Do Voters Care About Democracy?
36:38 Share

That's amazon.com slash adfreenews to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads.

My son is too old for Halloween trick-or-treating at this point, but my daughter, I think this is probably her last year trick-or-treating, and she is going as Adam Sandler. Like with the long basketball shorts? We went to Goodwill and she got like a crazy Hawaiian shirt and these like big basketball shorts. Can we get Adam Sandler to come on the podcast? I think we need to get him to make a song about the polls.

Hello and welcome to the FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Druk, and there is just over a week left in this race. As we sit down on Monday morning, a few things are coming to the fore. So first, Donald Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden, which featured much of the crassness and norm-breaking we've grown to expect from Trump and his orbit, though perhaps increasingly dark and blunt.

And this came after a week that featured a debate over whether Trump is a fascist. Retired General John Kelly, Trump's longest-serving chief of staff, said in an interview that Trump fit, quote, the general definition of a fascist. And when asked, Harris said she agreed. Today, we're going to ask...

a challenging question, which is how much do Americans care about Trump's Democratic norm breaking? We're also going to take a look at a novel attempt to gauge the opinions of a newly sought after swing group, Young Men. A research firm conducted a poll of men, a man poll called, I've been calling it a mole, with an oversample of young men and even tested some of the messages that candidates have been delivering on podcasts geared towards the demographic.

And of course, we're going to check in on the polls, but not just what they show this morning, the state of polls overall. So joining me to do that is senior researcher Mary Radcliffe. Welcome to the podcast, Mary. Hey, Galen. And also here with me is editorial director of data, Elliot Morris. Welcome to the podcast, Elliot. Hey, buddy. Happy to be here. Glad you're here. So housekeeping again at the

at the top of this week. We are again going to have three podcasts. So check your feeds on Monday. Well, that's this podcast. Then again on Wednesday and Thursday. We're also on Thursday going to have a Halloween mailbag episode. So yes, we will be in costume. And yes, we will also be taking your questions. So please send those in. You can find me on Twitter or you can email us at podcasts at 538.com.

All right, the polls. So at this very moment, the 538 national average shows Harris leading by a point and a half. The polls are tied in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. There's a one point lead for Trump in North Carolina, in Georgia, and a two point lead for Trump in Arizona.

There's still plenty of variation underneath all of that. For example, the New York Times released their final national poll of the cycle showing a literal 48 to 48 tie. Two days later, our colleagues at ABC News released a national poll showing Harris leading by four points amongst likely voters. So, Mary, at this very moment, eight days out, is there any way to describe the horse race other than a tie?

No. All right. Moving on. Next segment. Wonderful. I'm curious, though, both Mary and Elliot, if there are any recent polls that have intrigued you in the sense that they maybe tell you more about what is going on, either at the state level or the national level. I mean, for the most part, it's just a grab bag of stuff.

Pointing to a 50-50 race. There are some interesting tidbits if you compare, you know, LV versus RV numbers. Likely voters versus registered voters. We're not all that nerdy, Elliot. Come on. Aren't we, though? Give our listeners some credit, Galen. You know, Harris has led in these likely voter screens for some time, and it looks to me like that benefit is higher in the competitive states than it is elsewhere.

I don't know. You have to start looking really, really hard to see anything other than, you know, a tied race in the Electoral College. I mean, the point that you're making is one that could suggest a trend that we saw in 2022, which is that in the most competitive states, people potentially vote a bit differently or even vote more than in the non-competitive states. I mean, it's been beaten into us over decades now, and in particular over the past decade, that it's the Electoral College that decides.

I think after the New York Times final poll and Nate Cohn's write-up about their final national poll, there's been some talk about, well, what about the prospects of Trump winning the national popular vote and Harris winning the electoral college? What's the likelihood of that, Elliot? Our model says it's a less than 1% chance. That could happen if the result ends up being in the uncertainty interval for lots of these lower or lesser polled states like New York, and you see a much bigger swing in New York than our model projects.

It could happen, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it. Yeah, I think there's also some indications outside of the presidential top lines that it looks pretty unlikely. I'm thinking about New York in particular. If you look at some of the polling we've gotten out of swing congressional districts in New York, it does not look like those are going to be shifting as much towards Republicans as they did in the 2022 midterms.

