fivethirtyeight--2020-06-01--Police Are Killing Fewer People In Big Cities, But More In Suburban And Rural America

Six years after nationwide protests against police violence captured the country ’ s attention , the recent killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd have put the issue of police violence back into national focus .
Many are left asking what , if anything , has really changed ?
In the absence of comprehensive federal data , databases such as Fatal Encounters , Mapping Police Violence and The Washington Post ’ s Fatal Force project have tracked these killings year after year .
And the data produced by these projects suggests that police , at least on a national level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they were before Michael Brown ’ s death in Ferguson , Missouri , sparked widespread protests in 2014 .
But these numbers don ’ t tell the whole story .
While the nationwide total of people killed by police nationwide has remained steady , the numbers have dropped significantly in America ’ s largest cities , likely due to reforms to use-of-force policies implemented in the wake of high-profile deaths .
Those decreases , however , have been offset by increases in police killings in more suburban and rural areas .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killings exist , in other words — the issue may be whether an area has the political will to enact them .
Indeed , looking only at the 30 most populous cities in the country , you see a substantial decrease in the number of people killed by police in recent years .
Police departments in America ’ s 30 largest cities killed 30 percent fewer people in 2019 than in 2013 , the year before the Ferguson protests began , according to the Mapping Police Violence database .
Similarly , The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer killings by these agencies in 2019 compared to 2015 , the earliest year it tracks .
This data isn ’ t perfect .
The databases have slightly different methodologies for collecting and including police killings .
And not everyone who ’ s shot winds up dying , which means some people who are shot by police don ’ t end up in one of these tracking projects .
So to better test and understand the progress made in these big cities , I compiled an expanded database of all fatal and nonfatal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expands our view of any changes in police behavior .
Based on data published on police departments ’ websites and reported in local media databases , I found data covering police shootings in 2013-2019 for 23 of the 30 departments .
An analysis of this data shows that police shootings in these departments dropped 37 percent from 2013 to 2019 .
So why haven ’ t these trends resulted in fewer people killed by police nationwide ?
Examining the geography of police killings based on population density ( a methodology developed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featured in a previous FiveThirtyEight article ) , police killings in suburban and rural areas appear to have increased during this time period — offsetting reductions in big cities .
This shift mirrors other trends within the criminal justice system .
For example , since 2013 , the number of people in jail per capita in urban areas has fallen by 22 percent , while rates have increased by 26 percent in rural areas , according to a study by the Vera Institute of Justice .
Similarly , arrest rates have declined in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest rates in suburban and rural areas .
Fewer arrests means fewer police encounters that could escalate to deadly force — police are substantially more likely to use force when making an arrest than in other interactions with the public — so falling arrest numbers could have a marked effect on police killings .
Comparing police shootings data to the arrests data each department reported in the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that departments that reported larger reductions in arrests from 2013-2018 also reported larger reductions in police shootings .
Specifically , cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent fewer arrests in 2018 than 2013 , compared to only a 4 percent drop in arrests in cities where police shootings increased or remained constant .
These declining arrest rates have been attributed , in part , to reforms reducing enforcement of low-level offenses such as marijuana possession , disorderly conduct , loitering and prostitution .
Other reforms may be making a difference as well .
Police shootings dropped in Philadelphia , San Francisco and Baltimore after the cities began reforming their use-of-force policies to match recommendations from the Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following protests over the shooting of Laquan McDonald and fell further after the city adopted more restrictive use-of-force policies and a new police accountability system .
Denver also adopted more restrictive use-of-force policies in 2017 , requiring de-escalation as an alternative to force .
Los Angeles police shootings reportedly declined to the lowest number in 30 years in 2019 , which officials attribute to new policies requiring officers to use de-escalation and alternatives to deadly force .
Shootings dropped precipitously in Phoenix a year after public scrutiny led the department to evaluate its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
And , in response to local protests over the 2012 killing of James Harper , Dallas implemented a range of policies to emphasize de-escalation , which local authorities credit with producing a sustained decline in police shootings .
This suggests that reforms may be working in the places that have implemented them .
Many of these reforms were initiated in response to protests and public outcry over high-profile deaths at the hands of police — most notably in Baltimore following the police killing of Freddie Gray , in San Francisco following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chicago and Dallas following the deaths of Laquan McDonald and James Harper .
This suggests that protests and public pressure may have played an important role in producing policy changes that reduced police shootings , at least in some cities .
Of course , that ’ s a double-edged finding .
The absence of reforms in more suburban and rural cities and towns could explain why police killings haven ’ t decreased in those areas — though it may not explain why they increased .
There ’ s still a lot we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing in rural and suburban areas .
More Latinos are being killed by police in suburban areas than before , according to Mapping Police Violence data , while more white people are being killed in rural areas than before .
Some of this might reflect demographic shifts ( though killings have dropped in urban areas across all races ) or other changes in the criminal justice system — for example , the share of the population that ’ s in jail awaiting trial has been increasing in rural areas .
Gun-related suicides and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing in rural areas , which might also be spilling over into policing practices and responses .
Still , if we know that certain policies reduce police violence , adapting those reforms to smaller cities , suburban and rural communities could be a pathway to reducing police violence in the U.S. overall .
But that would take political willpower at the local level , and the country ’ s growing urban-rural political divide might make that difficult .

UPDATE (August 27, 2020, 2:58 p.m.): We originally published this article earlier this year, after a police officer killed George Floyd in Minneapolis. In light of the shooting of Jacob Blake, who was shot seven times by a police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, this week, we’ve decided to recirculate the article.
Six years after nationwide protests against police violence captured the country’s attention, the recent killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd have put the issue of police violence back into national focus. Many are left asking what, if anything, has really changed?
In the absence of comprehensive federal data, databases such as Fatal Encounters, Mapping Police Violence and The Washington Post’s Fatal Force project have tracked these killings year after year. And the data produced by these projects suggests that police, at least on a national level, are killing people as often now as they were before Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, sparked widespread protests in 2014.
But these numbers don’t tell the whole story. While the nationwide total of people killed by police nationwide has remained steady, the numbers have dropped significantly in America’s largest cities, likely due to reforms to use-of-force policies implemented in the wake of high-profile deaths. Those decreases, however, have been offset by increases in police killings in more suburban and rural areas. It seems that solutions that can reduce police killings exist, in other words — the issue may be whether an area has the political will to enact them.
Indeed, looking only at the 30 most populous cities in the country, you see a substantial decrease in the number of people killed by police in recent years.
Police departments in America’s 30 largest cities killed 30 percent fewer people in 2019 than in 2013, the year before the Ferguson protests began, according to the Mapping Police Violence database. Similarly, The Washington Post’s database shows 17 percent fewer killings by these agencies in 2019 compared to 2015, the earliest year it tracks.
This data isn’t perfect. The databases have slightly different methodologies for collecting and including police killings. And not everyone who’s shot winds up dying, which means some people who are shot by police don’t end up in one of these tracking projects. So to better test and understand the progress made in these big cities, I compiled an expanded database of all fatal and nonfatal police shootings by these departments, which expands our view of any changes in police behavior. Based on data published on police departments’ websites and reported in local media databases, I found data covering police shootings in 2013-2019 for 23 of the 30 departments. An analysis of this data shows that police shootings in these departments dropped 37 percent from 2013 to 2019.
So why haven’t these trends resulted in fewer people killed by police nationwide?
Examining the geography of police killings based on population density (a methodology developed by the real estate site Trulia, which was featured in a previous FiveThirtyEight article), police killings in suburban and rural areas appear to have increased during this time period — offsetting reductions in big cities.
This shift mirrors other trends within the criminal justice system. For example, since 2013, the number of people in jail per capita in urban areas has fallen by 22 percent, while rates have increased by 26 percent in rural areas, according to a study by the Vera Institute of Justice.
