The EconomistFebruary 1st 2020 United States 212
1They perceive all the other major Demo-
cratic contenders as more extreme than Mr
Trump (see chart).
Mr Trump’s support from racially con-
servative whites may also help him. In an
article published in 2019, Tyler Reny of
ucla, Loren Collingwood of the University
of California, Riverside and Ali Valenzuela
of Princeton University conducted a study
of the ccesdata to analyse the link between
voters’ self-professed attitudes towards ra-
cial minorities and their voting behaviour.
The authors found that “white voters with
racially conservative or anti-immigrant at-
titudes” switched votes to Mr Trump at a
higher rate than those with more liberal
views on these matters.
Mr Biden could win back some of these
people. Alexander Agadjanian of mitstud-
ied the attitudes of nearly 3,000 Democrat-
ic voters and found those with “racially re-
sentful” views—disagreeing, for example,
that slavery and discrimination have made
progress difficult for African-Americans—
were 27 percentage points likelier to vote
for Mr Biden than for his opponents.
Mr Trump also benefited in 2016 by
attacking economic and political elites.
Justin Grimmer and William Marble of
Stanford studied the attitudes and turnout
of different voting blocs, finding that pov-
erty and low educational achievement—
proxies for the lower rungs of America’s
class hierarchy—were associated with
higher support for Mr Trump. According to
their analysis, low-income white people
living in closely contested states were
more than ten percentage points more like-
ly to vote for Mr Trump than for Mr Rom-
ney. They found that voters who had
dropped out of high school were both
around 20 points more pro-Republican
and more likely to turn out in 2016 than in- Polling data suggest that poorer
Americans are likelier to harbour resent-
ment toward political leaders. They may
have been attracted to Mr Trump’s anti-
elite messaging.
This presents Mr Sanders with his big-
gest advantage. Mr Biden’s history in Wash-
ington may evoke the same rage against
elites as Mrs Clinton did in 2016. Despite
years in the Senate, Mr Sanders is seen as an
outsider and working-class champion. He
may be less off-putting to voters looking
for a candidate to reform Washington.The proof is in the polling
This research suggests, then, that Mr Biden
could perform better than his competitors
against Mr Trump. He is more moderate
than Mr Sanders, so both more likely to at-
tract swing voters and less likely to moti-
vate Republicans to vote against him. His
strength with both black and racially con-
servative white voters could make a big dif-
ference in swing states. Recent polling
from the New York Timesand Siena College
suggests that 6% of the electorate would
vote for Mr Biden—but not for Elizabeth
Warren—against Mr Trump.
His advantage is evident in polls. Ac-
cording to The Economist’s analysis of pub-
licly released polling data, Mr Biden per-
forms better against Mr Trump than his
competitors, nationwide and in swing
states. Although polls of the general elec-
tion conducted this early before a contest
are not perfect, they are still helpful.
Mr Biden is not faultless. He is unin-
spiring on the stump and in debates. His
Washington ties may inspire resentment
from voters sceptical of elites. His candida-
cy would also represent a safety-first strat-
egy for the Democrats at a time when many
in the party desperately want to push a
much more progressive economic, racial
and social agenda. Yet for all that he still ap-
pears to be the Democrats’ best option in a
contest against Mr Trump.^7Shades of blue
United StatesSource:YouGov/TheEconomist *Democraticcandidates’averagevoteshareminusTrump’sinpollsreleasedsinceAugust 2019WarrenSandersBiden86420NationalDemocratic margin* v Donald Trump in selectedswing-state and national polls,2019-20,%86420Michigan
-2 420WisconsinBernie
SandersElizabeth
WarrenPete
Buttigieg JoeBiden Medianvoter DonaldTrumpIdeological placement←Veryliberal Very conservative →Registered voters’ average placement of candidates’ ideologies, November 30th 2019ModerateJ
ames younger’s mother believed he
should wear dresses and grow his hair
long because he considered himself a girl.
His father claimed the seven-year-old was
perfectly content with trousers, short hair
and being a boy. Almost every detail of the
couple’s vicious custody battle was fought
over their child’s gender identity. After his
mother won, culture warriors piled in.
Ted Cruz, a senator from Texas, said the
child was “a pawn in a left-wing political
agenda”. A host of Republican politicians
shared posts from a #ProtectJamesYounger
social-media campaign. In October a judge
awarded James’s parents joint custody, bar-
ring them from speaking publicly about
the case. Since then its effects have rippled
beyond one unhappy family. Lawmakers in
a number of states say the Youngers’ row
has prompted them to try to pass laws ban-
ning medical interventions that bring
transgender children closer to the sex with
which they identify.
On January 29th South Dakota became
the first state to vote for such a bill in its
lower chamber. It needs to be approved by
the Senate and governor to become law. At
least five others have drawn up bills which
would make it illegal to perform gender-re-
assignment surgery on children and to pre-
scribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hor-
mones for them.
The chief motivation of such lawmak-
ers is political. Some cite the Texan custodyWASHINGTON, DC
Local lawmakers seek to ban medical
interventions for transgender childrenThe politics of genderChanging states