating Twitter, 37 percent disapproved and 25 percent offered no opinion. 

And poll after poll shows that Musk isn’t overwhelmingly unpopular with the American public, either. According to that same Quinnipiac survey, 36 percent of Americans said they viewed Musk positively versus 33 percent who viewed him negatively. (Another 26 percent said they hadn’t heard enough about him to make an opinion either way.) A YouGov/The Economist poll, fielded in November, found that 41 percent of U.S. adults had a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of Musk compared with 37 percent who viewed him “somewhat” or “very” unfavorably. These findings come despite evidence showing that, generally, Americans hold negative opinions about social media companies. Quinnipiac, for example, found that 70 percent think that social media giants like Twitter and Facebook “do more harm than good,” while 18 percent disagreed. Another spring 2022 survey from the Pew Research Center, which polled citizens in 19 advanced economies about their views on social media, technology and their influence on society, found that 79 percent of U.S. respondents believed that access to social media and the internet has made people more divided in their political opinions.

The fact that Musk isn’t overwhelmingly disliked might come as a surprise to people who have been closely following Twitter’s fate. In a matter of months, he gutted the company’s staff, drove away major advertisers and suspended (then unsuspended) the accounts of several prominent journalists — among many other things. And it’s worth underscoring that not everyone is over the moon with Twitter’s newest CEO. Per Quinnipiac, among U.S. adults, Republicans (63 percent) and white men (51 percent) were the most likely to view Musk favorably. Democrats (9 percent), Black respondents (17 percent) and women (25 percent) were the demographic groups least likely to harbor positive opinions toward Musk. 

And, to be sure, it does look like Musk’s overall favorability numbers have ticked down since purchasing Twitter. Back in April, YouGov found that closer to half of U.S. adults (49 percent) had a “very” or “somewhat” favorable opinion of Musk compared with 31 percent who viewed him “somewhat” or “very” unfavorably.

Unfortunately, most polls that ask respondents their opinions toward Musk don’t ask why people feel the way they do. Is his wealth impacting people’s views of him? Is his high name ID giving him an added advantage? Did his suspension of journalists (which a majority of respondents in a December CivicScience poll viewed negatively) depress his favorability ratings? Topline survey findings don’t give us a lot of clues. What we do know, however, is that people view Musk as an influential and successful businessman — and maybe someone who’s a bit quirky, too. And that might be why, despite his many flubs at Twitter, Americans don’t have overwhelmingly negative views of him.

For example, YouGov’s April survey asked respondents how influential they felt Musk was in the tech world and the overwhelming majority of respondents (80 percent) said he was “very” or “somewhat” influential. Another question on the same polls asked the same sample to select terms that they felt described Musk. The winners were: rich (60 percent), an entrepreneur (49 percent), an innovator (39 percent) and eccentric (37 percent). Meanwhile, a December YouGov survey found that 58 percent of U.S. adults believe that Musk is a “successful business person” versus 22 percent who said he wasn’t. 

So have Twitter users actually seen the last of Musk, then? It doesn’t seem like he’s planning to bow out entirely — or even partially. After announcing that he would resign as CEO once he could find a sufficiently foolish successor, he said that his next steps would be to “just run the software & servers teams.” So the main change to Twitter — at least in the short-term — might be the way Musk conducts his polls (he seemed to agree with a user’s comment which suggested that, from now on, only Twitter blue subscribers should be allowed to vote in “policy related” polls). Or maybe Musk actually will step back and open the door for someone else — hello, Snoop Dogg and Dionne Warwick — to take over at Twitter in 2023. Your guess is as good as mine.

Other polling bites

• Would you consider yourself a poor gift wrapper? If so, your humility might put you in the minority, according to new December polling data from YouGov. Per their survey, 64 percent of U.S. adults said they considered themselves to be either “very” or “somewhat” good at gift wrapping. Nineteen percent of respondents said they were somewhat bad at gift-wrapping, while another 11 percent said they were very bad at it. You’re also in the minority, per YouGov, if you’ve never regifted a present to someone else. Only about one-third of adult respondents (31 percent) claimed that they’ve never done so, but most admitted to doing it: 29 percent said they’ve regifted once or twice, 18 percent said they’ve regifted “several times” and 13 percent of respondents have regifted “many times.”
• The end of the calendar year has also led certain national pollsters — Marist, specifically — to find out which word or phrase U.S. adults find most irritating. This year’s winner/loser? “Woke.” According to their survey, about one-third of Americans (35 percent) agree that “woke” is the most annoying word used in conversation. Coming in second was the word “whatever” (22 percent), followed by “it is what it is” (15 percent). But while attacking “woke” and “wokeism” was initially the crusade-du-jour by the GOP, it appears that a number of survey respondents — regardless of party ID — found the term annoying. In fact, 31 percent of Democrats, 39 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of independent voters listed “woke” as the most bothersome word used in conversation. For context, 2021’s winners, according to Marist, were “Trump” and “coronavirus.”
• With the 2022 midterm elections behind us, all eyes are now on the 2024 presidential race. And new polling data from Morning Consult seemingly suggests that voters might be looking at another head-to-head matchup between Trump and President Biden (assuming the latter runs for reelection, which looks increasingly likely). On the Republican side, Morning Consult’s tracking among potential GOP primary voters³ gives Trump a wide lead (48 percent) over potential competitors like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, (33 percent) former Vice President Mike Pence (8 percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (3 percent) and others. Pitted directly against DeSantis, however, Trump has a harder time breaking through. When potential GOP primary voters were asked who they’d vote for in a primary election or caucus if it were held in their state today, 45 percent of respondents said DeSantis while 44 percent said Trump. Eleven percent said they didn’t know or had no opinion. 
• According to newly released survey data from Gallup, Americans’ assessment of their own mental health is at an all-time low. Currently, just about 3-in-10 U.S. adults (31 percent) described their mental or emotional well-being as “excellent” — the lowest rating Gallup has recorded since it began asking respondents this question in 2001. The author notes, however, that part of the downward trend might be attributed to the COVID-19: Before then, Americans’ “excellent” ratings ranged in the 40s. Those numbers didn’t begin to tick down until late 2020; that year, the percentage of adults who felt that their mental health was in “excellent” condition dropped to the 30s for the first time at 34 percent. The demographic groups least likely to say that their mental health and emotional well-being were “excellent” were people between the ages of 18 and 34 (20 percent), people who made less than $40,000 annually (21 percent) and women (28 percent). 
• In a calendar year that featured a major election and the rippling effects of a global pandemic, which headlines stuck out most to Americans? According to Morning Consult, this year’s most salient news events, according to registered voters, were the Uvalde shooting (73 percent), the fall of Roe v. Wade (71 percent), Queen Elizabeth II’s death (71 percent) and Hurricane Ian (70 percent). But there was a partisan gap in news salience, too. While Democrats (78 percent) and independent voters (72 percent) both listed the Uvalde shooting — which left 21 people dead — as the top news event that they saw, heard or read “a lot” about, Republicans were more likely to put Hurricane Ian (70 percent) in the No. 1 slot. Among registered GOP voters, the Texas shooting ranked fourth (69 percent) after the hurricane, the fall of Roe (70 percent) and the queen’s death (70 percent). 

Biden approval 

According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker,⁴ 43 percent of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing as president, while 51.6 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -8.6 points). At this time last week, 43.0 percent approved and 51.3 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -8.3 points). One month ago, Biden had an approval rating of 41.5 percent and a disapproval rating of 53.5 percent, for a net approval rating of -12.0 points.

2022 Midterms

These 5 Voters Of Color Don’t Want Biden vs. Trump In 2024

By Alex Samuels

Dec. 21, 2022, at 6:00 AM

Welcome to Voices Of Color, a column that explores what’s on the minds of voters of color in this year’s midterm elections. Too often, media coverage focuses on the political preferences of white people with euphemisms like “suburban women” or “middle class.” But in this column, we want to know what makes voters of color tick. 

We want to explore their views on politics, policy, the future of our democracy, our two-party system and everything in between. We hope that this column offers fresh perspectives from the minds of those whose political opinions are often overlooked or assumed. Because the midterm elections are officially behind us, this will be the last entry in the Voices of Color series for the foreseeable future. We hope you enjoyed reading!

Lisa Ayala-Davis says she knew that the polls predicting a red wave this year were mistaken.

“I feel like I was the lone voice saying, ‘Democrats are not going to do as badly as the pundits are saying,’” Ayala-Davis, a 48-year-old Hispanic Democrat living in rural Georgia, told me. In fact, she was more shocked by Democrats’ perceived underperformance in certain states. “I was really surprised that [Republican] J.D. Vance won the U.S. Senate race in Ohio. I really thought [Democrat] Tim Ryan was going to pull it off.”

Ayala-Davis’s high hopes for the Democrats aside, it was a good year for her party. Although Republicans narrowly took control of the House of Representatives, Democrats skirted the sizable losses that the president’s party tends to suffer in midterm races. Not only that, Democrats kept their Senate majority, even flipping an additional Senate seat.

So with the 2022 cycle officially behind us, I wanted to close my Voices of Color column by checking in with five voters about how they’re processing the results — both in their home states and nationally. This year’s midterms left some voters, especially those who identified as Republicans, especially shocked. Mickey N., who asked us not to use his full name due to privacy concerns, compared Republican defeat to a shopworn metaphor from Charlie Brown: Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown’s foot just as he begins his kick, with Republicans, this time, left flat on their backs.

“Mitch McConnell had no plans, while Florida Sen. Rick Scott had a ‘comprehensive’ plan to tax half of America,” he said. “They just didn’t have a coherent message.”

I also wanted to know how these voters of color are thinking ahead to the 2024 presidential election. Like a lot of the country, my interviewees weren’t jazzed about a potential rematch between President Biden and former President Donald Trump. But they still had draft boards of other candidates they’d like to see running for commander-in-chief. (I won’t spoil their answers, though. More on that lower down.)

The interviews below have been edited and condensed for clarity. 

Alex Samuels: What was the biggest factor motivating you to vote this year? 

Mickey N. (26, Ohio, Hispanic, Republican): I think the two main driving factors behind my vote this year were the Jan. 6 insurrection and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Republican Party’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis also made my life more difficult, as someone in the medical field. We had people who would come in and say they were being ‘forced’ to get the vaccine or falsely claim that there was a microchip in the vaccine. 

Liv Marshall (22, Oregon, Asian, independent): There were some personal things going on that factored into me casting a ballot this year. For one, I have family affiliated with Oregon’s state government, and they were very worried about the three-way governor’s race and how the splitting of the vote could potentially shake up the outcome. That was definitely a strong factor. Secondly, I was more motivated to vote — and generally more politically engaged — following the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe. 

Kyla Ross (33, Massachusetts, Black, Democrat): The overturning of Roe. That was very upsetting, especially because I’ve seen the positive effects of abortion access — particularly in Detroit, which is where I grew up. Even when I was like a teenager or in middle school, I know some people who had to get abortions. And I saw for myself that them making that decision and having access to abortions benefitted their lives greatly. I was also turned off by all of the extremist and hateful rhetoric coming from the Republican side and feel as though voting and donating are my way of mitigating those types of things.