Similarly, arrest rates have declined in major cities at a faster pace than arrest rates in suburban and rural areas. Fewer arrests means fewer police encounters that could escalate to deadly force — police are substantially more likely to use force when making an arrest than in other interactions with the public — so falling arrest numbers could have a marked effect on police killings. Comparing police shootings data to the arrests data each department reported in the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that departments that reported larger reductions in arrests from 2013-2018 also reported larger reductions in police shootings. Specifically, cities that reduced police shootings also made 35 percent fewer arrests in 2018 than 2013, compared to only a 4 percent drop in arrests in cities where police shootings increased or remained constant. These declining arrest rates have been attributed, in part, to reforms reducing enforcement of low-level offenses such as marijuana possession, disorderly conduct, loitering and prostitution.
Other reforms may be making a difference as well. Police shootings dropped in Philadelphia, San Francisco and Baltimore after the cities began reforming their use-of-force policies to match recommendations from the Department of Justice. In Chicago, police shootings dropped following protests over the shooting of Laquan McDonald and fell further after the city adopted more restrictive use-of-force policies and a new police accountability system. Denver also adopted more restrictive use-of-force policies in 2017, requiring de-escalation as an alternative to force. Los Angeles police shootings reportedly declined to the lowest number in 30 years in 2019, which officials attribute to new policies requiring officers to use de-escalation and alternatives to deadly force. Shootings dropped precipitously in Phoenix a year after public scrutiny led the department to evaluate its practices and implement changes to its use-of-force policy. And, in response to local protests over the 2012 killing of James Harper, Dallas implemented a range of policies to emphasize de-escalation, which local authorities credit with producing a sustained decline in police shootings.
This suggests that reforms may be working in the places that have implemented them. Many of these reforms were initiated in response to protests and public outcry over high-profile deaths at the hands of police — most notably in Baltimore following the police killing of Freddie Gray, in San Francisco following the killing of Mario Woods, and in Chicago and Dallas following the deaths of Laquan McDonald and James Harper. This suggests that protests and public pressure may have played an important role in producing policy changes that reduced police shootings, at least in some cities.
Of course, that’s a double-edged finding. The absence of reforms in more suburban and rural cities and towns could explain why police killings haven’t decreased in those areas — though it may not explain why they increased. There’s still a lot we need to investigate about how policing is changing in rural and suburban areas. More Latinos are being killed by police in suburban areas than before, according to Mapping Police Violence data, while more white people are being killed in rural areas than before. Some of this might reflect demographic shifts (though killings have dropped in urban areas across all races) or other changes in the criminal justice system — for example, the share of the population that’s in jail awaiting trial has been increasing in rural areas. Gun-related suicides and gun deaths in general appear to be increasing in rural areas, which might also be spilling over into policing practices and responses.
Still, if we know that certain policies reduce police violence, adapting those reforms to smaller cities, suburban and rural communities could be a pathway to reducing police violence in the U.S. overall. But that would take political willpower at the local level, and the country’s growing urban-rural political divide might make that difficult.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: The data behind police violence


fivethirtyeight--2020-05-29--Trump Has Returned To His 2016 Law-And-Order Rhetoric, But It Might Not Sit So Well In 2020

When President Trump delivered his inaugural address in 2017 , it was in an unfamiliar style .
Gone was the jokey off-handedness of Trump-on-the-trail .
In a stilted , elegiac tone the freshly-minted president spoke of “ rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones ” and “ young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge.
” The content of the speech was familiar , though : Trump would bring America back from the brink .
“ This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
” President George W. Bush called it “ some weird shit.
” Trump ran on law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and order candidate ” he helpfully explained — even if empirical evidence suggested nothing was wrong with the law and order Americans were already living under .
The country ’ s rates of violent crime were trending downward when he ran — falling 51 percent between 1993 and 2018 — and the economy was churning along , but Trump tapped into some Americans ’ dissatisfaction with the status quo .
Law and order was about the restoration of a certain social configuration favorable to white Americans as much as it was a concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year that is 2020 marches on , Trump has returned to his 2016 rhetoric , but it may register differently .
Late Thursday night , Minneapolis residents burned down a police station after the death of George Floyd , a black man in police custody .
The president tweeted in response that , “ These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd , and I won ’ t let that happen .
Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way .
Any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when the looting starts , the shooting starts .
Thank you !
” It was a familiar law and order message from Trump .
But he tweeted it into an unfamiliar America : Over 100,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 in the past few months .
One out of every four workers has filed for unemployment .
As the country lives through actual American carnage , will Trump ’ s law and order message resonate as it once did ?
Or will the bleak realities of 2020 prove inhospitable to the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can fix it ” ?
In 2016 , voters seemed excited by Trump ’ s verbal promiscuity , the lurid way that he painted the state of the nation .
In his telling , America had descended into disarray thanks to porous borders that allowed in terrorists and job-stealing immigrants .
He was engaging , if not accurate ( the economy was doing well in many parts of the country and President Obama had actually deported more immigrants who were living in the country illegally than previous administrations ) .
Pew Research surveys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , terrorism , and immigration , along with foreign policy , as the most pressing issues of the election .
And according to another Pew survey , 78 percent of voters who supported Trump in 2016 felt crime had gotten worse since 2008 .
Trump ’ s law and order framework was a sturdy way for him to talk about a more elusive idea — nostalgia for a mid century America with robust domestic manufacturing and a clearly-defined , if racist , social order .
While Trump is no wonk and couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the consolidation of industry and the widening gap between CEO and worker pay , he could talk about “ the good old days ” when you could smack someone around .
It evoked something deep , that call for everything and everyone in their proper place .
The law and order message might not sit so well in 2020 .
The country has now lived through years of controversies over video-taped killings by police , and the pandemic makes the world feel more chaotic day by day .
We ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political reaction to the demonstrations in Minnesota , but there might be more sympathy for the turbulent feelings that make people riot or protest .
While many will still roundly condemn looting , it ’ s perhaps easier for a greater number of us to imagine the kind of jagged anger — grief , if we ’ re being concise about it — that causes it than it was four years ago .
Understanding the catharsis of looting — if not approving of the act — is something that has long eluded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white America .
“ Shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim looters ” was the order from Chicago ’ s white , Democratic Mayor Richard Daley during the 1968 riots following Dr. Martin Luther King ’ s assassination .
King , for his part , called riots , “ the language of the unheard.
” Even Obama struggled with his reaction to the Ferguson , Missouri riots of 2014 , receiving criticism from voices on the black left when he said he had “ no sympathy at all for destroying your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have done some things differently in his response to the Ferguson crisis , writ large .
Minnesota has also proven a difficult testing ground for Trump ’ s return to law and order rhetoric .
Reaction to the violence in the state — and the killing of Floyd — has unfolded somewhat differently than past violent deaths in police custody .
Police chiefs from around the country swiftly condemned the officer who killed Floyd .
Even as police on the ground in Minneapolis arrested a black journalist on live TV , the mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for calm while saying they understood and were sympathetic to the anger behind the rioting .
Fox News guests and analysts condemned the officer ’ s actions , though it remains to be seen how conservative media and the right will react to the ongoing protests and violence .
In a YouGov poll , 78 percent of surveyed adults thought the officer in the Floyd case should be arrested ( he was on Friday afternoon ) .
It seems unlikely , though , that Trump will easily give up the race-baiting language of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Trump , who is famously ideologically flexible , the idea of law and order is perhaps his deepest-held , most sincere political belief .
In 1989 , in the midst of the Central Park Five controversy , when five black and Latino men were accused of the brutal rape of a white jogger , he took out full-page advertisements in New York City newspapers to decry waffling over the punishment of the men .
