October 19, 2020

Conventional wisdom has a higher turnout benefits the Democratic Party. This conclusion is mostly based on the majority party having a large population of lower social economic status (SES) voters, thus decreasing their participation rate on election day.

But in a Presidential Election, the turnout rate is always higher and conceptionally, should benefit the Democratic candidate, everything else being equal.

Another problem with this question is what is a non-voter? For some studies this means someone who is eligible to vote, but doesn’t. That’s in contrast to those registered to vote but doesn’t vote.

For purposes of keeping a level research field, I prefer measuring turnout based on those already registered to vote and not the voter eligible population.

And since we don’t know what the turn-out will be on November 3, I will use data from the 2016 Florida Presidential Election to create a model to estimate what affect it could have on Biden’s percent of the two party vote, while controlling for other variables.

In political science, this requires the application of a statistical method called multiple regression. This method allows for determining the specific effect of one variable while controlling for the effects of other variables in the equation. Specifically, how a one percent increase in turnout affects, if at all, Biden’s percent of the total vote.

This sounds technical and it is, but I will attempt to plainly explain this process as simply as I can. I have taught this to my graduate students for many years and occasionally, some students understand it. But don’t worry, the bottom line: does the model work as an estimate of turnout.

I’m using the county level data from all 67 counties in the 2016 Florida Presidential election. This data file contains approximately 45 different variables that might have some impact on turnout. You cannot go out and find all of this data in one place, because I have personally collected this data from many many different sources.*

Chart 1 below, shows the model’s accuracy estimate. The most important number is the R Square value, which is .901. This means that the model explains 90% of variance in the prediction value. In the social sciences, this is about the highest level you can get from a regression model.

RR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd. Error of the EstimateDurbin-Watson

Table 2 below, is the most important table of the group. It includes the statistical significance of each of the variables in the equation. The significance level (sometimes called the P-Value) tells us if the variable has a statistical effect on the dependent variable, which in this case is Clinton’s turnout percent. Remember, I’m using the Clinton data to estimate the affect on Biden’s percent of the vote.

Coefficients Table
ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSignificance
BStd. ErrorBeta

Acceptable significance levels are from .000 to .05. All but the turnout percent in 2016 is at the highest level. But even the 2016 turnout percent is at the acceptable level of .05. I have eliminated all other variables that don’t closely reach these levels.

In Chart 1, I show a scatterplot of the model’s estimate on the affect on Hilary Clinton’s turnout percent based on the models estimates.


As you can see, the model shows a strong linear relationship on her turnout percent in every Florida County (small circles) in 2016.

Now we can use this models unstandardized coefficient (.308) located in Table 2 of the 2016 turnout percent (TURN.PER.2016).

 An unstandardized coefficient represents the amount of change in the dependent variable Y (percent of Biden’s vote) due to a change of 1 percent of independent variable (turnout) in 2020, while controlling for the effects of the other variables in equation.

Specifically, I have controlled for the Republican registration, Democratic registration and the Black registration in each of the 67 counites, so we can see the singular effect of voter turnout alone.

While controlling these variables, if the turnout in Florida increases by 5% over the 2016 turnout (80%), Biden’s share of the two party vote increases by 1.5% percent (5 x .308). If, however, Florida hits the record turnout of 83% in 1992, Biden’s percent of the vote increases by 2.5% (8 x .308).

The increase doesn’t seem major, but we have to remember Florida’s habit of elections that are traditionally razer thin. In 2016, Donald Trump only won Florida by 1.2 %. Theoretically, a 4.5% increase in the turnout would have given Hillary the Florida win. But Trump would still have won the national election with a electoral count of 275 votes even while still losing Florida.

As a caveat, this an estimate derived from one specific campaign. But the model does confirm that in Florida, increasing the total turnout of registered voters does benefit the Democratic candidate. Which confirms the assumption of conventual wisdom. But the effect is small… Be safe…

* For those who want a copy of the data file, you will need SPSS software to use it. Just put a note in the comment section with your email.



October 15, 2020

Many political pundits are predicting a record turnout in the Presidential Election on November 3, including Florida. I don’t disagree with these opinions, based on early statistics of mail voting and early voting in states around the country. Early voting begins in Florida next Monday and I expect to see lines wrapped around early voting sites.

All these opinions of record voting made me wonder, what would be a record turnout in the Sunshine State?

In this exercise, I’m using data from the Florida Department of State’s data site. These turnout figures are based on the percent of registered voters and not either voting age voters (VAP) or eligible voters (VEP). This gives us equivalent comparisons back to 1972.