Mary, I want to get to the state of the polls that you looked into recently. But first, we got to talk about early vote because we have already gotten a lot of questions about it. And the line at 538 is, you know, pay attention at your own risk that there's a lot of.

tea leaf reading that people do, but it's easy to get carried away because it can show us trends that end up being reversed when people vote on election day itself. But nonetheless, there's data there and we don't want to leave the data analysis only to folks who may be irresponsibly throwing tea leaves into the wind. So, Elliot, if we want to look at the early vote as responsibly as possible, what do we see?

The thing that you shouldn't do is just compare the number of people who are voting early for either party and say like, oh, this is, oh, Democrats are voting early, so they're going to do well in the election. It's like, well, we know they're going to be voting early, so you have to establish some benchmark. So what I try to do is look at, you know, the share of previous early voters who are voting early now for either party, and that might give you a better indication. But

But really, you should just ignore it until the day before the election. And the reason you want to do that is because there are so many people who have yet to vote early. There's like maybe 18 or 20 in the swing states, million, 18 or 20 million people. And you have 10 million ballots from them so far. So anything we think we can glean by reading these tea leaves now should be, our Bayesian prior should be overridden by new data by the time we get all the early votes in the next week.

Yeah, I actually think the early vote itself is basically proving our point on this. Because if you look at the trends in the early vote over time, you can actually see the ways that voters are changing their behavior.

I was looking at some data in North Carolina, Democrats that voted like right away, really early in the 2020 election didn't do that this time around. But the share of those voters that have voted early now as time has passed has gone up. So folks that voted first day in 2020 are still voting early, but they're voting early later.

You can see these patterns changing, which is exactly what we've been saying, right? If you compare to 2020, we're going to have totally different voting patterns because things are very different. So I think the early vote is sort of...

Proving our point. That you got to slow your roll. So nonetheless, over 43 million Americans have already voted, according to the University of Florida Elections Lab, which takes those people off the table for being influenced in this final week of the election. Unless their ballot got lit on fire. Seriously, terrible news out of Washington that one of the drop boxes was smoldering. So

you know, who knows if we will get a late-breaking October surprise or even early November surprise, as the case may be. But if we were, how much could we expect something like that to change the polls? I mean, we've seen in the past, obviously, the Comey letter or, you know, Bush's 1976 DUI in 2000. There was Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Just as a general sense, how much do events like this change the polls in the final stretch?

Yeah, the race can change a lot in the last couple of days. People don't necessarily realize this, but in 2020, the polls moved

by like two points on margin in Trump's direction, depending on, you know, how your model works or whatever. In the last week of the race in 2016, obviously it was closer to three or four points over the last 11 days of the campaign. Again, that's in the average swing state is smaller nationally. But we keep saying it, but like in a close race, a point really matters. Two points is the whole ballgame right now. If you start moving swing states by three or four points,

then you start getting into the realm where Trump or Harris are winning 310, 320 electoral votes.

This is like why we have a forecasting model in general. And I feel like the value proposition here is really high because we're just telling people like, hey, you have to wait. And here's why you have to wait. Wait as in W-E-I-G-H-T or W-A-I-T because I feel like at this very moment, we're doing a lot of both. Punny. I meant wait. W-A-I-T. You just have to sit on your hands for a bit. Fair enough. Yes, we all are going to have to be

But you will get like, I don't know, three or four more podcasts between now and then. So we will help you wait. Mary, you and our colleague Cooper recently wrote a piece about the state of the polls overall, which is a look at the wider polling landscape. Who is polling? Where are they polling? You know, the methods, experience, all of that. And you concluded that people shouldn't necessarily be so down on the polling industry as a result of that look.

Why? We pulled all of the polls in the last four presidential cycles that were conducted with an end date between 15 and 180 days before the election. We chose 15 so that we could, you know, try to get a full picture since we're still getting data released. It's true that there's a little bit fewer polls in in 2024 compared to previous cycles, but not by a lot.