( Later , they were famously found to have been wrongly convicted ) .
“ What has happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhood cop we all trusted to safeguard our homes and families ?
” Trump wrote .
“ I am not looking to psychoanalyze them or understand them , I am looking to punish them , ” he said of the alleged criminals .
“ I no longer want to understand their anger .
I want them to understand our anger .
I want them to be afraid.
” In 2016 , Trump was able to echo these sentiments from 1989 easily — he was on the outside looking in .
But in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a campaign angry at authority when he is the authority .
Once you have promised to end an imagined carnage , only to encounter actual death and societal destruction , the misdirection of your talking points risks exposure .
But on this point , Trump has always been true to himself : He is the law and order candidate once again .

When President Trump delivered his inaugural address in 2017, it was in an unfamiliar style. Gone was the jokey off-handedness of Trump-on-the-trail. In a stilted, elegiac tone the freshly-minted president spoke of “rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones” and “young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge.” The content of the speech was familiar, though: Trump would bring America back from the brink. “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” President George W. Bush called it “some weird shit.”
Trump ran on law and order — “I am the law and order candidate” he helpfully explained — even if empirical evidence suggested nothing was wrong with the law and order Americans were already living under. The country’s rates of violent crime were trending downward when he ran — falling 51 percent between 1993 and 2018 — and the economy was churning along, but Trump tapped into some Americans’ dissatisfaction with the status quo. Law and order was about the restoration of a certain social configuration favorable to white Americans as much as it was a concern with crime.
As the strange election year that is 2020 marches on, Trump has returned to his 2016 rhetoric, but it may register differently. Late Thursday night, Minneapolis residents burned down a police station after the death of George Floyd, a black man in police custody. The president tweeted in response that, “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”
It was a familiar law and order message from Trump. But he tweeted it into an unfamiliar America: Over 100,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 in the past few months. One out of every four workers has filed for unemployment. As the country lives through actual American carnage, will Trump’s law and order message resonate as it once did? Or will the bleak realities of 2020 prove inhospitable to the man who once proclaimed, “I alone can fix it”?
In 2016, voters seemed excited by Trump’s verbal promiscuity, the lurid way that he painted the state of the nation. In his telling, America had descended into disarray thanks to porous borders that allowed in terrorists and job-stealing immigrants. He was engaging, if not accurate (the economy was doing well in many parts of the country and President Obama had actually deported more immigrants who were living in the country illegally than previous administrations). Pew Research surveys show that 2016 Trump supporters ranked the economy, terrorism, and immigration, along with foreign policy, as the most pressing issues of the election. And according to another Pew survey, 78 percent of voters who supported Trump in 2016 felt crime had gotten worse since 2008.
Trump’s law and order framework was a sturdy way for him to talk about a more elusive idea — nostalgia for a mid century America with robust domestic manufacturing and a clearly-defined, if racist, social order. While Trump is no wonk and couldn’t talk particularly compellingly about globalization, the consolidation of industry and the widening gap between CEO and worker pay, he could talk about “the good old days” when you could smack someone around. It evoked something deep, that call for everything and everyone in their proper place.
The law and order message might not sit so well in 2020. The country has now lived through years of controversies over video-taped killings by police, and the pandemic makes the world feel more chaotic day by day. We’ll have to wait to see the social and political reaction to the demonstrations in Minnesota, but there might be more sympathy for the turbulent feelings that make people riot or protest. While many will still roundly condemn looting, it’s perhaps easier for a greater number of us to imagine the kind of jagged anger — grief, if we’re being concise about it — that causes it than it was four years ago.
Understanding the catharsis of looting — if not approving of the act — is something that has long eluded the understanding of white America, including liberal white America. “Shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim looters” was the order from Chicago’s white, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley during the 1968 riots following Dr. Martin Luther King’s assassination. King, for his part, called riots, “the language of the unheard.” Even Obama struggled with his reaction to the Ferguson, Missouri riots of 2014, receiving criticism from voices on the black left when he said he had “no sympathy at all for destroying your own communities.” He later said he would have done some things differently in his response to the Ferguson crisis, writ large.
Minnesota has also proven a difficult testing ground for Trump’s return to law and order rhetoric. Reaction to the violence in the state — and the killing of Floyd — has unfolded somewhat differently than past violent deaths in police custody. Police chiefs from around the country swiftly condemned the officer who killed Floyd. Even as police on the ground in Minneapolis arrested a black journalist on live TV, the mayor and governor — both Democrats — called for calm while saying they understood and were sympathetic to the anger behind the rioting. Fox News guests and analysts condemned the officer’s actions, though it remains to be seen how conservative media and the right will react to the ongoing protests and violence. In a YouGov poll, 78 percent of surveyed adults thought the officer in the Floyd case should be arrested (he was on Friday afternoon).
It seems unlikely, though, that Trump will easily give up the race-baiting language of “thugs” and the like. For Trump, who is famously ideologically flexible, the idea of law and order is perhaps his deepest-held, most sincere political belief. In 1989, in the midst of the Central Park Five controversy, when five black and Latino men were accused of the brutal rape of a white jogger, he took out full-page advertisements in New York City newspapers to decry waffling over the punishment of the men. (Later, they were famously found to have been wrongly convicted). “What has happened to law and order, to the neighborhood cop we all trusted to safeguard our homes and families?” Trump wrote. “I am not looking to psychoanalyze them or understand them, I am looking to punish them,” he said of the alleged criminals. “I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.”
In 2016, Trump was able to echo these sentiments from 1989 easily — he was on the outside looking in. But in 2020 it will take more dexterity to run a campaign angry at authority when he is the authority. Once you have promised to end an imagined carnage, only to encounter actual death and societal destruction, the misdirection of your talking points risks exposure. But on this point, Trump has always been true to himself: He is the law and order candidate once again.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-02--Nine States (And D.C.) Have Elections Today. Here Are The Races To Watch.

Today , nine states and the District of Columbia will hold primary elections , most of which were delayed to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
And although the presidential nomination race is all but over , seven states ( and Washington , D.C. ) will hold presidential primaries today , while eight states and D.C. will hold primaries for down-ballot contests .
So here ’ s a preview of some of the marquee races that could have implications for key Senate , House and gubernatorial contests in November .
In Iowa , the main events are the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary for the 4th Congressional District .
In the Senate contest , the big question is whether the Democratic establishment will get its preferred pick to take on Republican Sen. Joni Ernst .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Senate Majority PAC , an outside group allied with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , are backing real estate executive Theresa Greenfield over retired Vice Admiral Mike Franken , attorney Kimberly Graham and businessman Eddie Mauro .
It ’ s a little surprising that national Democrats have invested so much in Greenfield as at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a little-known candidate who had never held office .
Yet Greenfield has a compelling narrative : She grew up on a small rural farm and has dealt with her share of tragedy , having to overcome the death of her husband as a young mother .
She ’ s proved to be a strong fundraiser , too , bringing in more money than Ernst in the most recent fundraising period .
But it ’ s unclear just how much of an advantage Greenfield has despite her national backing .
The Des Moines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and policymaking experience , and Mauro is self-funding his campaign , so his $ 1.5 million in campaign spending is not that far behind Greenfield ’ s $ 2.3 million .
Not to mention , Greenfield has been criticized by opponents for her real estate company ’ s evictions of small businesses and the outside support her campaign has received .
Greenfield ’ s allies are worried enough about Franken that the campaign arm of Emily ’ s List — a group that works to elect Democratic women who favor abortion rights — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
The two recent polls of the race show very different results , too .
A mid-May survey conducted by Public Policy Polling found Greenfield at 43 percent , well ahead of Franken ( 12 percent ) , Graham and Mauro ( 4 percent each ) .