In Chart 1 and Table 1 below, you will find that by far the largest turnout occurred in 1992, with a turnout of 83%.


If you were wondering what caused this difference, 1992 was the year Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot faced off against each other.

For those who remember this election, it ways a fascinating combination of three completely different candidates for President. And it was the election where Ross Perot gave his memorable statement on NAFTA during a debate: “there will be a giant sucking sound going south.”

In the following election cycle, 1996, the lowest turnout occurred at 67%, a 16 point drop from 1992. This election again had three candidates, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Ross Perot and it was boring and predictable.

Perot had lost his luster and captured 9.2% of the vote, and Dole with 42.3%. Incumbent Bill Clinton managed 48% and won both Florida and the national vote.

Below is a normal probability distribution of all turnout rates since 1972. This is also called a “bell curve.”


Since this is a normal distribution, we would expect 68% of all turnout rates to be within one standard deviation of the mean (74.3%), which is 3.9%. Simply put, the odds suggest that there is a good chance that the next turnout rate will be between 78% and 70%.

I know what you are thinking, “what good is that prediction?” Well that’s the problem with statistics, it only tells us the probability of an occurrence and not an exact prediction. Otherwise, I would be now living on my 100 foot yacht on the French Riviera.

There is no doubt that this election has created a huge amount of interest for supporters of both candidates in Florida. Early anecdotal evidence suggests right now the momentum favors the Democrats.

But will it beat the Florida record of 83%, nearly 10 points above the mean? That’s a big jump from any other previous year. With that said, there has never been an election quite like this in all of Florida’s history either.

I don’t know about you but I’m putting my money on a record turnout at 85%. Don’t worry if I lose, I never bet more than $10. Be safe…


How Important are Arizona and Pennsylvania and How do they Compare now to 2016?

October 13, 2020

In today’s New York Times, there was an article that claimed the Trump campaign “appears to recognize that the two states (Wisconsin and Michigan) no longer represent his likeliest path to re-election.” This observation is based on the Trump campaign’s decision to reduce its television ads in these two states.

Instead, The Times reports that the Trump campaign has decided to go for the trifecta of Arizona, Pennsylvania and, of course, Florida. These three states would contribute 60 electoral votes and with North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes, would put the campaign very close to victory.

Considering that Trump is currently behind Biden in both Michigan and Wisconsin by a combined 13 points, this seems like a wise decision. I have posted on his chances in Florida and I consider this state still in play. But what about Arizona and Pennsylvania?

In Tables 1 and 2 below, I show what the election looked like in the same time period in both 2016 and 2020 in Arizona.

10/6 – 10/81087 LV2.94448
9/29 – 10/7633 LV4.34846
10/2 – 10/4296 LV5145
10/1 – 10/3655 LV4.24941
9/26 – 9/30500 LV4.45046
9/25 – 9/28500 LV4.34747
10/6 – 10/91190 LV3.35246
10/6 – 10/7716 LV3.65242
10/2 – 10/4676 LV5143
9/30 – 10/3600 LV44839
9/20 – 9/221015 LV34647
9/19 – 9/22799 LV4.35244

As it stands today (Table 2), Biden on average is leading Trump in Arizona by 6.7%. At the same point in 2016, Clinton was leading Trump by 2.7%, a four percent difference in Biden’s favor.

Moving to Pennsylvania, we find that in 2016 Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump by 8 points in the polls. When the last ballot was counted, Donald Trump won the state by 0.7%.

10/7 – 10/114839
10/4 – 10/94440
10/5 – 10/74840
10/3 – 10/64937
9/28 – 10/24738
9/30 – 10/35040
9/27 – 10/24541

In Table 4 below, you will find that according to the average of polls, during the same period, Biden leads Trump by 7 points.

10/10 – 10/124745
10/6 – 10/115144
10/4 – 10/55045
10/2 – 10/45046
10/1 – 10/55441
9/30 – 10/45443
9/30 – 10/25144

In other words, the race at this point is almost the same as it was in 2016. Now if you are a Trump supporter don’t go out and celebrate just yet. None of this suggests that the polls this time are as wrong as they were in 2016.

Do I agree with the Trump campaign for repositioning from Michigan and Wisconsin to Arizona and Pennsylvania? Focusing on Arizona is a good move and it should have been a priority from the beginning. They took it for granted.