If you don't count tracking polls, which we don't because we don't want to really count the same data over and over again, we've had just over 1,500 polls released in 2024. In 2020, if you look over the same time period, it was just over 1,600. So we're only off by about 100. So folks that are complaining we don't have a lot of data, yes, we do. And how does that compare to even earlier cycles? So

So in 2016, it was a little over 1,700. So we've seen sort of a slow decrease over that time. But in 2012, it was just about 1,300. So 2016, we basically saw like a big increase in the number of polls compared to 2012. And then it's just like decreased a little bit each year since then. So people are still out there trying to get an answer. Yeah. And the other really like useful nugget from this analysis was

We have more polls this year that come from pollsters with a pollster rating than in any cycle other than 2020. And it's only less than 2020 by 100 or so. Which is to say folks with experience. It's not just a bunch of experimental pollsters out there. Or what is our takeaway from that? It's folks with experience. And it's also folks that we have a sense of how to interpret based on their past work. So if a brand new pollster comes out and we don't have any information about them, we don't

always know how seriously we should take them. Once we have enough data to establish a pollster rating for them, now our models know something about them. So whether they're good pollsters that we trust a lot or they're pollsters that we trust a little bit less, at least we know how seriously to take that data. What about the split between national and state-level polls?

When you look at presidential polling specifically at the state and national level, it actually is a pretty close split to what we saw in 2020. We have about 1,000 state-level presidential polls and about 300 national presidential polls, which is pretty close to where it was in 2020. In 2016, we saw a significantly higher number of state-level polls and a lower number of national polls.

So you can see sort of there is a shift in the last two cycles into more national polling. But we still have about a thousand state level polls in both of the last two cycles. So it's pretty comparable. And what should we all take this to mean? Right. The polls were still off.

by a larger than average amount in 2020. So the polling landscape hasn't necessarily declined in terms of number or necessarily firms that are out there doing it, but 2020 wasn't great in and of itself. So what should we make of all of this?

I mean, I think there's a couple other reasons to be optimistic about the landscape of polling. Besides, you know, the quantity of all these polls, we're seeing a higher percentage of the polls that are sponsored by nonpartisan organizations like

like media companies or universities. The average rating of polls that have a pollster rating is higher than it's been in past cycles. The percent of polls that is sponsored by a partisan sponsor, according to FiveThirtyEight's definition, is lower than in past cycles. You know, there's a lot of reasons to think that the data this year might, on average, be of higher quality than the data we've seen in previous cycles.

Let's move on and talk about how Americans view Trump's norm-breaking behavior. But first, a break. This is an ad for BetterHelp Online Therapy. What's something you've always wanted to learn? An instrument? A new language? How to not burn pasta? Whether it's big or small, imagine how great it would feel to finally do it. As kids, we were always learning and growing. But as adults, sometimes we lose that curiosity that made life feel so exciting.

It's easy to think that we are who we are and we can't change, but BetterHelp is here to tell you that it's never too late to be who you want to be. Therapy can help you reconnect with your sense of wonder because your back-to-school era can come at any age. BetterHelp makes it easy to get started with affordable phone, video, or live chat sessions you can do from anywhere and the option to message your therapist between sessions if anything comes up. Rediscover possibility with BetterHelp.

Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P, dot com. Today's podcast is brought to you by Shopify. Ready to make the smartest choice for your business? Say hello to Shopify, the global commerce platform that makes selling a breeze.

Whether you're starting your online shop, opening your first physical store, or hitting a million orders, Shopify is your growth partner. Sell everywhere with Shopify's all-in-one e-commerce platform and in-person POS system. Turn browsers into buyers with Shopify's best converting checkout, 36% better than other platforms.

Effortlessly sell more with Shopify Magic, your AI-powered all-star. Did you know Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. and supports global brands like Allbirds, Rothy's, and Brooklinen? Join millions of successful entrepreneurs across 175 countries, backed by Shopify's extensive support and help resources.

Because businesses that grow, grow with Shopify. Start your success story today. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash 538. The number is not the letters. Shopify.com slash 538.

Last week, John Kelly, Donald Trump's longest-serving chief of staff, said in an interview that Trump fit, quote, the general definition of a fascist. He told the New York Times that on more than one occasion, Trump told him that, quote, Hitler did some good things, end quote. Overall, Kelly says, Trump, quote, prefers the dictator approach to government, end quote. The next day, during a CNN town hall, when asked if she believes if Trump is a fascist, Harris said, yes, I do.

Trump's anti-democratic tendencies have gotten him into trouble before, to put it mildly. It was one of Joe Biden's main messages during his successful campaign for president in 2020. This week, Harris will lay out her closing argument in a speech at the site where Trump spoke on January 6th, 2021.