The only other survey we ’ ve seen — a poll from Advantage , Inc. — was leaked and came with no information about its sponsor , but it showed a much tighter — and wide-open — race , with Greenfield at 19 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 percent and Mauro at 8 percent .
Iowa ’ s 4th Congressional District will be a key race to watch as well as Republican Rep. Steve King might be in real trouble of losing his seat .
King ’ s racist and controversial statements have long made him a pariah to many Republicans , and now Republican state Sen. Randy Feenstra is challenging King , arguing that the incumbent can no longer effectively represent the district after GOP leaders stripped him of his House committee appointments .
Two mid-May surveys suggest a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Always treat campaign polls with caution , but Feenstra ’ s internal polling found him trailing King by just 3 points , 39 percent to 36 percent , while a group backing Feenstra found King losing by 2 points , 41 percent to 39 percent .
Still , King may survive this primary challenge because many Iowa conservatives haven ’ t abandoned him .
Some influential Republican activists have ditched him , though , including Iowa social conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats , who ran an ad in support of Feenstra despite his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how competitive the Iowa 4th is in November will depend on whether King wins renomination .
Democrat J.D .
Scholten , who lost to King by just 3 points in 2018 in this deep red seat — President Trump carried it by 27 points in 2016 — is back for a rematch and should be competitive against King .
But if Feenstra defeats King , the GOP could have a better shot at retaining this ostensibly safe Republican seat .
To the west , Montana is shaping up as the most competitive gubernatorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featuring contested primaries in the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov .
Steve Bullock .
On the Republican side , Rep. Greg Gianforte lost to Bullock in the 2016 gubernatorial race , but he won Montana ’ s at-large House seat in 2017 , and he ’ s now taking another shot at the governorship , where he appears to have the upper hand against Montana Attorney General Tim Fox and state Sen. Al Olszewski .
This is in part thanks to his sizable funding advantage — Gianforte has raised around $ 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to his campaign .
By comparison , Fox has raised only $ 750,000 , while Olszewski has brought in $ 350,000 .
The coronavirus pandemic may have boosted Gianforte , too , as he ’ s been able to advertise while Fox and Olszewski have been unable to campaign in person to overcome their monetary shortfall .
There ’ s been no recent public polling , but it looks like Gianforte ’ s race to lose .
Meanwhile , the Democratic primary between Lt. Gov .
Mike Cooney and businesswoman Whitney Williams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cooney has a lengthy political resume in state government while Williams is a first-time candidate — though she is the daughter of longtime Democratic Rep. Pat Williams .
But the coronavirus crisis may have helped Cooney — who also has Bullock ’ s endorsement — as it ’ s given more weight to his argument that he has the know-how to govern on day one .
Still , Williams has run about even with Cooney in the money race — both have raised about $ 800,000 for the primary — and she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Emily ’ s List , which made a $ 700,000 ad buy on her behalf .
But a dearth of polling in this primary has left us with little else to go on at this point , so it ’ s hard to know who is favored .
To the south , there are two congressional primaries worth watching in New Mexico .
The Democratic-held 2nd District is one of Republicans ’ best pickup opportunities this cycle — it voted for Trump by 10 points .
Former state Rep. Yvette Herrell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points in 2018 , is running again in the GOP primary .
Herrell is a conservative grassroots favorite , but she faces stiff competition in oil executive Claire Chase .
The primary has turned particularly nasty in recent weeks , with Herrell attacking Chase for her “ Never Trump ” past , including releasing an ad that mocks Chase ’ s 2015 anti-Trump social media posts .
It ’ s not clear who has the edge here , though .
We don ’ t have any polls of the race , and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outspent Herrell ( $ 1.1 million to $ 920,000 ) .
That said , Herrell has gotten support from outside groups like the political arm of the House Freedom Caucus and even the Democratic group Patriot Majority , which apparently believes she ’ ll be easier to beat than Chase in the fall .
Next door in the open 3rd District , seven Democrats are vying for the nod in this safely blue seat , including one whom non-New Mexicans may recognize : Valerie Plame , a former Central Intelligence Agency operative who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s then-husband criticized the Bush administration ’ s rationale for invading Iraq .
With the help of a slick announcement video that went viral , Plame has raised the most money in the race ( more than $ 2 million ) , but she has also been attacked for linking to an anti-Semitic article in 2017 : One extreme dark-money ad even superimposed swastikas on her eyes and linked her to white supremacists .
Plame ’ s main competition for the nomination appears to be civil-rights attorney Teresa Leger Fernandez , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been endorsed by Emily ’ s List and received the most support from delegates at the pre-primary convention .
We have just one recent poll of the race — an internal poll released by Emily ’ s List — which gave Leger Fernandez 33 percent and Plame 24 percent , with no other candidate reaching double digits .
Finally , how the elections unfold today is worth watching as well .
The pandemic has forced all 10 jurisdictions voting today to make at least some changes to the way the election is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are taking place in many cities that have seen extensive unrest in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death in police custody , which could affect turnout in unpredictable ways .
Maryland and Montana have done the most to encourage voting by mail , sending every registered voter a ballot .
The District of Columbia , Idaho , Iowa , New Mexico , Rhode Island and South Dakota stopped short of mailing everyone a ballot but did mail every voter an application to request one .
By contrast , Pennsylvania merely mailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to request an absentee ballot .
And Indiana waived the requirement that voters provide an excuse to vote absentee but did not mail anything out at all .
But regardless of the steps each state has taken on the vote-by-mail front , there is likely to be a big spike in the number of mailed ballots , so it will be interesting to see how states are ( or aren ’ t ) prepared to handle the increased volume .
Already , concerns that many Pennsylvania voters would not receive their absentee ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wolf to extend the deadline for voters in six counties to return their ballots by one week , issues with Maryland ’ s ballot vendor caused more than 1 million ballots to go out late , and a candidate in Idaho successfully sued to extend the deadline to apply for an absentee ballot after he argued that the state ’ s ballot-request website got overloaded at the last minute .
And voters in several other states are complaining they still haven ’ t received ballots they requested weeks ago .
Every jurisdiction is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Mexico originally planned to provide 548 polling places , but only 381 are actually open .
Rhode Island has consolidated its polling places from 144 in the 2016 primary to 47 this year .
The District of Columbia has scaled down from 144 to 20 .
In addition , D.C. has imposed a 7 p.m. curfew for tonight to stem potential rioting , but voters — who can go to vote centers until 8 p.m. — are supposed to be exempt .
Most drastically , Idaho is not opening any in-person voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates argue disenfranchises people with disabilities and without mailing addresses .
Some states left the decision of how many polling places to open up to local governments , which could also produce wide disparities in voting access in different corners of the state .
For example , Marion County , Indiana — home of Indianapolis and 43 percent of the state ’ s non-Hispanic black population — will have just 22 polling places , down from more than 250 .
But suburban Hamilton County , which has the highest per-capita median income in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all 125 of its usual polling places .
In Pennsylvania , the majority-minority City of Philadelphia is consolidating 831 polling places into 190 , while affluent suburban Bucks County was planning not to close any .
For primary races that cross county and city lines , this threatens to affect the outcome by giving certain localities an outsized proportion of the total votes cast .
We ’ ll be watching both how today ’ s key races turn out and whether the elections go off without a hitch .
Although we won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a recap article soon — just don ’ t expect it right away , as the high volume of mail ballots likely means results won ’ t be final for some time .

Today, nine states and the District of Columbia will hold primary elections, most of which were delayed to slow the spread of the coronavirus. And although the presidential nomination race is all but over, seven states (and Washington, D.C.) will hold presidential primaries today, while eight states and D.C. will hold primaries for down-ballot contests. So here’s a preview of some of the marquee races that could have implications for key Senate, House and gubernatorial contests in November.