The demographics in Arizona reflect the typical Trump voter: 78% white, 4% black and a large population of gun owners and now it may very well may go Democratic.

Pennsylvania at this point is a longshot but their choices are limited with just 21 days left and a limited budget.

Time is running out for Donald Trump and he is running out of money. Beginning next week, I can start making predictions on these battleground states where the winner will be decided. Stay tuned and stay safe…


Compared to Florida in 2016, How are Trump and Biden Doing?

October 12, 2020

We are now at 22 days until the election and although Biden is significantly ahead in the national polls, many swing states are still too close to call. As we all know by now, the national popular vote doesn’t determine who wins the White House.

Historically, the Republican nominee has to win Florida in order to win the election. Mathematically, there are other ways, but that road to victory is a rocky one and unlikely.

To determine where Biden is in relationship to Hillary Clinton on the same dates in 2016, I have compiled polling data from the same two periods, from September 21 through October 5, in both 2016 and 2020.

In Chart 1 and Table 1 below, you can see the Florida polls in 2016 showed the race very close during this period. Hillary Clinton had an average lead of only 2.6% during this period.

10/3 – 10/54446
10/4 – 10/44547
10/2 – 10/44544
9/27 – 10/44047
9/27 – 10/24449
9/28 – 9/294647
9/27 – 9/294246
9/19 – 9/214544

In 2020, Trump and Biden, are again reprising the 2016 contest as shown in Chart and Table 2 below.

10/6 – 10/74346
9/29 – 10/74945
10/2 – 10/45046
10/1 – 10/55140
10/1 – 10/44545
10/1 – 10/45145
9/30 – 10/14742
9/23 – 9/264643
9/21 – 9/225047

The only difference is that Biden has an average 3.7% lead, a minor improvement of only 1.1% over 2016. (Remember the MOE is about +/-3%) Simply put, it looks pretty much the same as 2016. Just a reminder, Donald Trump carried Florida by only 1.2%.

Can anyone tell you which candidate will likely win Florida? Of course not. The only thing we can predict is that, as is usual in Florida, the race will likely go down to the last vote counted.

The only good news is that Florida seems positioned to count the ballots efficiently and relatively quickly. But the race will likely be too close to call on election night.

Remember, if Florida goes for Biden it will certainly be close. If Trump wins Florida, it will also be close. In either case, the ballot counting and recounting could go on for weeks.

I don’t know about you, but I’m going to bed early knowing that the ballot counting will still be going on when I wake up. Be safe…


Is Election Turnout Declining in Florida?

October 9, 2020

I’m sure many of you have heard or read that election turnout has declined in the United State over the past several decades. Until recently, this has been the conclusion of even political experts and it stems from how statisticians and political scientists were calculating turnout.

The primary statistic that experts have used to calculate turnout is based the voting-age population (called VAP). Today, that includes any person 18 and older regardless if the are eligible to vote.

The problem with this statistic is that it includes non-citizens and felons which, of course, cannot legally vote. Prior to 1970, this difference was not particularly significant, but in the last 35 years, the number of ineligible felons and non-citizens has significantly increased.

Consequently, using the VAP statistic is inadvertently increasing the number of eligible voters, which distorts the turnout percentages.

Increasingly, political scientists have adopted a new metric, which is called Voter-Eligible Population (VEP).

With this change, they have eliminated people who cannot legally vote, such as felons and non-citizens. Consequently, the number of eligible voters has declined and the percent of voter participation has increased accordingly.

To demonstrate how this change has altered reporting statistics, I have created a chart of both VEP and VAP turnout figures in Florida since 1980, shown in Chart 1 below.

Chart 1

The red line is the older method (VAP) and the blue line represents the preferred method (VEP). Notice that the line differences increases over time, due to the elimination of prohibited voters. In Table 1 below, I show the Florida turnout percentages using the turnout of both VEP and VAP calculations since 1980.

Table 1

As you can see, the VAP percentages are considerably lower than the VEP percentages. The fourth column is the percent difference between the two methods and it shows that as time moves on, the percent differences increase due to the increasing number of felons and immigrants.

On average, the difference between VAP and VEP data over this 32 year period, is 6.3%. In other words, the VEP calculations show that voting participation actually increased over this period.

Finally, when the state reports turnout figures they use the percent of registered voters. This statistic overestimates the turnout rate because it only counts voters who have registered to vote rather than those who are eligible to vote and every state has their own registration requirements.