And so the question that I want to ask is, how much do Americans care about Trump's habit of breaking democratic norms? Not to take any of this lightly, but to get at that, I do have a good or bad use of polling example. And it comes from a study that was published back in 2020, but that I saw at the time and have thought a lot about since. And essentially,

It's a couple researchers at Yale. And to get at the question of how much Americans care about democracy, they offered respondents two hypothetical candidates. Folks had to choose between the two. Somebody who shares their partisan identity in all of their policy positions and the like, and somebody from the opposition.

And then they told respondents that this person who shares your political identity, your policy positions, whatever, has done something anti-democratic. And it could include various different things, but that goes against our sense of respecting opposition, respecting the free press, you know, allowing the opposition to vote, etc.,

And then they had the opportunity to see what percent of people would switch their vote from the candidate who agreed with them on all the policy stuff to the person that they disagreed with just based on that anti-democratic behavior. And it was three and a half percent of respondents. And in both directions, that's just total, not three and a half percent of Republicans or three and a half percent of Democrats. It was three and a half percent of all the people who responded.

You may look at this, and at the time, the Atlantic did, and said 3.5% of Americans care about democracy. Is that a good or bad use of polling? To look at this survey and conclude, it is only 3.5% of Americans care enough about democratic norms to change their vote accordingly.

I think it is good to use survey experiments to try to see how voting behavior in the real world would change if people encountered anti-democratic behavior by certain candidates. Great. And it's good to talk about that in the press. In general, I think the press should be reading more of the pages of the August American Political Science Review. Great. Which is where this came from. Which is where this came from. Yeah.

The 3.5% number, I think using that number actually might be a bad use of the study if you say that only 3.5% of Americans care about democracy. If that's the word, I think that's bad. What the paper is finding is that only 3.5% of voters would respond to specific anti-democratic behavior that the scholars tested and punish candidates of their party or of the other party.

But they actually found that a much higher share would defect from their party if that person was anti-democratic, closer to 12%. But these were scenarios that at the time were deemed much less real world. And so if I can sum all this up, I think what's really interesting is it seems like they're finding more support.

for like a symbol of democracy than they are for the actual democratic norms that hold up democracy in America. Which is kind of like what political scientists have been saying for a decade is like watch the actual erosion of the norms and the rules that foster competitive, you know, parties and mutual tolerance between parties. This is evidence of that. So I don't think that 3.5% number is good, but I do think it's good that they're using the evidence. Yeah, I tend to agree. I think

The kinds of specific anti-democratic behaviors that go into that three and a half percent number are things that I think a lot of Americans might see as relatively minor, like reducing the number of polling places in areas with opposition support. I don't think that's a good idea or a good thing to do, to be clear. But I also don't think that people would be like, oh, no, you've reduced the number of polling places. Democracy is over forever.

I just don't think it would be interpreted in that way by voters, even though it is a clearly anti-democratic thing to do. So do you think that, for example, more than three and a half percent of the electorate was affected by January 6th and perhaps just as importantly, the efforts to overturn the 2020 election that surrounded January 6th?

Do I think that more than three and a half percent of the electorate thought that was very bad? That would switch their vote accordingly. I think if you held the presidential election on January 7th of 2021, my answer is yes. I think that over the intervening years, the landscape has changed pretty dramatically.

There has been a significant effort to sort of muddy the waters around the truth of what happened on January 6th, that people sort of allow themselves to rationalize. We've had four years available to rationalize what happened back in 2021. And I think that's a lot of time for voters to come up with a reason to allow themselves to vote for someone who shares their policy positions generally.

To Mary's point, the scholars also tested the impact of an individual voter's closeness to a candidate on things like social policy, economic policy, and then just their baseline party identification. They tested the impacts that those things would have on someone's vote.

And they found that if you add those up, the normal things, social policy, economic policy, and partisanship, those have about a 10 times as large effect on who you vote for than if you are giving pro-democratic statements.

And then they still had about twice as large an impact as the really anti-democratic stuff that the scholars tested, stuff like prosecuting journalists and banning protests, which has become somewhat normal speech in some corners of the ideological spectrum in America now. So my theory here is if you have a party that then co-ops some of those anti-democratic things

attitudes and they wrap it up into their ideological package, then you actually would see smaller impacts from people who would otherwise be opposed to those anti-democratic things because they now just see them as associated with a party identification. In other words, you're just like reducing the overall pool of voters who would be moved by anti-democratic speech.