In Iowa, the main events are the Democratic primary for the Senate and the Republican primary for the 4th Congressional District. In the Senate contest, the big question is whether the Democratic establishment will get its preferred pick to take on Republican Sen. Joni Ernst. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Senate Majority PAC, an outside group allied with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, are backing real estate executive Theresa Greenfield over retired Vice Admiral Mike Franken, attorney Kimberly Graham and businessman Eddie Mauro.
It’s a little surprising that national Democrats have invested so much in Greenfield as at the start of the cycle, she was a little-known candidate who had never held office. Yet Greenfield has a compelling narrative: She grew up on a small rural farm and has dealt with her share of tragedy, having to overcome the death of her husband as a young mother. She’s proved to be a strong fundraiser, too, bringing in more money than Ernst in the most recent fundraising period.
But it’s unclear just how much of an advantage Greenfield has despite her national backing. The Des Moines Register endorsed Franken, citing his military and policymaking experience, and Mauro is self-funding his campaign, so his $1.5 million in campaign spending is not that far behind Greenfield’s $2.3 million. Not to mention, Greenfield has been criticized by opponents for her real estate company’s evictions of small businesses and the outside support her campaign has received. Greenfield’s allies are worried enough about Franken that the campaign arm of Emily’s List — a group that works to elect Democratic women who favor abortion rights — has spent $1 million going after him.
The two recent polls of the race show very different results, too. A mid-May survey conducted by Public Policy Polling found Greenfield at 43 percent, well ahead of Franken (12 percent), Graham and Mauro (4 percent each). The only other survey we’ve seen — a poll from Advantage, Inc. — was leaked and came with no information about its sponsor, but it showed a much tighter — and wide-open — race, with Greenfield at 19 percent, Graham at 16 percent, Franken at 15 percent and Mauro at 8 percent.
Iowa’s 4th Congressional District will be a key race to watch as well as Republican Rep. Steve King might be in real trouble of losing his seat. King’s racist and controversial statements have long made him a pariah to many Republicans, and now Republican state Sen. Randy Feenstra is challenging King, arguing that the incumbent can no longer effectively represent the district after GOP leaders stripped him of his House committee appointments.
Two mid-May surveys suggest a tight race with Feenstra, too. Always treat campaign polls with caution, but Feenstra’s internal polling found him trailing King by just 3 points, 39 percent to 36 percent, while a group backing Feenstra found King losing by 2 points, 41 percent to 39 percent. Still, King may survive this primary challenge because many Iowa conservatives haven’t abandoned him. Some influential Republican activists have ditched him, though, including Iowa social conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats, who ran an ad in support of Feenstra despite his long-standing relationship with King.
But just how competitive the Iowa 4th is in November will depend on whether King wins renomination. Democrat J.D. Scholten, who lost to King by just 3 points in 2018 in this deep red seat — President Trump carried it by 27 points in 2016 — is back for a rematch and should be competitive against King. But if Feenstra defeats King, the GOP could have a better shot at retaining this ostensibly safe Republican seat.
To the west, Montana is shaping up as the most competitive gubernatorial election in 2020, with both parties featuring contested primaries in the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock. On the Republican side, Rep. Greg Gianforte lost to Bullock in the 2016 gubernatorial race, but he won Montana’s at-large House seat in 2017, and he’s now taking another shot at the governorship, where he appears to have the upper hand against Montana Attorney General Tim Fox and state Sen. Al Olszewski. This is in part thanks to his sizable funding advantage — Gianforte has raised around $2 million while also loaning another $1.5 million to his campaign. By comparison, Fox has raised only $750,000, while Olszewski has brought in $350,000. The coronavirus pandemic may have boosted Gianforte, too, as he’s been able to advertise while Fox and Olszewski have been unable to campaign in person to overcome their monetary shortfall. There’s been no recent public polling, but it looks like Gianforte’s race to lose.
Meanwhile, the Democratic primary between Lt. Gov. Mike Cooney and businesswoman Whitney Williams has been something of an insider-outsider battle. Cooney has a lengthy political resume in state government while Williams is a first-time candidate — though she is the daughter of longtime Democratic Rep. Pat Williams. But the coronavirus crisis may have helped Cooney — who also has Bullock’s endorsement — as it’s given more weight to his argument that he has the know-how to govern on day one. Still, Williams has run about even with Cooney in the money race — both have raised about $800,000 for the primary — and she’s also received significant outside help from Emily’s List, which made a $700,000 ad buy on her behalf. But a dearth of polling in this primary has left us with little else to go on at this point, so it’s hard to know who is favored.
To the south, there are two congressional primaries worth watching in New Mexico. The Democratic-held 2nd District is one of Republicans’ best pickup opportunities this cycle — it voted for Trump by 10 points. Former state Rep. Yvette Herrell, who narrowly lost the seat by 2 points in 2018, is running again in the GOP primary. Herrell is a conservative grassroots favorite, but she faces stiff competition in oil executive Claire Chase. The primary has turned particularly nasty in recent weeks, with Herrell attacking Chase for her “Never Trump” past, including releasing an ad that mocks Chase’s 2015 anti-Trump social media posts. It’s not clear who has the edge here, though. We don’t have any polls of the race, and as of May 13, Chase had narrowly outspent Herrell ($1.1 million to $920,000). That said, Herrell has gotten support from outside groups like the political arm of the House Freedom Caucus and even the Democratic group Patriot Majority, which apparently believes she’ll be easier to beat than Chase in the fall.
Next door in the open 3rd District, seven Democrats are vying for the nod in this safely blue seat, including one whom non-New Mexicans may recognize: Valerie Plame, a former Central Intelligence Agency operative who was famously unmasked in 2003 after Plame’s then-husband criticized the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq. With the help of a slick announcement video that went viral, Plame has raised the most money in the race (more than $2 million), but she has also been attacked for linking to an anti-Semitic article in 2017: One extreme dark-money ad even superimposed swastikas on her eyes and linked her to white supremacists. Plame’s main competition for the nomination appears to be civil-rights attorney Teresa Leger Fernandez, who has raised almost $1.3 million, has been endorsed by Emily’s List and received the most support from delegates at the pre-primary convention. We have just one recent poll of the race — an internal poll released by Emily’s List — which gave Leger Fernandez 33 percent and Plame 24 percent, with no other candidate reaching double digits.
Finally, how the elections unfold today is worth watching as well. The pandemic has forced all 10 jurisdictions voting today to make at least some changes to the way the election is being held. In addition, elections are taking place in many cities that have seen extensive unrest in the wake of George Floyd’s death in police custody, which could affect turnout in unpredictable ways.
Maryland and Montana have done the most to encourage voting by mail, sending every registered voter a ballot. The District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, New Mexico, Rhode Island and South Dakota stopped short of mailing everyone a ballot but did mail every voter an application to request one. By contrast, Pennsylvania merely mailed voters a postcard with instructions on how to request an absentee ballot. And Indiana waived the requirement that voters provide an excuse to vote absentee but did not mail anything out at all.
But regardless of the steps each state has taken on the vote-by-mail front, there is likely to be a big spike in the number of mailed ballots, so it will be interesting to see how states are (or aren’t) prepared to handle the increased volume. Already, concerns that many Pennsylvania voters would not receive their absentee ballots in time have prompted Gov. Tom Wolf to extend the deadline for voters in six counties to return their ballots by one week, issues with Maryland’s ballot vendor caused more than 1 million ballots to go out late, and a candidate in Idaho successfully sued to extend the deadline to apply for an absentee ballot after he argued that the state’s ballot-request website got overloaded at the last minute. And voters in several other states are complaining they still haven’t received ballots they requested weeks ago.