Aditya Eachempati (61, Missouri, Asian, Republican): Certain policies or political factors may have influenced who I cast a ballot for, but not whether I actually vote. 

Lisa Ayala-Davis (48, Georgia, Hispanic, Democrat): I’m a regular voter. I mean, I’ve practically voted in every election I’ve been eligible for. The only year I didn’t vote was in 2000, but I was married to a soldier and living in Germany at the time, and I didn’t know about the process of requesting an absentee ballot. All of that is my long-winded way of saying that it doesn’t take a lot of motivation for me to go vote. 

AS: Which election result — or trend — surprised you the most?

Mickey N.: I’m amazed at how well Republicans performed in California and New York. The Lauren Boebert race in Colorado was interesting to watch, too. And, being a health care provider, I was also floored that some political prognosticators were ‘shocked’ to see that abortion access was a big issue to voters. I think polling vastly undershot that.

Marshall: Historically, I know the out-party is usually more successful in the first midterm election after a new party takes over the presidency. That said, I was definitely surprised that Republicans didn’t do better. I feel like I heard a lot of chatter about more fringe Republican candidates who ended up not doing as well as many people thought they would. 

Ross: As someone from Detroit, I knew that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was going to win. I think she’s a great governor and I understood why she handled the COVID-19 pandemic the way she did. I was surprised, though, that Democrats ended up flipping the state legislature, too. I wasn’t too shocked about much else. I knew that Democrats would keep the U.S. Senate, and I think certain political pundits underestimated the intelligence of voters in this country.

Eachempati: In Missouri? Nothing. But I didn’t think Whitmer would win as easily as she did. I’m also a bit surprised that Republicans picked up a few congressional seats in New York.

AS: How would you assess both Republican and Democratic performance this election cycle? Did one party exceed or fall short of your expectations? 

Mickey N.: With everyone talking about a ‘red wave,’ I was pretty shocked at how badly Republicans whiffed it this year. Regarding Democrats, I’d say that the quality of their candidates exceeded my expectations. I was happy to see a lot more pragmatic Democrats running. 

Marshall: Going off of my previous answer, I definitely think that Democrats performed better than I expected — while Republicans performed more poorly. Considering that the economy and inflation were consistently listed as top concerns for voters headed in the midterm elections, I’m really surprised that Democrats didn’t face more backlash over things like gas prices or high inflation rates.

Ross: I feel like Democrats could have had a stronger ground game in certain states. I also think that, sometimes, Democrats aren’t as vocal about their accomplishments and, as a result, their good deeds get muddled by all of the mess that’s constantly being spewed by the Republican Party. That’s one thing I appreciate about Republicans: Their messaging has been on point. For example, Trump isn’t even in office anymore and yet, somehow, I still know what he said on his social media platform yesterday. For better or worse, the party is very loud and vocal when it comes to telling voters their plans, and Democrats need to do a better job of taking them seriously.  

Eachempati: Even though Republicans fell short of my expectations, some reporting suggests that they actually did quite well in U.S. House races and won the national popular vote by 3 points. Democrats performed about as I expected they would, but I think they won more races than they should have, in part, because Republicans ran weak candidates against them. 

AS: Did you only vote for your party’s candidates, or did you cross party lines for any candidates? If you did vote for any opposite-party candidates, can you elaborate on why?

Mickey N.: I voted a straight blue ticket this November. At the local level, there was a Republican state representative running whom I voted against because she didn’t believe in any exceptions for abortion. And I voted against Vance because of his stances on Ukraine. That said, if Vance’s beliefs were closer to that of outgoing Sen. Rob Portman, I would’ve probably voted for a Republican in that race.

But, in all honesty, I don’t think I can see myself voting for Republicans until they publicly condemn the Jan. 6 insurrection. In a way, I’m sort of voting for Democrats as a punishment to Republicans until they get back to their old values and cut out the more cancerous sects of the party. I did vote in the GOP primary this year, but I only supported moderate candidates. 

Marshall: I identify as an independent. I grew up in New Hampshire and feel like a lot of people there identify as independent, too, but my views definitely lean Democratic. That said, I did technically cross party lines and vote a straight blue ticket this year, but I still feel like the independent label encompasses my beliefs better. 

Ross: I did not. I voted for Democrats up and down the ballot. 

Eachempati: I crossed party lines in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race and voted for [Democrat] Trudy Busch Valentine over [Republican] Eric Schmitt mainly because I don’t like Schmitt. I didn’t like that he was primarily funded by the finance industry and he didn’t seem to have a clear plan for what he wanted to do if elected. It just seemed like he wanted to file a bunch of lawsuits. To be clear, I didn’t think Valentine was a particularly strong candidate, either, but at least she wasn’t Schmitt. I also voted for the Democrats running for attorney general and secretary of state but supported Republicans in every other race here. 

Ayala-Davis: The one Republican that I voted for is a personal friend who ran unopposed for county commissioner. But besides that, I did not cross party lines. 

AS: Are you more or less optimistic about the country’s future following the 2022 midterm elections?

Mickey N.: I’m tentatively optimistic, but generally pessimistic.

Marshall: I’m very, very cautiously optimistic because a lot of the more radical, or fringe, Republican candidates were not successful in their general election races. That makes me hopeful that the cycle of political polarization we’ve seen in the last few years will stop. 

Ayala-Davis: I am more optimistic. Before the election, it was easy to get discouraged because it felt like every single person on TV was saying that there was going to be a ‘red wave’ or that Democrats were going to be embarrassed by the results. But then the election came about and over and over again it was proven that issues like abortion access and preserving democracy were important to voters this cycle. That makes me feel so vindicated and optimistic about our future. 

AS: What are you hoping the federal government can accomplish with a Republican House and Democratic Senate? 

Mickey N.: If they accomplish anything, I’ll be shocked. I have no expectations for them to get anything done. Still, I’d like to see Congress tackle another big infrastructure bill. 

Ross: My reality pants are on, and they’re making me say that nothing meaningful will get done. Democrats might get more federal judges (blah, blah, blah), but as far as passing bills and stuff like that, I’m skeptical. That said, if House Democrats play their cards right and grab five or six Republicans they can negotiate with, then maybe Democrats — and Congress generally — will be able to pass stuff. If so, I hope they’re able to pass more progressive legislation on issues like health care, child care and education. 

Eachempati: I hope that Republicans can come up with solutions to decentralize things like education, energy and health care. But in general, I want Republicans to do what I like Republicans to do: Keep government small, and keep taxes lower. It’s unpopular to want to cut Social Security and Medicare, but I hope Congress will do that, too. Most of my concerns revolve around fiscal stuff because I think issues like abortion access can be dealt with through ballot initiatives at the state level. That was pretty effective in Kansas and Michigan. 

Ayala-Davis: I’m hopeful that lawmakers will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion despite there being so few issues where there’s crossover support. Maybe something with immigration is possible? That’s another issue that I care about a lot. 

AS: Of the two major political parties, which do you think is in a better position to govern headed into next year? Why?

Marshall: I would say that Democrats are in a better position to govern mainly because it seems like there’s a lot of political infighting among Republicans. I understand that there’s still a lot of debate regarding who’s going to be the next speaker of the House, and I think issues and divisions like that are definitely more prevalent in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

Ross: Neither. I think both parties are scattered across the cosmos. 

Eachempati: I think there will be a gridlock because the Republican House will make it its business to block anything that comes out of Democratic Senate and vice versa. The status quo will continue because everything will be blocked. I wouldn’t say either party is in a better position to govern; it’s going to be a tie, and things will probably stay the same. 

Ayala-Davis: Obviously the Democrats. The fact that they hold the White House and Senate, I think, gives them a leg up. Republicans have a slightly bigger hurdle. 

AS: How are you feeling about the 2024 presidential contest? Why? 

Marshall: It feels like there’s no clear path for either party to take at this point, and I can’t believe we’re already talking about this. I feel like I’m caught between a rock and a hard place because I can’t fathom Biden running again because of his age — but I also don’t know who else would run on the Democratic side. And then, among Republicans, I feel like Trump will be an automatic front-runner because I just don’t see the party rallying around someone else to challenge him. 

Ross: We have too many elections. The 2022 midterms literally just ended, and we already have someone announcing that they’re running for president. For my own sick entertainment, I’d really like to see a race between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. But I don’t think I care to see Biden and Trump going at it again. 

Eachempati: I think DeSantis is easily the strongest Republican presidential candidate — even if he’s not my favorite candidate per se. I don’t think Trump has much of a chance, but I think DeSantis would beat Biden. With all the senators up for reelection in 2024, Republicans have an advantage there, too; and if they stop nominating bad candidates, they should also keep the U.S. House. I’m pretty optimistic about the 2024 election. 

Ayala-Davis: Like most of the country, I really don’t want to see a rematch of Biden versus Trump. That’s going to be so toxic. On the flip side, if DeSantis manages to get the nomination, I don’t think Biden is going to be able to beat him. The visual of an 80-something-year-old up against a 40-something-year-old will be hard to overcome. I think Biden has been a great president and has accomplished so much, so I don’t want to be ageist — but I am a realist. I guess, like every other Democrat, I’m just waiting for the next Barack Obama. I just don’t know who that person is. 

AS: Who would be on your dream presidential ticket in 2024?

Mickey N.: Whitmer for president and Pennsylvania Gov.-elect Josh Shapiro for vice president. But Shapiro is a tentative pick because he just got elected to the governorship. If his track record tanks between now and Election Day, I’d pick someone else to replace him. But I like Whitmer because I think she’s great. She governed under a Republican legislature and managed to help flip both chambers blue. Whitmer and outgoing Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney [for vice president] could be an option, too. I just don’t want to see Trump in 2024 — or for him to be a factor in Republican politics anymore.

Marshall: I want Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to run. He’s a fellow independent, and, as a young person, I agree with a lot of his policies. That said, it’s hard to imagine him running in 2024, given his age. And I’m not sure who I would choose for the vice president slot, but ideally it’d be someone who’s more representative of the demographic blocs Bernie can’t necessarily reach. 

Ross: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or California Rep. Katie Porter for president and Newsom for vice president.

Eachempati: DeSantis is fine, but I’d also be OK with [outgoing] Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan or Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine — basically any strong Republican governor. In general, I have a bias toward governors versus senators because I think governors have strong executive skills that senators often lack. And honestly, I don’t think the vice-presidential pick matters too much.

Ayala-Davis: I think about this stuff a lot because everybody says, ‘Well, if not Biden, who?’ And I know I’m going to sound like a closet television pundit, but the person who I think would be a really good candidate is U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel because he’s got such a good resume and he’s such a fighter. I know nobody’s thinking about him as a viable candidate, but I think whoever goes up against either Trump or DeSantis needs to be a fighter. But what do I know? 