And what about November 3rd? I would be shocked if Florida and the nation have anything less than record turnouts no matter how it is calculated. The intensity, and not enthusiasm, will drive people to the polls. Anger motivates more than love…Do as my mother always said: voter early and often…


In 2016, did Clinton have a bigger lead in the Battleground states than Biden has today?

October 8, 2020

Watching Fox News this morning (yes, I watch both CNN and Fox News, that’s why I’m fair and balanced!) they had a report from the Hoover Institution which compared an online-survey of Battleground states conducted by YouGov/Economist to actual 2016 Battleground votes on the same dates.

To summarize, they found that when you compare the national votes to the Battleground states they concluded that “Overall, in the battleground states Trump has cut his disadvantage of 7-plus points (national vote) to about 4 percent, which makes these states still up for grabs.”

Although their methodology is sound, it does rely on an outside survey and the estimate of turnout of third party candidates vote which they admit is far fewer in the Battleground states.

It seems to me the easiest way to determine where the two candidates stand now as compared to 2016 is to compare Trump and Clinton’s current Battleground polls on this date, to the October 8, 2016 Trump/Biden Battleground polls. This will tell us if Biden is outperforming or underperforming Hillary Clinton at this exact date some 26 days until the election.

Fortunately, Real Clear Politics has already done the hard work for me by keeping data on the 2016 Battleground states. In Table 1 below, you can see how similar 2016 and 2020 are in respect to both the Democrat’s average lead over Trump at this exact date.

Oct. 8, 2016Oct. 8, 2020Difference
Clinton AVGBiden AVG
Table 1 : Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona

In 2016 on October 8, 2016, Hillary had an average percent lead from all six Battleground states of 5.1%. Today, Joe Biden has an average poll lead of 4.6% in the same six states, a difference of only 0.5%.

In other words, Joe Biden is almost exactly were Hilary was in 2016. On election day, Donald Trump won all six if these states by a total average of only 1.1%.

So if you are a Trump supporter, you can see his chances of staying in the White House are exactly like they were in 2016 when he collected 101 electoral votes in these six states.

If you are a Biden supporter, start saying a novena to the Patron Saint of Polling and hope this time they are accurate. Be safe…


Party Identification and Personal Identity

October 7, 2020

Sine the 1960’s, political scientists have concluded that partisanship is acquired mainly through socialization and predominately from our parents. By the time of early adulthood, most people’s political beliefs have hardened. That doesn’t mean some people can’t change later in life, but it is more the exception than the rule.

A recent national pilot survey included some questions on whether voters party identification is an important part of their personal identity. Personal identity is a concept that a person develops over a lifetime that determines who you are.

Sone identities, however, such as the color of your skin or where you grew up are out of your control. Other identities may evolve over time such as religious beliefs, but generally most people’s identities last a lifetime.

But what about partisan beliefs? When you identify with a party do you develop personal identity with it?

The understanding of personal identity and political beliefs is not well studied. But in a recent pilot survey (March, 2020) by the American National Election Studies, they did ask several questions about personal identity and party choice.

One of those questions, asks about the importance of party to their personal identity. In Table 1 below, you will see that only 19% said it wasn’t important at all.

How important is being [a Democrat/ Republican/ Independent] to your identity?
1. Not at all important19.0 %
2. A little important20.0 %
3. Moderately important27.0 %
4. Very important9.0 %
5. Extremely important16.2 %

More importantly, more than half (52%) said that it was moderately to extremely important to their identity. To demonstrate what that means, they used this follow-up question.

How often do you think about the fact that your are [a Democrat/a Republican/an Independent]?

1. All of the time20.0 %
2. Often22.0 %
3. Sometimes29.4 %
4. Rarely21.0 %
5. Never7.6 %

The fact that someone thinks of their party all the time seems unusual. Yet 20 percent said that was the case. And another 22% said they often think of their party identification as well.

To demonstrate how it affects a person’s political identification, I have compared this identity rating with their partisanship choice, from strong Republican to strong Democrat, as shown below in Chart 2.


The rating scale for personal identity ranges from 1 to 4, with one meaning not important at all and 4 extremely important. In other words, a higher personal identity score shows stronger personal identification. For example, strong Republicans have a personal identity score of 3.48, which shows that strong Republicans intensely identify with their party.

But for weak Republicans and Democrats, the identity scores are lower, at 2.03 and 2.14 respectively.

In other words, the higher the personal identity score the more intense their party strength. Conversely, the lower the score the less intense is their party strength.