Every jurisdiction is also scaling back in-person voting options. New Mexico originally planned to provide 548 polling places, but only 381 are actually open. Rhode Island has consolidated its polling places from 144 in the 2016 primary to 47 this year. The District of Columbia has scaled down from 144 to 20. In addition, D.C. has imposed a 7 p.m. curfew for tonight to stem potential rioting, but voters — who can go to vote centers until 8 p.m. — are supposed to be exempt. Most drastically, Idaho is not opening any in-person voting sites at all — which many voting-rights advocates argue disenfranchises people with disabilities and without mailing addresses.
Some states left the decision of how many polling places to open up to local governments, which could also produce wide disparities in voting access in different corners of the state. For example, Marion County, Indiana — home of Indianapolis and 43 percent of the state’s non-Hispanic black population — will have just 22 polling places, down from more than 250. But suburban Hamilton County, which has the highest per-capita median income in the state, is expected to open all 125 of its usual polling places. In Pennsylvania, the majority-minority City of Philadelphia is consolidating 831 polling places into 190, while affluent suburban Bucks County was planning not to close any. For primary races that cross county and city lines, this threatens to affect the outcome by giving certain localities an outsized proportion of the total votes cast.
We’ll be watching both how today’s key races turn out and whether the elections go off without a hitch. Although we won’t be live-blogging tonight, check back for a recap article soon — just don’t expect it right away, as the high volume of mail ballots likely means results won’t be final for some time.
Confidence Interval: If Trump Loses In 2020, Heâll Be The Nominee Again In 2024


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-02--How Lots Of White Democrats Ended Up Protesting The Death Of George Floyd

Americans around the country are protesting the death of George Floyd , a 46-year-old black man who was killed last week in Minneapolis by a white police officer , as well as other recent instances where black civilians died at the hands of police officers .
But while the protests are largely about the deaths of black people , the protests themselves are not all-black events — there have been plenty of white people at the demonstrations .
These white protesters are representative of a broader phenomenon , and an important way in which the country has changed since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 .
White Americans , particularly those who are younger , college-educated or liberal-leaning , have shifted their views on racial issues in the last several years , increasingly saying that they view the United States and many of its policies as discriminatory against black people .
This shift didn ’ t happen in the last few weeks — FiveThirtyEight wrote about it in early 2018 , for example , and Vox dubbed it “ the Great Awokening ” about a year later .
But these protests and the white presence at them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of data that shows many white Americans have become increasingly conscious of discrimination against black Americans — particularly in the years since Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in 2012 and Michael Brown was shot and killed in 2014 .
Here are some of the most important findings from recent polls about the racial views of white Americans in particular , but also other Americans , and how those views have shifted over the last several years .
Eighty-eight percent of white Democrats said that police treat black Americans less fairly than white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center poll conducted last year .
That ’ s similar to the number of black Americans ( 84 percent ) and black Democrats ( 86 percent ) who expressed that view .
Similarly , 86 percent of white Democrats said they thought the overall criminal justice system is unfair to black people — right in line with the share of black Americans ( 87 percent ) and black Democrats ( 90 percent ) who said the same .
Eighty-four percent of white Democrats and 78 percent of black Americans said they thought the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was part of a broader pattern , not a series of isolated incidents , according to a 2019 YouGov survey .
You can see the shift over time in this Pew question we highlighted in that 2018 article , about whether the country “ needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites ” : The trend also shows up in this General Social Survey question about the government ’ s role in addressing past discrimination against black Americans : There is a wide gulf between white Democrats and white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white Democrats being much more likely than white Republicans to see evidence of discrimination against black people .
But it ’ s worth noting that on criminal justice issues specifically , a fairly large bloc of white Republicans do see evidence of discrimination based on race .
Forty-three percent of white Republicans said that the police treat black people unfairly compared to white people , according to that same 2019 Pew survey .
And 39 percent of white Republicans in that poll said the criminal justice system as a whole is unfair to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that the majority of white Republicans ( 69 percent ) said that police killings of black Americans were isolated incidents , 31 percent viewed them as part of a broader trend .
We don ’ t yet have many polls conducted since Floyd was killed , but a Yahoo/YouGov survey released amid the protests over the weekend showed similar numbers : 39 percent of all Republicans said they thought the criminal justice system treats white people better than black people .
And a plurality of Republicans , 48 percent , said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and black people equally , compared to 42 percent who thought both groups got the same treatment .
That there is some wariness of the criminal justice system among Republicans shouldn ’ t be that surprising — after all , in 2018 President Trump signed into a law a criminal justice reform package .
As you saw in the chart above , in 2009 , 50 percent of white Democrats agreed with the idea that “ the country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites , ” according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that number had increased to 80 percent .
Similar shifts are evident on other policy questions regarding race and inequality .
The number of white Democrats who support reparations for black Americans who are descended from enslaved people has increased from 11 percent in 2002 to 33 percent in 2019 , according to Gallup polling .
White Americans increasingly agree with the notions that “ black people have gotten less than they deserve ” and “ slavery and discrimination still hold black people back today , ” according research by Sean McElwee of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats saw almost as much evidence of racism as black Americans on an extensive range of issues , according to the 2019 Pew survey .
This shift and focus among white Democrats isn ’ t just about racial issues that primarily affect black Americans .
White Democrats also seem to have increasingly positive views of immigrants , perhaps reacting to Trump ’ s efforts to curtail immigration .
And surveys suggest Democrats , including men , see substantial evidence of gender discrimination negatively affecting women , perhaps a result of the # MeToo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in contrast to policing and criminal justice , there ’ s still a big gap between white Republicans and white Democrats on most other questions about discrimation against black Americans .
For example , 64 percent of white Democrats said that America has not gone far enough to give black Americans equal rights , according to the 2019 Pew survey .
Just 15 percent of white Republicans held this view , while 31 percent said America had gone too far in trying to give black people equal rights .
Sixty percent of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s voting system is unfair to black Americans , compared to 7 percent of white Republicans .
Republicans simply haven ’ t shifted all that much on these issues in the years since the Black Lives Matter movement became a national issue .
According to the 2017 Pew survey , 36 percent of Republicans said the country needs to make changes to ensure black Americans have the same rights as white ones , similar to the 30 percent who said that in 2009 .
Nine percent of Republicans in 2009 said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans can ’ t get ahead in America ; that number was up only slightly , to 14 percent , eight years later .
According to the Pew poll from 2017 , 90 percent of black Democrats said the country needs to make changes to give black Americans equal rights to whites , compared to 81 percent in 2009 .
Among Hispanic Democrats , that number surged from 49 percent in 2009 to 76 percent in 2017 .
In 2013 , 47 percent of black Americans and 61 percent of Hispanic Americans described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are treated in American society , according to Gallup polling .
By 2018 , those numbers had dipped to 18 percent among black Americans and 39 percent among Hispanic Americans .
Support among black Americans for reparations increased from 55 percent in 2002 to 73 percent in last year , according to the 2019 Gallup survey .
According to the 2019 Pew survey , 55 percent of white people over age 65 think too much attention is being paid to race and racial issues in America .
So do 56 percent of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or less .
In contrast , a majority of white people with a bachelor ’ s degree or more either think America is discussing racial issues an appropriate amount or that the nation isn ’ t talking about them enough .
A majority of white people between 18 and 49 also hold this view .
Research from Data for Progress suggests that white millennials are much more likely than older white people to agree that black people in America face structural racial discrimination .
You are probably thinking that white people with bachelor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are increasingly aligned with Democrats , so if many college-educated white people and white people under 50 are Democrats , could they have simply have adjusted their racial views to match the broader Democratic Party ?
But there ’ s some evidence that people are increasingly choosing which party they align with based on racial issues .
So it might also be the case that some white people under 50 and college-educated white people see a lot of racial discrimination in America , and that causes them to align with Democrats , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much attention are aligning with the GOP .