2024 Election

A Very Merry 2024 Republican Presidential Primary Draft

A FiveThirtyEight Chat

Dec. 20, 2022, at 6:00 AM

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

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, senior elections analyst): I don’t want to alarm anyone, but the first nominating contest of the 2024 Republican presidential primary is likely just about a year away, and one candidate — you may have heard of him — has already announced his campaign. 

So it’s no longer way too early for us to hold a fantasy-baseball-style draft of who we think the GOP will nominate! Everyone got their draft boards ready to go?

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, senior elections analyst): Yeah, I just hope I’m not picking third or fourth. Kind of a clear top-two here, don’t you think?

alex (Alex Samuels, politics reporter): Nobody better steal my picks!

santul.nerkar (Santul Nerkar, editor): It’s a two-player draft!

alex: Hahaha

santul.nerkar: But I am very curious to see how things shake out after picks No. 1 and 2.

alex: Best of luck to whoever gets pick No. 3!

nrakich: OK, here are the rules. We are drafting the candidates we think are most likely to win the GOP nomination — regardless of their chances in the general election. As usual, we will do a draft, where the person with the final selection in one round picks first in the next round. Now let me completely randomly choose the order for the first round …

1. Santul
2. Alex
3. Nathaniel
4. Geoffrey

OK, Santul, looks like you have the first pick! And, for the first time in forever, you actually have an interesting choice here!

santul.nerkar: [Cues up NBA draft music in my head]

To make things potentially in the early going here, I’m going to go with someone other than former President Donald Trump, the face of the GOP for the last six-plus years. My pick is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

nrakich: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

santul.nerkar: My reasoning is fairly simple: Unlike in 2016, the last time the GOP primary had more than one viable candidate, it does appear that the GOP rank and file has coalesced around DeSantis as a non-Trump alternative. Poll after poll in the early going has found that, while Republicans aren’t exactly abandoning the former president and Trumpism, they do seem enthused by the idea of a candidate who stands for many of the things Trump does — without being Trump.

alex: I think this is a super smart pick, Santul! But I wonder if DeSantis flops, in part because he’s not really known for his personal appeal in the same way that Trump is?

Hmm … I guess now that I think about it, I’m not sure if that’ll help or hurt him.

geoffrey.skelley: Let’s see what happens when DeSantis and Trump get on the debate stage together, but DeSantis is clearly the main alternative to Trump at this very early point. He’s attracted an unusually high level support in early polls for a governor who has never run nationally before. You don’t often see someone like that hitting 30 percent in national polls this early.

santul.nerkar: Yeah, that’s kind of where I’m at. He already enjoys high favorability ratings among GOP voters, despite never having run a national campaign.

nrakich: So this is obviously a very voguish pick right now, with DeSantis leading several early primary polls, but I personally think Trump is still the more likely nominee. Take a closer look at the polls that show DeSantis ahead: They’re almost all head-to-head polls between him and Trump. But I’m skeptical that the GOP primaries will actually be head-to-head races. Plenty of other candidates have shown interest in running, and it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy: If Trump looks weak enough to beat, that will encourage more candidates to jump into the race, which in turn increases the odds that Trump wins. Because when you look at polls between Trump, DeSantis, and a handful of other Republicans, Trump is usually ahead.

As Geoffrey alluded to, I also don’t think DeSantis is fully vetted yet. I think he’s become a bit of an avatar for folks who want to move beyond Trump, but what if he’s not a good debater, or has skeletons in the closet?

Finally, although I’m like 90 percent sure that DeSantis will run, he’s not actually in the race yet. Trump is. That counts for something.

alex: If only you had the No. 2 pick, Nathaniel!

geoffrey.skelley: Nathaniel, I do think that’s right, in the sense that people don’t think about the actual rules of the GOP primary. Most primaries and caucuses on the Republican side are “winner-take-all” — or at least “winner-take-most” — meaning that all a candidate has to do is finish first in a state in order to win all or most of its delegates. Trump won in 2016 in part because he won pluralities in those races against a crowded field and captured most of the delegates. 

nrakich: Exactly. We could see a repeat of 2016 where a divided field allows Trump to rack up delegates with like 40 percent of the vote in each state.

We know a solid chunk of the Republican electorate is loyal to him. And they don’t have to constitute a majority of the party for him to win.

What’s more, I’m not sure DeSantis’s lead in head-to-head polls will last. I feel like we’re in a particular moment where Republicans are unhappy with Trump because candidates aligned with him did so poorly in the midterms. But there have been past moments where it seemed like the GOP could be poised to abandon Trump — e.g., a lot of Republican politicians criticized him after the Jan. 6 riot — but then they closed ranks around him again. What do you guys think?

alex: I personally don’t think this will last. Trump isn’t really in the public eye right now, and we’re still a ways away from 2024. I think there’s plenty of time for current members of the party who aren’t over the moon about his presidential announcement to warm to him. Plus, as Nathaniel said before, DeSantis could struggle and Trump could become the GOP’s only viable option. Or, DeSantis could sit this one out because Trump already threw his hat in the ring.

geoffrey.skelley: Eh, I think DeSantis running is all but certain. He’s just likely going to wait until the end of Florida’s legislative session in the spring before officially launching his campaign.

alex: I personally disagree, but that’s what chats are for!

santul.nerkar: Man, I’m already feeling buyer’s remorse for my pick!

nrakich: Alex, it sounds like you have a name in mind for pick No. 2, then??

alex: I do, Nathaniel! I’d be a fool if I didn’t pick Trump No. 2! In short, the GOP currently is still largely the party of Trump. Yes, there were a few grumbles from fellow Republicans about his 2024 run, but most prominent leaders in the party have been largely silent over some of his most recent controversies. This all suggests to me that Republican lawmakers continue to feel uneasy challenging the former president because they know they still need his base to win elections.

Moreover, even though our average of Trump’s favorability rating among all Americans is at an all-time low, another poll from Quinnipiac University, which was released in November, found that when offered a choice between Trump, DeSantis or “someone else,” Republican voters were evenly split over who they prefer win the GOP presidential nomination (44 percent preferred DeSantis; 44 percent backed Trump; 11 percent didn’t offer an opinion). And, as we’ve discussed before, there are plenty of examples of Republicans appearing to break with Trump — only to fall back in line later. 

nrakich: Yeah, I think you got good value with Trump at No. 2, Alex (obviously, considering my DeSantis skepticism).

geoffrey.skelley: Trump could still definitely win the nomination. It’s been easy to say “DeSantis this, DeSantis that,” but he’s untested. A lot of Republicans still falsely believe Trump lost illegitimately in 2020, and his favorability among Republicans remains high, although it has gone down a little since the 2022 elections. But there’s no question the opportunity is there for Trump to win a comeback campaign.

nrakich: One thing that Trump has this cycle that he didn’t have in 2016 is a lot of elite support. Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville has endorsed him, along with several House members. There’s been a lot of talk about how many Republican members of Congress haven’t endorsed him yet (probably because they are worried he’s electoral poison), but not as much about all the support that he does have. And elite support can matter.

santul.nerkar: To play devil’s advocate to my own DeSantis pick, it’s also still very early. Around this time eight years ago — during the cycle Trump would eventually run in and win — none other than Jeb! Bush was leading in GOP polls. So while the field appears to be more clearly defined this time around, at this point in the cycle, the fact that DeSantis leads Trump in some early polls isn’t a guarantee of anything.

alex: As I alluded to earlier, I do think Trump’s candidacy will clear the field of all other serious candidates (other than, perhaps, an anti-Trump candidate or two). But it seems pretty clear to me that Republicans are scared to go up against Trump lest his loyal followers turn on them.

Just ask the 10 House Republicans who voted in favor of his impeachment! Only two will be returning to Congress next year.

geoffrey.skelley: It is true, however, that DeSantis gives Republicans who don’t want Trump a better opportunity to coordinate and rally to one candidate. Anti-Trump Republicans faced a coordination problem in 2016, as there were a bunch of GOP alternatives, no one was sure how seriously to take Trump at first, and they couldn’t coalesce around one candidate when it became abundantly clear Trump was the front-runner for the nomination. Once the voting got going, the alternatives eventually became Sen. Ted Cruz or Ohio Gov. John Kasich, which also worked out well for Trump because there were parts of each candidate’s constituency who might’ve backed Trump before the other non-Trump candidate. 

santul.nerkar: Republicans have also either lost ground or underperformed in three consecutive election cycles, and Trump’s favorability seems to be slipping relative to DeSantis’s. So I think voters could view DeSantis as a fresher, more “electable” face than they view Trump.

nrakich: Yeah, there was a Suffolk University/USA Today poll the other day that asked about two hypothetical general elections: In one, President Biden beat Trump 47 percent to 40 percent among all voters, but in the other, DeSantis beat Biden 47 percent to 43 percent. Of course, it’s way too early to put much stock in general-election polls, but polls like that may nevertheless create a narrative.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, DeSantis would be wise to push the electability argument along with his Trump-ish approach on issues. “Look, I just won the swing state of Florida by almost 20 points, I’m polling better than Trump against Biden and I’m pushing the issues you care about, GOP primary voters.” That’s a pretty lethal combination — potentially anyway.

nrakich: I’m just not convinced that Republicans care as much about electability, though. Poll after poll in the 2020 presidential primaries showed that Democrats really prioritized it when picking their nominee, but if recent GOP primaries are any indication, Republicans care more about ideological purity.

geoffrey.skelley: Sure, Nathaniel, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that DeSantis seems to be doing better in polls that have narrower sample populations — his margins versus Trump are superior in surveys of registered voters compared with ones of adults, or among likely voters compared with registered voters. This suggests that more engaged voters, who tend to also be more ideological, are more likely to prefer him. That could be due to both electability (“Trump might lose, let’s find someone else”) and ideology.

alex: I must ask … What is the difference between a DeSantis voter and a Trump voter? I don’t think they’d push vastly different policies if elected, so what’s really differentiating the two besides maybe personality? I also don’t get the vibe that anti-Trump Republicans would suddenly be gung-ho about returning to the party with DeSantis at the helm.

santul.nerkar: It’s interesting you mention that, Alex. I’ll emphasize again that we should take  these early polls with a gigantic helping of salt, but the Suffolk University/USA Today poll Nathaniel mentioned found that DeSantis actually leads Trump among voters who identified as “conservative” or “very conservative.” It’s pretty remarkable that DeSantis has emerged as the most viable potential Trump challenger, not by positioning himself as a never-Trumper, but rather by leaning into a lot of the rhetoric and policy positions that made Trump who he is.

geoffrey.skelley: Alex, that they would attract many of the same voters seems like a feature, not a bug, for DeSantis. As Santul said, he’s a fresh face who can bring much of the same approach but in a more electorally appealing form. I’m not sure it’s so much about electability on its own, but DeSantis can offer a combination of electoral success with policy successes as Florida’s governor that conservatives find appealing.

alex: I guess, since they’re very similar, it’s possible that Republican elites end up unhappy with both candidates.