But the biggest surprise is how Independents rate themselves. Pure Independents score 2.87, followed by Independents that lean toward either Republicans or Democrats.

What this shows is that the concept of “independence” is an important personal identification for some voters.

This is surprising since their is no party called Independent. (I don’t count the American Independent Party in this context.)

But to some voters, being a political independent is an important personal identity. Unencumbered by partisan beliefs, they can make choices on the candidates based on their position on the issues and not what party they belong. And it is how they see themselves.

In a political sense, that seems unusual, but for the independent voter it makes all the sense in the world.

The fact that many Republicans and Democrats consider their personal identity as a “Republican” or a “Democrat” explains why many react angrily when discussing politics with the opposite side.

I remember my mother telling me never to discuss religion or politics with my friends in the neighborhood. Now I know why. Take her advice and keep your personal identities to yourself. Be safe…


How the 2016 Most Accurate Pollster Sees this Election.

October 3 2020

[With the President testing positive for Covid-19 and his current hospitalization, we will follow future polls in the next week to see if any significant changes have occurred. Stay tuned…]]

In 2016, when most pollsters called the election for Hillary Clinton, one little-known pollster called it right. That’s the Trafalgar Group located in Atlanta, Georgia. The company advertises it uses a live callers, IVR (robocalls), email and text messages, but it is their use of what they call the “Social Desirability Bias” effect, where some voters tell pollsters what they believe is the popular response in vote choice rather than their real choice.

So I thought we should look at how they currently see the 2020 election through their latest’s polls and compare it to the average of polls.

One of the drawbacks for this firm is that it doesn’t conduct a lot of surveys, at least in compared to more national firms. So I will use only their latest survey and include the date of the survey as well.

Starting with Florida, on September 3, 2020, their survey gave Donald Trump a 3-pont lead over Biden, at time whey the average of polls gave Biden a 3% lead. However, the current average has Biden leading by only by 1.5%.

In Wisconsin, Trafalgar has Biden leading by 3% (9/24). The average of Real Clear Politics polls at this time had Biden with a 5.5% lead.

In Michigan, Trafalgar has Trump ahead of Biden by 1.7% (9/22), while the average of polls give Biden a 5.2% lead.

Trafalgar Group had Trump leading Biden in Pennsylvania by 2.4% while the average had Biden ahead by 5.7%.

In Minnesota, Trafalgar had the race tied (8/18). The average of polls showed Biden ahead by 9.4% (9/24).

On August 8, Trafalgar reported a 1 point lead for Trump in Arizona, when the average during that same time period had Biden ahead 3.7%.

In North Carolina, they had Trump up by 2-points (9/11) and the average of polls at the same time showed a Biden leading by 1.2%

To compare Trafalgar’s polling average versus all poll averages we find that they have Biden with an average lead in all seven states of only 0.85%. The average lead of all polls, however, shows Biden with a leading by 4.1%. That would indicate that on average, Trafalgar Group differs from other polling firms on Biden’s current lead is 3.2%.

Although the Trafalgar group has Biden slightly ahead, it is statistically far different from other polls on average. The biggest differences are for Pennsylvania and Minnesota where virtually every other pollster has Biden leading substantially.

It is important to know that this polling firm is rated as having a Republican bias, but it still had a better track record than other pollsters in 2016.

The major difference between the Trafalgar and other survey firms is that it says it uses a social desirability bias correction. However, it does not explain how this question is incorporated into the final percentages.

The use of IVR calls (interactive voice response) could explain some of their slant toward Trump as well. IVR surveys cannot use cell phone numbers and are restricted to land line calls. This means an older voter response rate, which translates into more Trump voters in the sample.

If their latest series of polls in the battleground states of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are accurate, Donald Trump will win the Electoral vote and, of course, the election. At least, that is what the most accurate pollster of 2016 suggests.

When you see a commercial for a stock or wealth management firm, they always end it with the following caveat: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results

I think that is good advice even for pollsters….Be safe…



September28, 2020

With the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice about to begin in October, the abortion rights debate is likely move to center stage. In a Pew Research survey conducted on August 4, 2019, showed that 61% of registered voters agreed with “abortion should be legal in all/most circumstances.” And 38% said it should “illegal in most/all circumstance’s.”

In a July 2018 General Social Survey (GSS) found that 49% of all voters supported a “woman’s right to have an abortion for any reason.” Why the difference? Although the Pew survey is more recent, it is highly unlikely the time difference is the main reason for the significant increase. More likely it is the wording of the question.