This article has focused on white people , but we should emphasize that many of these protests are organized and spearheaded by black leaders , with many black people in attendance , as well as people of other races .
None of this data is meant to downplay the role of that black leadership , or suggest that the protests are somehow better or more important because white people are attending .
And the white presence at these protests is hardly unprecedented — there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights activism of the 1960s .
All that said , the protests are a vivid illustration of a broader shift in American politics : The Democratic Party is increasingly a coalition of people of all races pushing for racial equality .

Perry Bacon Jr. (perry.bacon@fivethirtyeight.com)

Americans around the country are protesting the death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man who was killed last week in Minneapolis by a white police officer, as well as other recent instances where black civilians died at the hands of police officers. But while the protests are largely about the deaths of black people, the protests themselves are not all-black events — there have been plenty of white people at the demonstrations. These white protesters are representative of a broader phenomenon, and an important way in which the country has changed since the Black Lives Matter movement first emerged in 2013.
White Americans, particularly those who are younger, college-educated or liberal-leaning, have shifted their views on racial issues in the last several years, increasingly saying that they view the United States and many of its policies as discriminatory against black people.
This shift didn’t happen in the last few weeks — FiveThirtyEight wrote about it in early 2018, for example, and Vox dubbed it “the Great Awokening” about a year later. But these protests and the white presence at them are another point in the growing body of data that shows many white Americans have become increasingly conscious of discrimination against black Americans — particularly in the years since Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in 2012 and Michael Brown was shot and killed in 2014.
Here are some of the most important findings from recent polls about the racial views of white Americans in particular, but also other Americans, and how those views have shifted over the last several years.
White Democrats share black Americans’ views on police
Eighty-eight percent of white Democrats said that police treat black Americans less fairly than white Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted last year. That’s similar to the number of black Americans (84 percent) and black Democrats (86 percent) who expressed that view. Similarly, 86 percent of white Democrats said they thought the overall criminal justice system is unfair to black people — right in line with the share of black Americans (87 percent) and black Democrats (90 percent) who said the same.
Eighty-four percent of white Democrats and 78 percent of black Americans said they thought the killings of black Americans by police officers was part of a broader pattern, not a series of isolated incidents, according to a 2019 YouGov survey.
You can see the shift over time in this Pew question we highlighted in that 2018 article, about whether the country “needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites” :
The trend also shows up in this General Social Survey question about the government’s role in addressing past discrimination against black Americans:
Many Republicans share policing concerns
There is a wide gulf between white Democrats and white Republicans on most racial issues, with white Democrats being much more likely than white Republicans to see evidence of discrimination against black people. But it’s worth noting that on criminal justice issues specifically, a fairly large bloc of white Republicans do see evidence of discrimination based on race.
Forty-three percent of white Republicans said that the police treat black people unfairly compared to white people, according to that same 2019 Pew survey. And 39 percent of white Republicans in that poll said the criminal justice system as a whole is unfair to black Americans. While the YouGov survey found that the majority of white Republicans (69 percent) said that police killings of black Americans were isolated incidents, 31 percent viewed them as part of a broader trend.
We don’t yet have many polls conducted since Floyd was killed, but a Yahoo/YouGov survey released amid the protests over the weekend showed similar numbers: 39 percent of all Republicans said they thought the criminal justice system treats white people better than black people. And a plurality of Republicans, 48 percent, said that the police don’t treat white and black people equally, compared to 42 percent who thought both groups got the same treatment. That there is some wariness of the criminal justice system among Republicans shouldn’t be that surprising — after all, in 2018 President Trump signed into a law a criminal justice reform package.
White Democrats focus on broader inequality
As you saw in the chart above, in 2009, 50 percent of white Democrats agreed with the idea that “the country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites,” according to Pew polling. By 2017, that number had increased to 80 percent. Similar shifts are evident on other policy questions regarding race and inequality. The number of white Democrats who support reparations for black Americans who are descended from enslaved people has increased from 11 percent in 2002 to 33 percent in 2019, according to Gallup polling.
White Americans increasingly agree with the notions that “black people have gotten less than they deserve” and “slavery and discrimination still hold black people back today,” according research by Sean McElwee of the left-leaning Data for Progress. White Democrats saw almost as much evidence of racism as black Americans on an extensive range of issues, according to the 2019 Pew survey.
This shift and focus among white Democrats isn’t just about racial issues that primarily affect black Americans. White Democrats also seem to have increasingly positive views of immigrants, perhaps reacting to Trump’s efforts to curtail immigration. And surveys suggest Democrats, including men, see substantial evidence of gender discrimination negatively affecting women, perhaps a result of the #MeToo movement.
But, as mentioned, in contrast to policing and criminal justice, there’s still a big gap between white Republicans and white Democrats on most other questions about discrimation against black Americans. For example, 64 percent of white Democrats said that America has not gone far enough to give black Americans equal rights, according to the 2019 Pew survey. Just 15 percent of white Republicans held this view, while 31 percent said America had gone too far in trying to give black people equal rights. Sixty percent of white Democrats in that survey felt that America’s voting system is unfair to black Americans, compared to 7 percent of white Republicans.
Republicans simply haven’t shifted all that much on these issues in the years since the Black Lives Matter movement became a national issue. According to the 2017 Pew survey, 36 percent of Republicans said the country needs to make changes to ensure black Americans have the same rights as white ones, similar to the 30 percent who said that in 2009. Nine percent of Republicans in 2009 said that racial discrimination was the main reason black Americans can’t get ahead in America; that number was up only slightly, to 14 percent, eight years later.
Nonwhite Democrats are shifting a bit too
According to the Pew poll from 2017, 90 percent of black Democrats said the country needs to make changes to give black Americans equal rights to whites, compared to 81 percent in 2009. Among Hispanic Democrats, that number surged from 49 percent in 2009 to 76 percent in 2017.
In 2013, 47 percent of black Americans and 61 percent of Hispanic Americans described themselves as satisfied with how black Americans are treated in American society, according to Gallup polling. By 2018, those numbers had dipped to 18 percent among black Americans and 39 percent among Hispanic Americans.
Support among black Americans for reparations increased from 55 percent in 2002 to 73 percent in last year, according to the 2019 Gallup survey.
Young, educated Democrats may drive changes
According to the 2019 Pew survey, 55 percent of white people over age 65 think too much attention is being paid to race and racial issues in America. So do 56 percent of white Americans who have a high school degree or less.
In contrast, a majority of white people with a bachelor’s degree or more either think America is discussing racial issues an appropriate amount or that the nation isn’t talking about them enough. A majority of white people between 18 and 49 also hold this view.
Research from Data for Progress suggests that white millennials are much more likely than older white people to agree that black people in America face structural racial discrimination.
You are probably thinking that white people with bachelor’s degrees and under age 50 are increasingly aligned with Democrats, so if many college-educated white people and white people under 50 are Democrats, could they have simply have adjusted their racial views to match the broader Democratic Party?
But there’s some evidence that people are increasingly choosing which party they align with based on racial issues. So it might also be the case that some white people under 50 and college-educated white people see a lot of racial discrimination in America, and that causes them to align with Democrats, while people who think racial issues get too much attention are aligning with the GOP.
This article has focused on white people, but we should emphasize that many of these protests are organized and spearheaded by black leaders, with many black people in attendance, as well as people of other races. None of this data is meant to downplay the role of that black leadership, or suggest that the protests are somehow better or more important because white people are attending. And the white presence at these protests is hardly unprecedented — there were plenty of white people involved in the civil rights activism of the 1960s.
All that said, the protests are a vivid illustration of a broader shift in American politics: The Democratic Party is increasingly a coalition of people of all races pushing for racial equality.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: The data behind police violence


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-02--Trump’s Use of Tear Gas To Break Up A Protest Undermined Three Core Values Of American Democracy

The criticism that President Trump has disregarded many of our country ’ s norms and democratic values is not new .