But if Trump is truly a weakened candidate — so much so that DeSantis decides to challenge him — then I don’t think the Florida governor will be the only Republican taking on the former president.

nrakich: Speaking of other potential candidates … With the third pick of the draft, I’m going to choose Ted Cruz. This is a bit of a bank shot: In those polls of Trump, DeSantis, and several other Republicans, Cruz isn’t polling in third; he usually clocks only 2-3 percent nationally. But in a world where DeSantis doesn’t run for some reason, I think Cruz is the most natural not-Trump Trumpist candidate. He’s well known in the party thanks to his 2016 presidential campaign, in which he finished second — and, historically, Republicans like to nominate the “next candidate in line.” Think John McCain in 2008 after he finished second to George W. Bush in 2000.

geoffrey.skelley: Whoa, hello.

santul.nerkar: Wowwww.

alex: Nathaniel, you REALLY want a Cruz 2024 run, don’t you? 

Readers, this is not the first time Nathaniel has selected Cruz as his first-round pick!

nrakich: I’m nothing if not consistent!

geoffrey.skelley: This pick is certainly reasonable to me if the goal is to pick someone who is most likely to be the GOP nominee. Cruz wants the job and essentially finished second in 2016, which to Nathaniel’s point has historically been a pathway to future success in Republican nomination contests. Besides McCain, there are Ronald Reagan (ran in 1976, won in 1980), George H.W. Bush (ran in 1980, won in 1988) and Bob Dole (ran in 1988, won in 1996).

But after initially pushing back against Trump — remember his 2016 convention speech? — Cruz caught a lot of flak and then became strongly supportive of Trump. So I think Cruz is less likely to run if Trump remains in the field.

nrakich: Yeah, he’s in a tricky spot. He was kind of outflanked by DeSantis in the “position yourself to run against Trump but don’t be anti-Trump” invisible primary. Now his best bet might be rooting for Trump in this primary, then running himself in 2028.

alex: Nathaniel, I’ll ask you now what I asked you back in March 2021: How can Cruz win considering how disliked he is in GOP circles? 

nrakich: Haha, Alex, I’ll tell you what I told you then too: Among GOP voters, Cruz isn’t disliked! According to a recent Morning Consult poll, 61 percent of potential Republican primary voters had a favorable opinion of him, while only 20 percent had an unfavorable opinion.

alex: But he barely won his own Senate race in 2018 against former Rep. Beto O’Rourke! In fact, his approval rating is still underwater in his home state. 

santul.nerkar: I’m surprised by this pick because — like you said, Nathaniel — Cruz probably isn’t entering a race that Trump is already in, he’s not a more moderate alternative to Trump, and there’s already a strong conservative challenger to Trump right now in DeSantis. So Cruz doesn’t check the box of a never-Trumper, nor is he the most obvious right-wing alternative to the former president.

nrakich: I mean, look. Like we said at the beginning, I’m not sure anyone other than Trump or DeSantis has more than, like, a 10 percent chance of winning the nomination. But I think Cruz is more likely than a certain former vice president.

Speaking of which … Geoffrey, your turn.

geoffrey.skelley: I get not one but two picks here back to back. So with the first one, I’m going to take the straightforward pick of former Vice President Mike Pence. No, I don’t think it’s especially likely that he wins the nomination, but he’s a former vice president, and that’s been a pretty surefire way to get yourself close to winning in past primaries. He maintains at least some support among the donor class and has been making moves that portend a presidential bid.

nrakich: Yes, he is the candidate I alluded to earlier who’s consistently polling in third place.

Albeit usually around 7-8 percent of the vote.

alex: Hm, I wonder if he’s consistently polling third due largely to name recognition?

nrakich: Yeah, I think that’s part of it, Alex. And as Geoffrey wrote back in 2019, having high name recognition but low polling numbers is not a good place to be.

santul.nerkar: Mike Pence is the De’Andre Hunter of this two-player draft.

But yeah, I think that’s decent value for a No. 4 pick. In the unlikely scenario that Trump drops out — perhaps because of the host of legal troubles he’s facing right now — I think Pence’s chances go up significantly, especially next to a comparatively untested figure like DeSantis.

geoffrey.skelley: Hey, the Virginia grad here says respect De’Andre. But comparisons aside, that’s my attitude, too, Santul. Pence is there, he’s going to be able to put together a credible campaign, and who knows how DeSantis and Trump work out.

Anyway, to kick off the second round with my next pick, I’m going to go with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

santul.nerkar: Strong Texan representation here!

alex: … Do you and Nathaniel know something about Texas that I don’t?

nrakich: It’s a great factory for Republican politicians! It has produced two recent(ish) GOP presidents, and it’s obviously the largest red state. In other words, there’s a deep bench of Republican candidates there, and the ones who rise to the top are inevitably talented politicians.

alex: I do think this poll — in which Republican voters in the Lone Star State said they preferred DeSantis over Trump by more than 10 percentage points — is telling, though. And, perhaps most notably, the survey didn’t ask about either Cruz or Abbott. 

geoffrey.skelley: I don’t know that Abbott will run (in fact, Cruz is probably more likely to run than Abbott). But what I do know is that the man can raise a ton of money and that he has a conservative track record that would surely appeal in a primary. If we’re talking about people who could actually win a long primary campaign, Abbott has much more potential than many of the other names on my list. 

Simply put, a lot of names out there are VP material. And Abbott is not one of them.

nrakich: Wait, he’s not VP material? Why?

geoffrey.skelley: I don’t think he’d take it. Dude is the governor of Texas. President or bust.

What I’m saying is that some other potential candidates we could name are people who would happily take the VP job and would be running for president with an eye on that in the first place.

nrakich: OK, I’m up next, and I’m going with South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott. He’s a rising star within the party (he had a prime speaking slot at the 2020 Republican National Convention), and he’s managed the extremely impressive feat of staying on the good side of both the Trumpist and non-Trumpist wings of the party. That might be difficult to maintain if he, uh, runs for president against Trump, but I think he might be a better politician than DeSantis and could fill that “fresh face” role nicely if DeSantis stumbles. 

alex: Smart pick! I was semi-surprised his win on Election Day wasn’t more of a conversation-starter. It seemed like all eyes were on DeSantis’s performance, but Scott racked up an even more decisive win — defeating his opponent by 26 points. Yes, I know South Carolina is redder than Florida and Democrats never seriously targeted it, but still!

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, I seriously considered picking Scott earlier. He had a very strong midterm performance, got rave reviews for his 2020 convention speech and may be considering a run.  

alex: For all the chatter about Republicans wanting a more diverse voting base, I wonder if Scott offers a broader appeal as a Black man?

nrakich: Yeah, Alex, I think nominating a Black man would be appealing to a lot of Republican voters who want to defuse Democratic attacks that the party is racist.

OK, we’re starting to run out of time, so we’re going to have to make this the last round! Alex, who’s your second and final pick?

alex: I appreciate you all for not stealing my No. 7 pick: Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin!

In his 2021 campaign, Youngkin ran with the image of an inoffensive suburban dad and businessman. He kept Trump out of the state and didn’t appear with him at the tele-town hall event Trump hosted right before the election — but Youngkin was smart in that he also played into some of the same issues Trump voters care about. (He even falsely claimed that the Department of Justice was trying to “silence parents.”) So Youngkin did everything he could to walk that line — not to look or sound like Trump, while also not offending his base and still accepting Trump’s endorsement. 

And, at least so far, tying Youngkin to Trump hasn’t been a death knell for his candidacy and political aspirations. According to a Washington Post-Schar School poll that came out a few days before the election, a majority of voters (roughly 7 in 10) thought Youngkin’s ideas and policies were similar to Trump. He won anyway. 

geoffrey.skelley: Youngkin might want to do what former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie didn’t do in 2012 and start running for president roughly a year and a half into his gubernatorial term. When the iron is hot, you gotta strike. If you wait, you might find yourself suddenly more unpopular or facing a scandal or something that weakens your chances in a presidential primary, as happened with Christie.

nrakich: Yeah, Alex, he could make an electability argument too: He won the governorship of Virginia by 2 points just one year after Biden carried the state by 10.

santul.nerkar: Youngkin also made key inroads with groups like Latino voters in that 2021 gubernatorial election, suggesting he could put together a relatively more diverse coalition than other contenders.

nrakich: At the same time, though, I feel like Youngkin could be too boring/establishment for GOP primary voters. They want a fighter, not sweater vests.

alex: I, personally, want to see more politicians in sweater vests, Nathaniel.

nrakich: Haha.

All right, Santul, bring us home with the last pick!

santul.nerkar:

geoffrey.skelley: Mike Pompeo is asking for your vote.

santul.nerkar: And he shall not get it!

nrakich: No one has picked the only Republican (other than Trump) who is actually running for president so far: former Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton.

santul.nerkar: I think Chris Stapleton might have better odds than Corey.

For my second and final pick, I’m going with another South Carolinian: former Gov. and Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver made the point when we did our last GOP primary draft, all the way back in 2021, that Republicans might very well be tempted to back a “safer” candidate like Haley if the party suffered a worse-than-expected 2022 midterm performance because Trumpy candidates lost winnable races.

Well, that scenario has now come to pass, and Republicans might find themselves having to make such a decision. If voters are too turned off by Trump’s baggage and DeSantis has a bad debate or two in the early going, I could see the GOP rank and file potentially coalescing around a different candidate. And Haley has the conservative bona fides, name recognition and favorability among her own party to give her a fighting chance in such an environment. (Also, how many times is she going to be named as a potential candidate before actually running?)

nrakich: Haley did recently backtrack on her previous promise not to run if Trump did. She’s reportedly going to take the holidays to consider. 

geoffrey.skelley: Everything Haley has done points toward a run. After criticizing Trump in 2016, she joined his administration as U.N. Ambassador to amp up her foreign affairs profile on top of her governing experience. So she certainly has the resume.

alex: Interesting choice! Haley campaigned with Trump-backed U.S. Senate candidate Herschel Walker in Georgia ahead of the December runoff election, so I’m wondering if that says anything about her being team Trump?

nrakich: I actually think she is the opposite of Scott in that she has managed to get on the bad side of both the Trumpist and non-Trumpist wings of the party. As you said, Alex, she has mostly aligned herself with Trump since joining his administration, but she was one of the Republicans who criticized him after Jan. 6 only to walk it back later. But I’m not sure voters — or Trump — have forgotten.

I also think sexism will hold her back. Research shows that female Republican candidates are perceived as more moderate, and moderate historically hasn’t been what GOP primary voters are looking for.

santul.nerkar: That perception has played out in really ugly ways, too, Nathaniel. Haley faced backlash from her own party in 2015 for signing a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the South Carolina State House after a white supremacist murdered nine people at a Black church in Charleston, and she’s since walked that back, saying that the perpetrator “hijacked” the Confederate flag.

alex: Interesting that Haley was the only woman we selected in this draft. I think our draft back in 2021 was slightly more diverse (though that one also went to four rounds). 

nrakich: Yeah, I’m sorry we didn’t have time for more rounds, readers! We didn’t give Asa Hutchinson, Chris Sununu, Larry Hogan, Kristi Noem or John Bolton their moment in the sun. 

Then again, GOP primary voters might not either.