So I would also expect January 6th to probably have a lesser impact on politics now than it did four years ago.

As I mentioned before, Kamala Harris plans on giving a speech in Washington at the Ellipse, which was the site of Trump's speech on January 6th. This is more in line with the argument that we heard for four plus years from Joe Biden. And it compares with her initial message about more about the economy pivoting on immigration, joy, freedom, and essentially saying that

Trump is an unserious person and calling Republicans weird. This is more in line with saying Republicans are dangerous. Trump is dangerous. What is the strategy of sort of pivoting at this last moment almost to a more Trump is dangerous and you should take him seriously from the happy warrior?

I don't know that we know that her closing message speech at the Ellipse will be focused on those kinds of issues. I mean, certainly there's an optical element by holding the speech in the same location. My guess is it's just an attempt to razz Trump by drawing a larger crowd than him.

I don't know what's in the message yet. We will find that out. And I could be wrong that it doesn't focus as much on this Trump is dangerous. But I think the fundamental argument that's happening here is you're trying to do mad king messaging, right? So sometimes you have to focus on how that person is mad, right? And this is the Trump is unserious, Trump is a clown sort of thing. And then sometimes you have to focus on

the king part, right? Trump would do all of these undemocratic things and so on. But what's tricky about those messages is that it's difficult to stitch them together. As to this switch to the focus on the dangerous side, the focus on potentially undemocratic actions and behaviors by a potential Trump administration, I do think that's really a get out the vote move more than anything. It's a base turnout play.

Yeah, if you look at the recent New York Times national poll, democracy is one of the only issues that Harris has an edge over Trump on.

Voters nationally said 51% that they trust Harris more to do a better job than Trump, who's at 45%. So it's pretty close, actually pretty close to that 3.5%. You want to play to that in the closing days of the campaign, especially when the Trump campaign is generating plenty of headlines to anchor your message to. They've created...

environment that is bad for them in the final days of this campaign, the Trump campaign has. So it makes sense for the Harris campaign to seize on that when they know the polling is on their side. Whether or not it'll be enough, if it's a turnout thing, if it's a vote persuasion thing, you know, whatever, that's all like something to be figured out eight days from now. You just have to do what you think will work and hope you made the right decision.

Yeah, I think also, I mean, if you look at like what the campaign was messaging earlier, there was a big push on like abortion. I don't have the campaign's internal data, but I would suspect that for voters for whom abortion is a key issue that would tend to identify as pro-choice, I would suspect that Harris has that group in the bag. Right. So this is sort of a

An attempt, I would I would expect to make sure you get turnout from more moderate voters that are just sort of the Liz Cheney's. Yeah, the Liz Cheney's, the moderate voters that are displeased with the behavior they see from Donald Trump on the campaign trail and over the last few years.

Well, we're going to have more on election integrity in the coming days in this feed. So keep an eye out for that. But let's turn from one kind of sought after voter, the Liz Cheney voter, to a different sought after voter, which is the podcast bro. But first, a break.

This podcast is supported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. For more than 75 years, AU has supported freedom without favor and equality without exception. Learn more at au.org slash podcast.

One storyline we're watching in the final weeks is the contest for an emerging group of swing voters, which is namely young men. And it's a contest that's unfolding right here in your podcast feed. So in recent weeks, Trump has appeared on numerous podcasts, of course, most recently Joe Rogan, but also the impulsive podcast with Logan Paul, Theo Vaughn show this past weekend. And

And Harris has made the rounds as well. She appeared on Charlamagne Tha God's The Breakfast Club, NBA stars Steven Jackson and Matt Barnes' show All the Smoke, and most recently, Shannon Sharp's podcast club,

Shay Shay. So I actually am not familiar with all of those podcasts, but if you are, fantastic. Last week, we got some new data that might give clues about how young men will perceive all of this and vote accordingly. So the democratically aligned polling firm Blueprint released a survey of about 1300 male registered voters. As I said, a man poll, call it a mole, including an oversample of men under 30. So 611 men under 30.

Among other things, the poll found that young men have a much darker view of America than older men, that they love Barack Obama, and that in line with other surveys, they are more politically moderate than young women. I don't have a grand...

point to make here. And you can weigh in on whether or not you think this was a good use of polling if you'd like to. But I'm also just curious what stuck out to you in this poll of voters who could be pivotal in this election, Mary.