The most important variance in poll results is the wording of the question. The key word in the Pew survey is “legal,” where the GSS question states “a women’s right.” Some voters may have interpreted to legal as in laws and to a woman’s right, as an intrinsic right that we enjoy independently of any laws.

In their most recent survey (July 2020), the GSS changed the wording to apply to the respondent’s reaction if the Supreme Court reduced current abortion rights. Below is the exact wording and the results from 2400 national interviews.

How pleased or upset would you be if the Supreme Court reduced abortion rights?Percent %
1. Extremely pleased33
2. Moderately pleased16.5
3. Slightly pleased10
4. Neither pleased nor upset23.3
5. Slightly upset5.1
6. Moderately upset5.2
7. Extremely upset6.9

Instead of asking if abortion should be legal or a woman’s right, it asks their reaction to a possible ruling restricting abortion. This wording not only tells us how the voter feels about this possible change but it also measures their intensity as well.

Intensity determines whether a person will likely act on their beliefs. For example, a person who is extremely upset about the ruling is more likely to join a protest against it than a person who is just moderately upset.

Based on this alone, we can estimate the voting potential based on how pleased or upset by a Supreme Court ruling or even the reaction to the confirmation of a Justice who’s past rulings would suggest overturning or diluting the Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

And for abortion supporters, this is the main problem that Republicans have long understood: those opposed to abortion are more likely show their anger at the ballot box than those who support the right of a woman to have an abortion.

Will the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court prior to the election effect the outcome? Not likely. For 98% of voters, who they will vote for is a done decision. Be safe…



September 25, 2020

With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Donald Trump has promised to fill her vacancy prior the end of his term. And the Republican Senate has decided to accommodate him with a vote on his nominee, even though they took the opposite position when Obama was in his final term. As Yogi Berra would say: “It’s deja vu all over again.”

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion with undue Government restriction, the evangelical right and many conservatives have the made the Court a battleground for new appointees.

This ongoing battle for control of the Court has led me to wonder if it has affected voters confidence in this institution over the past 40 years. And does it affect Republicans and Democrats differently.

Below is as chart displaying the percent of all voters percent of confidence in the Court since 1975. As you can see it varies over time, ranging in a low 23% in 2014 to a high of 37% in 1991.

This chart tells us little about the dynamics, except that it fluctuates over the years. To get a better idea of what is affecting these changes, we need to look at both Republicans and Democrats evaluations of the Court over time as shown below.


Although both parties confidence in the Court has fluctuated over the past 40 years, the Democrats have been more consistent than the Republicans, averaging around 30%. The Republicans seem to be reacting to what party controlled the White House.

When Jimmy Carter was President (1977-1981), Republican confidence dropped by 10% during his term. When Ronald Reagan held the White House, confidence rose by over 10%. And most recently, with the 2016 election of Donald Trump, Republican confidence jumped by 15%.

For Republicans, the value of the Supreme Court increases and decreases depending on the party of the President. For Democrats no so much.

This is not surprising, since of the Evangelical voter has become a large component of the Republican Party’s coalition. In Chart 2 below, you can see the difference between Republican and Democratic voters on whether the Bible is the word of God.


I wasn’t able to find data on evangelic voters, but belief in the “Bible is the word of God” is probably a good substitute. As you can see, more Democrats than Republicans believed that the Bible was the word of God until the mid 1990’s. After the year 2000, the Republicans increasingly supported this opinion and Democrats faded until the gap between the two parties reached 17%.

And that brings us to the what is driving the Supreme Court battle: the right to have an abortion. In Chart 3 below, the gap between Republicans and Democrats on abortion rights has exponentially expanded over the past 27 years.

Today, there is a 35% difference in the two parties on the right for a woman to have an abortion for any reason. And I can guarantee you that the intensity of the anti-abortion voters far exceeds those who believe in abortion rights. And this fact is driving the current political battle over the appointing a new Supreme Court Justice.

It is not surprising that Amy Coney Barrett is viewed as the leading candidate to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. She is Catholic and has been critical of the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in the past, according to news reports and is supported by virtually all anti-abortion groups.

To sum this up, the Supreme Court is more important to rank and file Republicans that it is to Democrats. The reason for this is abortion. Republicans tend to lose confidence in the Court when a Democratic President is elected. Democratic confidence in the Court is less affected by the President’s Party. Now you can watch the political battle for the Court appointment and tell your friends why it’s happening. Be safe…