2022 Election

Georgia Can’t Be Reduced To One Political Color

Why red, blue and purple can only tell us so much.

By Alex Samuels

Graphics by Humera Lodhi

Dec. 8, 2022, at 11:31 AM

ATLANTA — I have a confession to make. My editors tasked me with flying out to Georgia to cover the state’s Senate runoff and asked me to assess what was creating a recent (and seemingly) nonstop cycle of neck-and-neck political contests. But before I even set foot on the plane, I was skeptical that one runoff alone could serve as a crystal ball to predict the state’s political future. Runoffs are their own animal.

Yes, I expected voter fatigue — how many runoffs can one state take? But when I landed in Georgia late last week, the state’s voters didn’t seem especially tired. There was record early voting and that remained high through Election Day: Turnout in the runoff was 89 percent of the November turnout from last month. On top of that, in-person events for both candidates were packed. “There is excitement here because we want to continue pushing policies that a lot of people, especially young people, find important — like climate change, and canceling student debt, and ensuring women’s reproductive rights,” 20-year-old Shruthi Mohana Sundaram, the president of College Democrats at Georgia Tech, told me. 

In the end, Sen. Raphael Warnock prevailed. By a slim margin of roughly 3 percentage points, the incumbent Democrat eked out a win over Republican Herschel Walker in a nail-biter election night. It was another high-profile statewide victory for Democrats, who, during the 2020 election cycle, managed to flip Georgia’s two Senate seats and win its 16 electoral votes for the first time in almost three decades. 

Georgia is a magnet for political attention because the state has become a microcosm of the nation’s intense political polarization. More than any other state, it has seen the biggest increase in its share of Black⁵ Americans 18 years or older, and there’s been substantial Democratic growth in Atlanta and the surrounding suburbs. Mixed into the state, though, are older, rural, Republican voters, and, arguably, all of those residents come together to personify the diversity of both the state and the nation. This melting pot effect has made the state fertile hunting ground for both political parties.

Given Georgia’s surprisingly pivotal role in the 2020 election, political prognosticators (including my colleagues and I) have spent a lot of time assessing what runoff results mean for the broader political environment: Is Georgia now purple (or perhaps — if you’re feeling generous to Democrats — periwinkle)? Or, is it a red state — evidenced by every other statewide Republican, save for Walker, winning their election this fall — that, due to the specifics of the last two elections, happens to have two Democratic senators?

The truth — as it so often does in politics — lies between the two narratives. Runoffs are kooky, and Warnock’s victory tells us as much about the importance of candidate quality, turnout and campaign strength as it does about the state’s political future. The state’s hue is likely to vary depending on who’s running, how much money they have and how energized voters feel. Warnock’s second runoff victory is definitely a sign that the state is getting more competitive. Put plainly: Georgia’s statewide Republicans can’t coast here anymore. But Warnock also had some important factors (like incumbency) working in his favor, and Democrats will need both luck and skill to keep up their winning streak. 

“This process of becoming a competitive state is two steps forward and one step backward,” said former Gov. Roy Barnes, who held the post from 1999 to 2003 and was the last Democrat to lead the state. “And I think that Georgia is on the march toward being a state in which either side can win depending on the quality of the candidate and the financial backing they have to get their message out.”

I was skeptical about drawing too much of a conclusion about Georgia’s future based on the runoff results, in part because runoffs are really a relic of Georgia’s past. The state law mandating that one candidate surpass the 50 percent vote threshold on the first ballot has racist roots and was created as a means of preserving white political power in a heavily Black state by making it harder for Black candidates to prevail. This effort to suppress the franchise of people of color continued in the lead-up to Tuesday, too: A new state law significantly shortened the runoff campaign period, despite research showing that a shortened early voting window adversely affects voters of color. Moreover, state officials and Republican groups tried to argue that a section of Georgia law prohibited early voting the Saturday after Thanksgiving. (Democrats won a court challenge blocking the effort).

So runoffs already carry a lot of baggage — and for years, Republicans overwhelmingly prevailed when they happened. But Georgia is getting more competitive for Democrats, in part thanks to demographic changes. It’s just not clear how competitive. 

“If you look back through the last few election cycles, Republican governor and presidential nominees normally won with about 51 to 53 percent of the vote. That has pretty much stayed consistent,” said Kaaryn Walker, a GOP consultant in Atlanta and founder of Black Conservatives for Truth. “All that’s to say is that we are a red-purple state, we’re not one of those dark-red states where Republicans are consistently winning by double-digits.”

As the chart above shows, Democrats have made gains in some statewide races over the past few cycles — and Republicans have found it more difficult to win. For most Senate and presidential contests that took place between 1998 and 2016, Republicans easily won their elections — oftentimes by double-digit margins.⁶ That changed during the 2020 cycle when President Biden carried Georgia and Warnock and now-Sen. Jon Ossoff narrowly defeated their opponents.⁷ This year, Warnock emerged victorious again.

Partisans, including ones I spoke with for this story, will tell you a simplified story about Georgia’s politics, often spinning facts about the state’s political leanings to fit a certain political narrative. But the problem is that two things can be true at once: Georgia is getting more competitive, and it’s also still quite red.

For example: Democrats haven’t narrowed the margins everywhere — especially in governor’s races. Since the 2000s, Republicans have dominated the state’s executive office and have often won those seats by high single-digit margins. That wasn’t the case in 2018, when Republican Brian Kemp eked out a 1-percentage-point win over Democrat Stacey Abrams for the open governor’s seat. But there were other factors at play that year — including the presence of former President Donald Trump in the White House — and this year reverted back to the status quo. Kemp, now an incumbent, sailed to reelection last month, beating Abrams by roughly 7 percentage points. 

Indeed, Walker’s showing on the first ballot and the subsequent runoff was a historic outlier. He was the only statewide Republican to not win outright in November, and on top of that, his vote share was the lowest of any Georgia GOP candidate in a Senate, governor or presidential race since 2000.⁸

Walker did have his fans. William P.,⁹ a 79-year-old retiree who I met at a Walker campaign event at the Governors Gun Club in Kennesaw, Georgia, early Monday evening said he’s followed Walker’s career trajectory since his football days. “If he was running for president, I’d vote for him,” William said. “I mean, why not? He stands out. What he’s saying makes sense. He’s not going to kiss up to anybody.” But that sentiment wasn’t shared among all Republicans. The state’s Republican lieutenant governor, Geoff Duncan, who did not seek reelection this year, made headlines for saying he didn’t vote for either candidate in this year’s runoff election. He also called Walker “one of the worst candidates” in GOP history.

That particular claim might be hard to prove — but Walker was definitely a flawed candidate. Prior to November, he was beset with numerous controversies, including allegations that he encouraged and/or paid for multiple women to terminate their pregnancies (which Walker denies), despite once campaigning on a platform that included a total ban on abortions. And in the lead-up to Tuesday, CNN reported that Walker is receiving a tax exemption on his home in Texas meant for primary residents of the state, while running for Senate in Georgia.

So one takeaway from this race has nothing to do with the fundamental makeup of Georgia. It’s simply that parties need to avoid nominating problematic candidates. “I think it’s fair to say that both political parties in Georgia are going to see more vetting of candidates for major races going into the future,” said Mark Rountree, the president of Landmark Communications, Inc., a political consulting and polling firm based out of Georgia. “There were a lot of congressmen and other candidates who have already been vetted in previous campaigns, who could’ve run and had fewer issues than Walker.”

And campaigns matter too. Walker had the bad fortune to go up against Warnock, a relatively popular incumbent and a fundraising behemoth. In fact, Warnock had so much money that he was able to spend it reaching out to voters in parts of the state that would normally never even consider voting for a Democrat. Selden Deemer of Lumpkin County, a rare Democratic-leaning independent who cast a ballot for both Warnock and Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the general election, said he received more Warnock mailers than Walker mailers in the lead-up to the runoff. And Lumpkin County, he said, feels very far from the safely blue Democratic enclaves like Fulton, Cobb, Gwinnett and DeKalb counties. “A bear ran off with our trash can once, so it’s a very different experience from Atlanta,” he said. A more relevant — but less ursine — difference is that unlike the counties surrounding Atlanta, former President Trump won Lumpkin County by large margins in 2016 and 2020.

And in a state where turnout is the defining factor in close races, Warnock’s message may have been more compelling. I was struck by the differences in how the two candidates interacted with voters: At the Students for Warnock rally, the pastor gave an energizing 25-minute speech in which he ticked off a list of congressional accomplishments that he said would’ve been impossible without the support of young people — including his own election to Congress. “I want you to vote like it’s an emergency,” he said. “Vote like health care depends on it, vote like a women’s right to choose depends on it — because it does.” Walker, meanwhile, let his surrogates do a lot of the talking for him. In fact, his own speech at one of the last stops on his “Evict Warnock Bus Tour” capped at just about 6 minutes. 

Standing in the audience at each event, it was striking to hear the candidates make their pitch. Sure, both men were steadfast about framing a win for them as existential in nature: A vote for Warnock went toward preserving democratic values, while a vote for Walker gave voters a ticket to place checks on Biden. But in a political world in which every election is presented like the end of days are upon us, it did feel like Warnock’s speech was more tailored to his chosen audience, while Walker’s had less heft. The former football star took a common tack, framing the race in national terms: “A vote for my opponent is a vote for Joe Biden and a vote for Chuck Schumer.” But his pitch for himself was curiously empty — a vote for Walker, for example, said nothing about the GOP’s standard bearer, Trump. “A vote for me is a vote for Georgia values,” he said. But he didn’t elaborate on what those values actually were.

All of this left me with the inescapable conclusion that Georgia just can’t be colored with a single political dye — at least not yet. Everyone still wants to answer that pesky question: Is Georgia red? Purple? Indigo? Violet? Periwinkle? The real answer is probably “all of the above.” It’s hard to pinpoint exactly which factors were most responsible for Warnock’s win, but they don’t seem to have been present in any of Georgia’s other statewide races. In short, Warnock’s victory is more proof that Georgia can go blue. But whether it will go blue in the future remains to be seen.

CORRECTION (Dec. 8, 2022, 1:40 p.m.): A chart in a previous version of this story misspelled former Georgia Sen. Zell Miller’s name as “Zen Miller.”

That lead could grow slightly as the tallying is finalized, but, while it was a competitive race, it was not ultimately a nail biter. The crew takes a look at how this election compares with the one in November and past runoffs. They also discuss what it can tell us about Georgia’s politics going forward and what it means for Trump’s influence in the Republican party.

The 2022 midterms have come to an end with Sen. Raphael Warnock beating Herschel Walker in the Senate runoff in Georgia. At the time of recording this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast on Wednesday morning, Warnock had an almost 3-point lead.