That point you brought up about young men being a lot more down on America than men overall or older men, that really stuck out to me, especially in context of what we were just talking about with this final push of messaging from the Harris campaign and allies about Trump being dangerous to America or anti-democratic or whatever other language folks are using.

It seems to me that that might not be effective with this group of voters because they already think politicians are corrupt. They're much less likely to say things like, I'm proud to be an American. America is a force for good in the world. All of these things like, should we protect America? And they're basically just like, meh.

I don't mean to say that they disagree with these statements overall, but the level of agreement is significantly lower than older men, which means you are having some core chunk of younger men there that are saying, no, actually, I'm not proud to be an American. Yes, actually, America is in decline. So this, like, protecting American democracy messaging really seems, like, off target for these voters. Well, and it seems to me that in some ways this is a split screen, right? Like, the...

moderate Liz Cheney type of swing voter is being messaged to on one hand, and then the younger politically disillusioned male is being messaged to on a different hand and honestly through completely different media sources as well.

Yeah, that's true. I am obviously not the target demographic for this list of podcasts. Neither young nor men. So I'm really not as familiar with this media landscape. Well, then let's pivot to young man, Elliot Morris, the only under 30 male on this podcast. What did you make of it? As a young man, what I'm surprised by...

They are not very loyal to either one of the mainstream political parties. We see this in polls of young people in general. They're much likelier to identify as independent or say they don't feel represented by a party. But if you go through these crosstabs...

50%, 60% or so say they think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left. They want to restrict your personal freedoms for gun rights and free speech. But then on the Republican side, they also say that the Republicans push policies that benefit rich men instead of working class men and that they oppose abortion too much. And that they're extreme. When they asked who's more extreme, the Democrats or Republicans, they said Republicans. Yeah. Yeah.

You know, we see the top lines. Men are a Republican-leaning group. Young men are less Democratic-leaning than young women.

Up until this election, they were at least still Democratic-leaning. This seems to suggest, you know, they're going to be pretty even-keeled. But, you know, maybe they're not as pro-Republican as lots of the coverage of, like, of these shows, like especially Trump going on Rogan, would seem to suggest. Okay, so that's not super surprising to me. The thing that is super surprising is that Barack Obama plus 22 favorability rating, most approved of legislator, politician that they tested.

And you see all this coverage of, you know, of the Obama's campaigning and it's sort of covered as like, look, they're playing to the Democratic base thing. So actually, if he's this popular, you know, the Republican Party should be trying to parade out Obama, too. He's just a popular guy. So so that was a little more surprising to me.

Yeah. I mean, when it comes to how they feel pretty down on both political parties, I wonder if that leads to a low turnout dynamic. I mean, we saw in 2020, 50% of eligible young voters, so under 30, voted. And that was record-breakingly high and 11 points higher than 2016, when only 39% of eligible young people voted. I'm citing data from Tufts here.

It's already the turnout amongst folks under 30 is not high. Women, of course, vote at higher rates than men. So this like looking at this whole poll, I just thought,

You know, I feel like a lot of young men won't be voting this cycle. And Robert F. Kennedy's campaign had a lot of support among young men as a young man. It's very popular to support RFK and to be on this like third rail of politics campaigning for, you know, a new party system. You know, that's not as alien as I think a lot of people think it is.

Or wrote it off as, yeah. Yeah, I mean, these are the same folks that would have been like Andrew Yang supporters back in 2020, right? Probably still are.

Well, there was not that crosstab in this poll, so unfortunately we do not have data. Nonetheless, a very interesting poll. We will, as you have been saying throughout this podcast, find out in eight days. Well, actually, eight days for the exit polls and then two months later for the verified voter surveys to really see how this group of the electorate ended up voting

We're going to leave it there. Thank you, Elliot and Mary, for joining me today. Thanks, Galen. Thanks, Galen. Great to be here. My name is Galen Druk. Our producers are Shane McKeon and Cameron Tretavian, and our intern is Jayla Everett. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcasts at 538.com. You can also, of course, tweet at us with any questions or comments. If you're a fan of the show, leave us a rating or a review in the Apple Podcast Store or tell someone about us. Thanks for listening, and we will see you soon.