That lead could grow slightly as the tallying is finalized, but, while it was a competitive race, it was not ultimately a nail biter. The crew takes a look at how this election compares with the one in November and past runoffs. They also discuss what it can tell us about Georgia’s politics going forward and what it means for Trump’s influence in the Republican party.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

2022 Election

How Either Candidate Could Win Georgia’s Senate Runoff

By Alex Samuels

Nov. 30, 2022, at 6:00 AM

Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker are headed to a runoff in Georgia’s Senate race next week after neither surpassed the 50 percent threshold required by state law to win outright. But will it be a repeat of last year’s runoff — when Warnock and fellow Democratic then-candidate Sen. Jon Ossoff narrowly defeated their Republican rivals? Or are we heading for an election that makes 2021 look like an outlier?

The stakes of the race are high, even though Democrats have already clinched their 50-seat majority, as an additional seat would give the party more leverage over its more conservative members and allow it to claim majorities on every committee. Plus, a Warnock win would better position the party for the 2024 cycle. For Republicans, a Walker win would force Democrats to rely on Vice President Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote and serve as a blow to that cushion Democrats so desperately want.

In other words, both parties have a lot to gain — and lose — based on the upcoming runoff election. You’ve read this book before, right? Well, it’s worth remembering that the sequel might look a bit different, as Ossoff and Warnock’s previous wins bucked prior Georgia runoff historical trends. In fact, in the past, Republicans have typically dominated Georgia’s runoffs.

However, because of what happened during the 2020 cycle and the fact that recent polling shows that this race could be a tight one, it’s hard to rely only on historical data. The first poll of the runoff, a November Fabrizio Ward and Impact Research survey for AARP, showed the incumbent with 51 percent support from voters versus Walker’s 47 percent. But a second, more recent, Phillips Academy Poll of likely voters, on the other hand, showed Walker and Warnock essentially neck-and-neck (48 percent to 47 percent, respectively) with 5 percent of voters still undecided. And a third FrederickPolls, Compete Digital, and AMM Political survey of likely runoff voters had the two men tied at 50 percent support each.

All this is to say that, this go-around, there are a number of factors working in both Warnock and Walker’s favor. So what’s the case that we’re heading for another 2021? And what’s the case for an outcome that looks like — er — most other statewide runoffs in Georgia’s history?

The case for a Warnock victory 

In 2021, Warnock and Ossoff won, in part, by gaining on President Biden’s November 2020 margins, especially in counties with the largest shares of Black voters. That could be because Democrats worked overtime to turn out their voters and prominent figures like Stacey Abrams, the state’s 2018 and 2022 Democratic gubernatorial nominee, pioneered a new playbook to get voters of color out to the polls, marshaling the political power of the growing number of Black people who have moved to Georgia over the past two decades.

Warnock is again banking on voters of color to deliver for him. And they very well could: Exit polling data from earlier this month (which is imperfect and subject to change) shows that roughly 28 percent of the voting electorate in Georgia was Black while 6 percent was Latino, roughly the same shares as in 2020. This shows that turnout among these blocs didn’t notably tick down despite it being a midterm election with very different dynamics from 2020 and it could be a sign that energy remains high among these groups. And that lines up with other polling suggesting that Warnock supporters are just more excited about backing their candidate than Walker supporters. An October Fox News poll found that 63 percent of Warnock proponents backed the Democrat “enthusiastically,” compared with 49 percent who said the same of Walker.

Indeed, this enthusiasm gap became obvious on Election Day, when every other statewide Georgia Republican won their race outright. And while Warnock got the most votes of any Democratic statewide candidate, Walker got the least votes of any Republican candidate.¹⁰ It’s clear some split-ticket voting took place, too, as Gov. Brian Kemp, who sailed to reelection against Abrams, earned over 2.11 million voters versus Walker’s 1.91 million. Warnock also finished a tad ahead of Walker in the first ballot, with 1.94 million votes, so he might have the easier path to the 50 percent winning threshold.

This discrepancy makes some sense, too, given that Walker is at the center of numerous controversies, including allegations that he encouraged and/or paid for multiple women to terminate their pregnancies (which Walker denies), despite once campaigning on a platform that included a total ban on abortions. More recently, CNN reported that Walker is receiving a tax exemption on his home in Texas, which is meant for primary residents of the state, even as he ran for Senate in Georgia.

“Of the roughly 2 million votes that went for Walker, some of them were bound to be from Republicans who had to grit their teeth and close their eyes and vote for him because they wanted to see a Republican Senate to put checks on Joe Biden,” said Charles Bullock III, a political science professor at the University of Georgia. “Well, that’s off the table now.” As a result, he said, those same voters might stay home in this year’s runoff.

And with no other Republicans on the ballot, Walker won’t have the added benefit of riding another candidate’s coattails during the December runoff. Warnock also has the small — but not insignificant — advantage of incumbency on his side. Plus, he’s a fundraising behemoth, with nearly $29.7 million on hand as of Nov. 16, compared with Walker’s $9.8 million, and has the support of Democratic heavyweights like former President Barack Obama.

The last wildcard that could benefit Warnock is Trump. His recently announced presidential run and backing of Walker could motivate Democrats who “don’t want to give him a win,” Bullock told me. Republicans in the state similarly raised concerns about whether Trump’s involvement in the race could hurt Walker, but Warnock is already running TV ads tying his opponent to the former president. 

The case for a Walker victory 

Of course, we’d be silly to write off Walker’s candidacy in this race. (There’s a reason why our final Deluxe forecast, which was frozen early Nov. 8, estimated that Walker would have a significant edge in a runoff). If nothing else, he may still be helped by the state’s historical tendency toward a more Republican-leaning runoff electorate.

As we’ve written previously, in the 11 runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican for statewide office, held between the late 1960s and 2020, most favored Republicans. In fact, in seven of those races, the runoff margin was better for the GOP than the general-election margin. This is largely attributable to the drop-off in turnout — fewer people vote in runoff races than in general elections — and the decline usually disproportionately affects Democrats.

That wasn’t the case last year, but that was in part because Trump dissuaded Republicans from trusting the state’s electoral system — which dampened GOP voter turnout. But Trump is doing the exact opposite this year. In fact, during his 2024 presidential campaign announcement, the former president implored Republicans to support Walker, calling him “a fabulous human being who loves our country.” On top of that, Walker has also held events in metro Atlanta in recent weeks — which has been a bellwether for statewide Democrats — and is receiving significant outside support from national Republican-aligned groups to bolster his candidacy.

Walker is also receiving a lift this go-around from an unlikely ally: Kemp. After seemingly distancing himself from the Senate hopeful in the lead-up to Election Day, the governor, who is extremely popular in Georgia, has since become more vocal about his support for Walker. According to various reports, Kemp is also lending a key part of his campaign infrastructure to help Walker, which includes the governor’s door-knocking, data analytics and phone banking programs.

Walker might also be able to court runoff voters by tying Warnock to President Biden, who has an underwater approval rating in the state. Biden — like Trump — notably stayed away from Georgia in the final weeks of the election and instead headed to other battleground states. But Walker has still repeatedly tried to use Biden’s unpopularity against Warnock, assailing the senator as a rubber-stamp for the White House. 

And despite more tepid enthusiasm for Walker’s campaign among his base, it’s possible, too, that some Democrats could sit out this race. After all, and like we said before, control of the Senate isn’t on the line like it was last year.

The 2021 Georgia runoff was different. Next week’s election will tell us if it was an outlier — or the potential harbinger of more Democratic statewide victories to come. If past runoffs are any guide, we’d expect there to be at least some dropoff in turnout. In 2021, for example, turnout was down about 10 percent from the total votes cast in November 2020, and historically that was an unusually small decline in runoff turnout. “There are fewer incentives to turn out this year than there were in 2021,” Bullock said. “So we might expect less people to show up to the polls this year.”

Still, the outcome of this race will tell us which side can better mobilize their base, even during a midterm year when control of the Senate isn’t at stake. And that could start to answer a much bigger question: Is the Peach State red enough to where we can regard recent Democratic wins as an off-chance phenomenon? Or is it now more competitive — or even purple — meaning races can swing in either party’s favor based on the circumstances and candidates?

Election Day in Georgia is just a week away, so the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew shook off their turkey hangover to talk about what to expect in Georgia’s second Senate runoff in two years. They also review Democrats’ agenda for the current lame duck session in Congress and hold their first post-midterm 2024 Democratic primary draft.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

2022 Election

What Can The 2022 Midterms Tell Us About 2024?

A FiveThirtyEight Chat

Nov. 28, 2022, at 6:00 AM

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

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, senior elections analyst): The 2022 midterms just ended a couple weeks ago,¹¹ but the 2024 election has already begun: Just a week after Election Day, former President Donald Trump announced he would run for president again. Given how little of a break we’re getting between the two campaigns, it raises the question: How could the results of the 2022 election influence the results of 2024’s?

To answer that, I’ve convened a meeting of FiveThirtyEight’s brightest political minds. How’s everyone feeling about the campaign whiplash??

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, senior elections analyst): The permanent campaign is more permanent than ever.  

alex (Alex Samuels, politics reporter): Haha, our jobs are never boring — that’s for sure!

kaleigh (Kaleigh Rogers, technology and politics reporter): People often comment that my job is only busy every other year and I laugh and laugh.

Monica Potts (Monica Potts, senior politics reporter): It seemed like Trump was forever promising an announcement “tomorrow,” so by the time it happened it felt like it had already happened. But yes, it is a never-ending campaign season.

nrakich: OK, let’s get one thing out of the way. Democrats had a surprisingly strong showing in 2022, especially by historical standards: They kept the Senate, and they lost fewer than 10 seats in the House despite the president’s party losing over two dozen House seats in the typical midterm. Is this reason for Democrats to be optimistic about 2024 as well?

alex: I’m hesitant to make sweeping generalizations about 2024 based off Democrats’ performance in 2022. Sure, Democratic victories give President Biden something to brag about in the meantime, but historically, we haven’t been able to predict presidential results based on midterm elections. And I don’t see why this year would be the exception.

geoffrey.skelley: I mean, they might take it as a reason to be optimistic. But as Alex said, historically, there’s been little relationship between the result in a midterm election and the result of the next presidential contest. So what happened in November 2022 probably has little bearing on how November 2024 will pan out, at least in terms of votes. 

And that’s understandable: We don’t know who the candidates will be in 2024, we don’t know what the political environment will be like and the electorate will be different! Right now, the U.S. Election Project’s preliminary turnout figure for this year is around 46 percent of the voting-eligible population. With California still counting a lot of ballots, that’ll probably hit 47 percent. But in 2020, almost 67 percent of the VEP cast a ballot for president! So a lot of people who didn’t participate in 2022 will probably participate in 2024.

kaleigh: Yeah, I mean midterms generally have very little correlation with presidential elections. In addition to the changes in the electorate, people just think differently about voting for president compared to voting for governor or senator. It’s the highest office, and so much depends on what happens in the months leading up to the actual election. I wouldn’t use the midterms to make any predictions about 2024, personally, other than perhaps who else might run. 

Monica Potts: Two of the biggest issues motivating voters this year seemed to be inflation/the economy and abortion rights, and it’s just so hard to say what conditions will be like in two years. I can see red states continuing to push abortion bans or enforce the ones that already exist, but I can also see purple states moderating and blue states working to protect abortion rights. Who knows what the economy will do, but I think it’s safe to say it won’t be in the same place. I think so much depends on those conditions, who’s at the top of the tickets and what happens in the swing states where Democrats won this year, like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

alex: And the issues that motivated voters this fall could be way different than the issues that motivate voters in presidential election years. You might also see, for example, a Democratic backlash toward Trump if he ends up being the GOP’s presidential nominee, similar to what we saw in 2020.

nrakich: Great points all!

Yeah, for every midterm-presidential pairing like 2018-20 (when Democrats had a great midterm and then defeated Trump), there’s one like 2010-12 (when Republicans had a great midterm and then failed to unseat then-President Barack Obama).

geoffrey.skelley: Seriously, Nathaniel. Speaking of whiplash, one of the best examples is 1946-48, when Republicans swamped Democrats in the 1946 midterms to take back the Senate and House, but then former President Harry Truman surprised by winning reelection in 1948, bringing with him sweeping majorities for Democrats in the Senate and House.

nrakich: In fairness, though, 2022 is a different case — the rare example of a midterm where the president’s party did relatively well. What has happened in presidential elections after those midterms?

kaleigh: Ooh, that’s a good question … for Geoff!

(My brain holds very different esoteric knowledge.)

geoffrey.skelley: Nathaniel, a couple examples that come to mind are 1970-72 and 1998-2000. In 1970, Republicans actually gained a seat in the Senate and lost only nine seats in the House, but Democrats retained clear majorities in both chambers. Then in 1972, then-President Richard Nixon won one of the greatest landslide reelections in U.S. history. 

In 1998, Democrats gained five seats in the House and preserved the status quo in the Senate amid a backlash over GOP attempts to impeach then-President Bill Clinton, but then Republican George W. Bush captured the White House in 2000. 

Obviously these are two fairly different circumstances when it comes to an incumbent president running or not, which candidates were running (George McGovern was not the strongest contender for Democrats in ’72), and the events surrounding the election. But that speaks to how hard it is to know what’ll happen next!

nrakich: Yeah, and there’s also 2002-04, when Republicans had a good midterm in the wake of Sept. 11 and then Bush won a narrow reelection. But of course, we’re dealing with a very small sample size here.

Kaleigh, you mentioned that the midterms could influence who jumps into the race for president. Do you guys think the midterms change Biden’s reelection calculus at all?

kaleigh: I don’t know about change, but certainly influence. Biden has a lot of factors to consider and recently said he was going to discuss with family over the holidays. But he’s got to be feeling emboldened after such a strong showing in the midterms. 

Another influential factor has to be Trump’s announcement. Biden won against Trump once before, so there’s this underlying narrative of “he beat him once, he could beat him again,” if Trump wins the nomination.

alex: If Democrats had succumbed to the midterm curse that’s typical for the party in the White House, Biden may have faced outsized pressure to not run in 2024 (as he did before the midterms). But I think, to Kaleigh’s point, you could make the argument that the results of this year’s races, coupled with Trump’s presidential announcement, clear up any doubts over whether Biden is running for reelection.

geoffrey.skelley: Kaleigh, I think that’s right. I’ve said before that Biden’s chances of running again depended in part on whether Trump would run again, and now Trump is running. So I do think Biden may be somewhat more likely to run. 

At the same time, it’s also possible that Biden could decide this is a moment where the Democratic bench of potential candidates is stronger after the success of many big names in the midterms, especially governors of potentially competitive states like Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan or Jared Polis of Colorado.

Monica Potts: I still think it’s worth remembering that Biden remains pretty unpopular (his approval rating is currently below 42 percent), and voters chose their Democratic candidates in House and Senate races for many reasons. I think it would be reading too much into the results to say it boosts Biden’s chances. 

nrakich: Geoffrey, that’s a great point about Whitmer and Polis. Both have been talked about as future presidential contenders, and both absolutely crushed it in their reelection bids: Whitmer won by 11 percentage points, and Polis won by 19! I don’t think they would ever primary Biden, but if Biden doesn’t run, their theories of the case seem stronger than ever, especially if Democratic primary voters are concerned about electability again.

alex: Do we really think Whitmer or Polis stands a chance against Trump, though?

I think winning statewide office is one thing, but winning a presidential election against Trump is another story entirely. Biden already proved that he can beat him in 2020 and can campaign on Democrats’ success during the midterm elections, so I don’t see why he wouldn’t be seen as the strongest Democratic presidential contender (at least at this point in time). 

And if Whitmer thought Biden was a particularly weak president, she wouldn’t have campaigned with him earlier this year.

Monica Potts: Right, I think the really big question for Democrats is who should they nominate if not Biden? A rising star like Whitmer could be risky. Voters don’t really have a favorable opinion of Vice President Kamala Harris, for lots of reasons that include sexism and racism, but she hasn’t been a super visible VP. I’m having flashbacks to the crowded Democratic field in the 2020 presidential election, which didn’t have a clear favorite until House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn endorsed Biden. 

kaleigh: I think Whitmer or Polis could absolutely beat Trump. I think a lot of Biden’s win in 2020 was simply based on him being the “not Trump” candidate. Trump is basically just as unpopular now as he was before the 2020 election, and even some of his supporters are saying they don’t want him to run. There are many capable Democrats who could fill the “not Trump” role and defeat him in 2024 if Biden were to opt against running.

geoffrey.skelley: As Nathaniel said, I don’t think these candidates run if Biden does. But if he doesn’t seek reelection, they’d certainly have a decent shot of defeating Trump in a general election. For one thing, both Whitmer and Polis have put together impressive electoral track records in states that are either real swingy or at least not deep blue. Whitmer could make abortion a major issue, as she did in her reelection campaign, while Polis has a bit of a libertarian streak in him that could expand his appeal in a general election context. Plus, Trump is one of the great unifiers in history — for Democrats, anyway. So that would help the eventual Democratic nominee to some extent. Moreover, the country is starkly divided and close presidential elections are just sort of a matter of course these days, so barring a real catastrophe for one party, we should expect another highly competitive contest in 2024.

Monica Potts: Yes, I think so much depends on whether Trump is the nominee.

alex: I’m not totally convinced by the “not Trump” argument, Kaleigh. I think most of the Democratic field in 2020 campaigned on being the “not Trump” or “I’m best positioned to beat Trump” candidate. But there’s a reason why Biden was the victor in the end.

But I largely agree with your point, Geoff. I think Biden running will stop other Democrats from jumping in, so there’s not a split Democratic field. The flip side, though, is that I don’t think a Trump announcement will stop other prominent Republicans from throwing their hat in the ring.

kaleigh: The name on everybody’s lips is gonna be … Ronny!

nrakich: Haha, indeed, Kaleigh. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was another governor who turned in a really impressive reelection performance earlier this month. He won by 19 points in a state that, until recently at least, was considered the quintessential swing state! Do we think this strengthens his hand ahead of his widely expected presidential bid?

alex: That’s a good point, Nathaniel! With his landslide election in Florida, DeSantis was easily the biggest GOP storyline to come out of the 2022 election. I won’t cite exit poll data directly, but reporting suggests that he performed well with Latino voters and flipped Miami-Dade County, which is historically Democratic. I think his performance this year might convince Republicans that he’s the strongest alternative to Trump — if they’re looking for one. Plus, DeSantis has long been viewed as a rising star within the GOP, so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he takes on the challenge.

kaleigh: There’s no doubt: The results in Florida solidified DeSantis’s role as a popular Republican rising star, and at least some polls are now showing him ahead of Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll conducted just after the election found 46 percent of Republicans said they’d prefer to see DeSantis as the GOP nominee in 2024, compared to 39 percent who said they’d prefer Trump. 

And while a majority — 60 percent — of Republicans said they wanted to see Trump run in 2024 when asked before the election, just 47 percent did when asked after the election (but before Trump announced his candidacy).

nrakich: I’d be careful about those polls, though, Kaleigh. We often warn people to wait a while to interpret polls after major news events like debates, and the midterms definitely qualify.

kaleigh: That’s true! We’ll have to wait to see if any of these turn into actual trends.

Monica Potts: I can absolutely see Republican party leaders coalescing around DeSantis because they know Trump motivates Democrats to vote against them. DeSantis’s policies and positions are very similar to Trump’s, and he plays to the base on issues like immigration, education and voter fraud (which, as we know, is not a significant concern). Republican voters seem to like him — even before the midterms, 64 percent of registered Republican voters told Morning Consult they had a favorable opinion of him. And this is anecdotal, but Republican voters where I live seem to know who he is and also like him. 

In 2016, Trump didn’t really have any opponents who could get enough support to really challenge him. Many voters thought of him as a businessman and what he would do as a politician was unknown. Now he’s a known quantity, his successful run is six years in the past and there are alternatives like DeSantis. 

geoffrey.skelley: DeSantis might be in a position to make himself almost a co-favorite, assuming he does what everyone expects and runs. Granted, Trump has been ahead in pretty much all national polls that aren’t testing him and DeSantis head-to-head. 

And remember, if other candidates get into the field, they won’t be going mano-a-mano, at least not initially. The size of the eventual field is not a minor consideration either, considering Trump won with just a plurality in the 2016 Republican presidential primary. It remains to be seen if the many bigwig donors and influencers within the GOP who oppose Trump will rally behind one candidate or not. And it's not like Trump had their backing early in 2016, so even if they are unified, that isn't certain to stop him either.

nrakich: Trump has not emerged from the midterms covered in glory, though. Many of the candidates he endorsed in the primary lost the general election; in fact, The New York Times and Washington Post both calculated they performed 5 points worse than expected. And his intervention may have directly cost the GOP multiple seats. For example, he endorsed far-right Republican Joe Kent in the primary for Washington’s 3rd District over incumbent Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler because Herrera Beutler voted to impeach him. Kent won the primary but ended up losing the general election — which was a big shock, because this seat is pretty red. Now, many Republican elites are grumbling about him costing the party seats, or at least not embracing his presidential campaign. 

On the other hand, recent history is littered with examples of Republicans appearing to break with Trump, only to fall back in line later. Do you guys think that will happen again, or is this time really different?

geoffrey.skelley: I tend to see this as half a 2016 circumstance, if you will. Many party elites don’t want to get behind Trump and will look to DeSantis as a principal alternative. But depending on the contours of the GOP presidential primary, they could definitely come flooding back to Trump if DeSantis struggles against him for some reason. And Trump will start out with far more institutional support than he had previously. You already see various Republicans announcing their support for him, like Sen.-elect J.D. Vance. 

alex: Agreed, Geoff. I think if voters largely continue to back Trump, it’ll be hard for the party to step in and knock him down. To be honest, Trumpism is so ingrained within the GOP today that I almost forgot about all the intraparty grumbling during his 2016 run! 

Monica Potts: Yes, this is tricky because people underestimated Trump in 2016 and then kept declaring his campaign over — but it never was. But I do think this time is really different. Jan. 6 was a real turning point people haven’t forgotten. And as Kaleigh has written, the election denial that drove the insurrection did not win seats for Republican newcomers this cycle. Voters often have short memories, but I think voters remember that and want to move away from that. 

geoffrey.skelley: Monica, I think Jan. 6 might make Trump a weaker general election nominee, but how much it hurts him in the presidential primary on the GOP side is less clear. After all, for months, even years now, a consistent 60-ish percent of Republicans have said in polling that Biden didn’t legitimately win the 2020 election. If Trump didn’t lose in their eyes, they’re not necessarily going to view him as weaker.

Monica Potts: Geoffrey, that’s fair. I just wonder how much this year’s midterms quieted down those beliefs. I was prepared to see losing candidates claiming election fraud or refusing to concede, and that didn’t really happen. I just wonder if the midterm results might weaken those beliefs in all but the true believers, as voters move on to other issues.

kaleigh: There are Republican voters who love Trump but fear he can’t win, and they want the White House more than they want Trump to be the nominee. The question is how big of a contingent those voters are.

2022 Election

Congress Will Have The Most Black Republicans In Over A Century

But that’s not saying a lot.

By Alex Samuels

Nov. 15, 2022, at 6:00 AM

When the new Congress comes into session in January, there will be more Black Republicans serving together on Capitol Hill than at any point since 1877.

The number? Five.¹²

For years, Republicans have struggled to recruit and elect Black candidates. But heading into this year’s primary election season, national Republicans boasted that more than 80 Black Republicans — a historical feat for the party — were running on the GOP ticket. After the primaries, only 31 Black Republicans actually made it onto the ballot, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of primary race winners. Almost all of those candidates lost.

This result isn’t a huge surprise. In July, I took a look at the Deluxe version of FiveThirtyEight’s 2022 election forecast and predicted that Republicans Wesley Hunt of Texas and John James of Michigan were the most likely congressional hopefuls to join current Reps. Burgess Owens of Utah and Byron Donalds of Florida in Washington come next year. Georgia is, once again, headed to a runoff election and while it’s too soon to know whether Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock or Republican Herschel Walker will win, there will be two Black Republicans¹³ serving in the upper chamber concurrently if Walker is successful — the highest number ever.

It’s notable, too, that a handful of Black Republicans were in tough races that took multiple days to call. Tamika Hamilton, who ran against Democrat Rep. Ami Bera in California’s 6th District, is projected to lose by just 12 percentage points, according to ABC News.¹⁴ Meanwhile, in Connecticut’s 5th District, Republican George Logan lost to Democratic Rep. Jahana Hayes by roughly 2,000 votes. A win for Logan would have been an upset, as our Deluxe forecast, frozen early on Nov. 8, only gave the challenger a 39-in-100 chance of winning. Hamilton, meanwhile, only had a 1-in-100 chance of victory.

In fact, our forecast predicted uphill battles for the vast majority of the Black Republicans running this year: Out of all primary winners, only two — Hunt and James — had a more than 50-in-100 chance of winning. Of course, Black Republicans might always have trouble seeking acceptance within a party that has historically downplayed racism and has leaned on white grievance politics as a way to attract voters. But many of these candidates simply had tough races in reliably blue districts and no real shot at winning, despite the party trumpeting how many nominees they had. That wasn’t the case for the two who won, however. Hunt, for his part, ran in a newly drawn Houston-based district that had a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean¹⁵ of R+27. Our forecast also gave him a more than 99-in-100 chance of beating Democrat Duncan Klussmann. James, for his part, was also the favored candidate in Michigan’s open 10th District — which has a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of R+6 — against Democrat Carl Marlinga.

Even with slightly more Black GOP members in Congress, though, the Republican Party still has a ways to go before they catch up with Democrats in terms of representation (there are nearly 60 Black Democrats in the House currently). That’s in part because Black Republicans often face challenges in proving their conservative bona fides to white voters and Black voters still remain heavily Democratic, though we don’t have enough evidence beyond imperfect exit polling data to say for certain yet how much either group shifted in this year’s election.

The fact that electing five or six Black Republicans to Congress is a feat worth discussing is reflective of how the party continues to struggle with Black voters. After all, there wasn’t always a dearth of Black Republicans in Congress. In fact, seven Black politicians served in the U.S. House together during the 43rd (1873-75) and 44th (1875-77) congresses, thanks to the newfound political power of emancipated men in the South, who got the right to vote in 1870.¹⁶ That changed, though, following the end of the Reconstruction era, and beginning in 1877, Black representation significantly declined. In fact, throughout the 20th century, many congresses had no Black Republicans at all. That trend didn’t begin to reverse until 1995, when two Black Republicans served together in the House again — in part, due to the GOP’s pursuit of disillusioned Black voters at the time. But the House only saw between one to two Black members in the lower chamber at once from then until now.

But the Republican Party has a lot more trouble appealing to Black voters now than it did in the 1800s. Back then, Black people were overwhelmingly aligned with the GOP because it was known as the party of President Abraham Lincoln, who was credited with fighting to end slavery. In fact, the current dynamics of the two major parties didn’t really start to take shape until around the 1930s, when programs intended to help communities of color — such as those in Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal — prompted some Black voters to switch their party loyalty to Democrats. 

Overtures by the Republican Party to court Black voters and candidates have increased particularly in states and districts where Black voters could decide election outcomes. Some experts told me previously that the GOP’s decision to back Walker in Georgia, despite his flaws as a candidate, is a sign that the party is trying to find ways to appeal to more Black voters. Even before Tuesday’s election, a number of Republican-affiliated groups spent gobs of money attempting to buoy Black Republicans running in competitive primary races, like former Army captain Jeremy Hunt of Georgia, who ultimately lost his June primary. Many other candidates, however, were substantially outraised by their opponents — especially those who were running in solidly blue seats. Take South Carolina Republican Duke Buckner, who challenged House Majority Whip James Clyburn in the state’s 6th District and raised only a tiny fraction of his opponent’s war chest, or New Jersey Republican Darius Mayfield, who challenged Rep. Bonnie Coleman in the 12th District and was similarly dramatically outraised.

So it’s too soon to say whether efforts to recruit and elect more Black candidates are really paying off for the GOP. Sure, Walker is headed into what’s expected to be a competitive runoff election in Georgia and he held a slight 64-in-100 chance edge in our final forecast, but current returns show that he earned fewer votes than Warnock during the general election and is running considerably behind Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. And since the vast majority of Black GOP general election candidates (83 percent) lost to their Democratic opponent in the House and Senate midterm races this cycle — not including Walker — it’s hard to know if electing Black candidates will continue to be a priority for Republicans going forward.

2022 Midterms

Can Raphael Warnock Pull Off Another Senate Runoff?

Runoffs are sort of Georgia’s thing now.

By Alex Samuels

Nov. 9, 2022, at 3:20 PM

Not all Senate runoffs are created equal. Once again, Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock is headed to a runoff in a Georgia Senate race, less than two years after his fight against former Sen. Kelly Loeffler in January 2021. This time, though, things may be a bit different since the balance of the Senate may not depend on Georgia in the same way it did last year.

In short, the eventual outcome of Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker’s runoff on Dec. 6 may in part hinge on whether control of the Senate hangs in balance. As of now, the Senate will include 48 Democrats and 48 Republicans, with three other as-yet-unprojected Senate races in Alaska, Arizona and Nevada. Returns give Republicans an edge as of now in both Alaska and Nevada. Arizona, meanwhile, tilts slightly toward Democrats currently. With a Democratic win in the Pennsylvania Senate race last night, that means Democrats need to hold on to two of their three competitive seats — Arizona, Nevada and/or Georgia — in order to reach 50 seats and maintain their majority in the chamber. If Georgia is the deciding seat, parties will likely throw everything they have at the Georgia runoff, even with Walker’s obvious warts as a candidate.

Watch: https://abcnews.go.com/fivethirtyeight/video/expect-georgias-senate-runoff-fivethirtyeight-93006554

The reason we’re back here in the first place, though, is because Georgia law requires that candidates receive a majority of the vote to win an election. Neither Walker nor Warnock have exceeded the 50 percent threshold this cycle due to the presence of a third-party candidate on the ticket, Libertarian Chase Oliver. (Current returns show¹⁷ Warnock at 49.2 percent of the vote and Walker at 48.7 percent. Oliver has the remaining 2.1 percent.)

Historically, runoffs elections in the Peach State have favored Republicans. Prior to this upcoming race, Georgia has seen 11 runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican for statewide office since the late 1960s, and the runoff margin was better for Republicans than the general election margin in seven of them. This is largely attributable to the drop-off in turnout — fewer people vote in runoff races than in general elections — and the decline usually disproportionately affects Democrats. In fact, FiveThirtyEight’s Deluxe forecast, which was frozen early Tuesday morning, estimated that, in a runoff, Walker would win about 69 percent of the time. 

But in the 2021 runoffs, Democrats upended their tendency to lose ground in runoffs by gaining on their November performance and capturing two seats. Whether this was a one-off or a start of something new is impossible to know, but as I mentioned earlier, the degree to which the parties — and voters — go all-in on this runoff may hinge on whether control of the Senate hangs in the balance.

When it did, in 2021, both Warnock and fellow Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff both narrowly defeated their Republican rivals, former Sens. Loeffler and David Perdue, respectively, in their runoff races. But things were slightly different for Democrats that year. Not only were Democrats indefatigable in encouraging their voters to turn out, but the GOP’s standard bearer, then-President Donald Trump, dissuaded Republicans from trusting the state’s electoral system — which dampened GOP turnout in the state. 

Given the different circumstances, Walker could stand to benefit if the race ends up coming down to Senate control, as Republican voters in the state might be more likely to overlook the GOP candidate’s many scandals. On the flip side, if Senate control isn’t on the line, Warnock might have a leg up since his supporters are more enthusiastic about supporting him than Walker’s are about his, according to an October Fox News poll. In addition, GOP-allied groups could stay on the sidelines or offer only muted support, especially given Walker’s various controversies. And with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp safely reelected, Walker will not have the added benefit of riding the incumbent governor’s coattails in the runoff.

What could also benefit Warnock — if control of the Senate is on the line — is that he almost certainly won more votes than Walker on the first ballot, so if he can turn out his supporters at a high rate, he might be able to edge Walker in the runoff (with the caveat that we don’t know how Oliver’s supporters might break, or how many will show up to the polls during a runoff.) Warnock could also benefit from the same influx of new Black voters in the state that helped him in 2021 — assuming they show up to the polls this year, too. And, for what it’s worth, they very well could: Exit polling data (which is subject to change as we find out more) shows that roughly 28 percent of the voting electorate in Georgia was Black, roughly the same share as in 2020, which suggests Black turnout didn’t notably tick down despite the midterm environment.

That said, this contest was always likely going to be competitive given that the electorate of Georgia has changed significantly over the past two decades or so. So — once more — the Peach State will be the center of the political universe; expect both parties to spend gobs of money (again) and dispatch a number of political heavyweights to get out the vote, too. 

Oh, and if you live in Georgia, don’t get too comfortable awaiting election returns in other states: Advanced in-person voting for the runoff will start soon.