We ’ ve written about it several times before — in particular , about how the violation of values is a bigger deal than the breaking of norms .
But law enforcement officials using tear gas on protesters outside the White House to clear a path for Trump to visit a church nearby — for what seemed to amount to a photo-op of him holding a Bible — was arguably one of most significant moments of his breaking with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was essentially a three-part violation .
In being generally unsupportive of the protests against the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers , Trump is in tension with a core democratic value — America taking additional steps to ensure people are treated equally , no matter their race .
Trump ’ s decision to break up the protest then subverted one of America ’ s core democratic values , the right to peacefully protest .
Finally , by involving the National Guard and senior military officials in the action against the protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the military and police not be used for political purposes .
We ’ re going to unpack what it means that Trump disregarded these democratic values in this article , but let ’ s first briefly explain what we mean when we say “ democratic values.
” Much of the commentary around Trump suggests that he is violating “ norms ” — or , put another way , Trump is not doing things the “ normal ” way like his predecessors ( think former Presidents George H.W .
Bush , George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in reality , what often concerns people about Trump and his allies is that they are attacking core democratic values , not norms .
To put this bluntly , basically every American president before Abraham Lincoln took actions to help perpetuate slavery in some way — being pro-slavery was the norm .
But slavery was against democratic values of freedom and equality .
So let ’ s look at Trump ’ s move on Monday in terms of core democratic values that he may have violated : The protesters contend that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and police departments across the country , have a history of treating black people unfairly compared with white people .
So Trump ’ s reluctance to embrace these protesters suggests he is not particularly interested in policies that seek to address past or current discrimation against black Americans .
That ’ s nothing new for Trump — as we have written before , he seems to practice a kind of white identity politics where he does not do a ton to reach out to black or Latino Americans .
Of course , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents either — both Democratic and Republican commanders-in-chief have adopted policies that have made life harder for black Americans .
But it is surprising in the context of America in 2020 , when a clear majority of Americans think police are unfair to black people and think the killing of Floyd was unjust , that Trump is doing little to suggest he is aligned with that cause amid the protests .
The right to peacefully protest The right to assemble and protest peacefully is protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ support this democratic value — at least in the abstract .
After all , American history is full of protests , from the civil rights movement to the creation of the tea party , and these movements are usually celebrated looking back , even if they were unpopular at the time .
“ There is a fundamental — a Constitutional — right to protest , and I ’ m against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop , ” said Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump from an elected official in his own party .
The fact that Trump was trying to end the protests at all was problematic .
But the way he and his team chose to do so — by having law enforcement officials fire tear gas at protesters — made the situation even worse .
It was one of the most aggressive ways possible to end the protests , and it potentially established a way to limit them in the future , if people are scared they will be injured or killed if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to emphasize that the Trump administration is not alone in using tear gas amid these protests of Floyd ’ s death .
Cities across the country , including many run by Democratic mayors , are using tear gas on protesters too , arguing that they are violating curfews or that some want to harm police officers .
But two things distinguish Trump ’ s action from those mayors ’ .
First , the people in D.C. were not in violation of the city ’ s 7 p.m. curfew — the tear gas was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went into effect , and it seems to have been used for no other purpose than to clear the protesters out of Trump ’ s walking path .
Second , the president of the U.S. allowing the use of tear gas on civilians protesting peacefully is simply a bigger deal than a mayor or governor doing it .
The fact that Trump has used tear gas on protesters could lead to its use by more officials , too .
This is another instance , though , where norms and democratic values have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protects the right of people to freely assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances , government interference with this right is not uncommon .
But the escalation we saw from the White House on Monday is .
Police and the military not being aligned with one political side It ’ s not just that the president ’ s actions violated the right of people to protest , either .
How he did this — by using law enforcement officials — matters too .
Democracy scholars believe that the police and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one political party or leader , and instead must view themselves as defending the broader public , following laws and rules no matter which party is in charge .
Being apolitical has been a long-standing tradition of the U.S. military in particular .
But during Trump ’ s presidency , the idea that our police and military are separate from partisan politics has appeared increasingly strained .
For instance , the national Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups were strongly behind Trump during his 2016 campaign .
And the Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of preventing officers from attending Trump rallies in uniform .
The president has even gone as far as to refer to military officers as “ my generals.
” And on Monday , the nation ’ s highest-ranking military officer , Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley , was on site at the White House before the tear gas was fired at the protesters .
It ’ s a tricky balance , as individual police and military personnel have the right to support candidates and hold political views .
But as institutions , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t work for any one politician or any one political side .
However , by encouraging the police and military to take on the protesters across the country , Trump has crossed a crucial and dangerous line .
This could have significant ramifications as the act of policing has become a more partisan issue .
Pew Research Center polling conducted in 2016 found that nearly 70 percent of police officers thought that deaths of black Americans during encounters with police were isolated incidents .
But while there is not much recent polling of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that an overwhelming majority of Democrats thought these deaths were part of a broader pattern .
A president concerned about this dynamic and its implications might try to ease those tensions .
But Trump , in both his words and his actions on Monday , is doing the opposite .
To conclude , in a democracy that is running smoothly , most citizens may not think very much about our shared norms and democratic values , but America is not running smoothly right now .
That means we are forced to grapple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and why they matter .

The criticism that President Trump has disregarded many of our country’s norms and democratic values is not new. We’ve written about it several times before — in particular, about how the violation of values is a bigger deal than the breaking of norms. But law enforcement officials using tear gas on protesters outside the White House to clear a path for Trump to visit a church nearby — for what seemed to amount to a photo-op of him holding a Bible — was arguably one of most significant moments of his breaking with such values during his presidency.
It was essentially a three-part violation. In being generally unsupportive of the protests against the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, Trump is in tension with a core democratic value — America taking additional steps to ensure people are treated equally, no matter their race. Trump’s decision to break up the protest then subverted one of America’s core democratic values, the right to peacefully protest. Finally, by involving the National Guard and senior military officials in the action against the protesters, Trump also disregarded the democratic value that the military and police not be used for political purposes.
We’re going to unpack what it means that Trump disregarded these democratic values in this article, but let’s first briefly explain what we mean when we say “democratic values.” Much of the commentary around Trump suggests that he is violating “norms” — or, put another way, Trump is not doing things the “normal” way like his predecessors (think former Presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Barack Obama). But, in reality, what often concerns people about Trump and his allies is that they are attacking core democratic values, not norms. To put this bluntly, basically every American president before Abraham Lincoln took actions to help perpetuate slavery in some way — being pro-slavery was the norm. But slavery was against democratic values of freedom and equality.
So let’s look at Trump’s move on Monday in terms of core democratic values that he may have violated:
Expanding racial equality
The protesters contend that the police in Minneapolis who killed Floyd, and police departments across the country, have a history of treating black people unfairly compared with white people.
So Trump’s reluctance to embrace these protesters suggests he is not particularly interested in policies that seek to address past or current discrimation against black Americans.
That’s nothing new for Trump — as we have written before, he seems to practice a kind of white identity politics where he does not do a ton to reach out to black or Latino Americans. Of course, this behavior is not exactly new for American presidents either — both Democratic and Republican commanders-in-chief have adopted policies that have made life harder for black Americans. But it is surprising in the context of America in 2020, when a clear majority of Americans think police are unfair to black people and think the killing of Floyd was unjust, that Trump is doing little to suggest he is aligned with that cause amid the protests.
The right to peacefully protest
The right to assemble and protest peacefully is protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution. And normally, both Democrats and Republicans support this democratic value — at least in the abstract. After all, American history is full of protests, from the civil rights movement to the creation of the tea party, and these movements are usually celebrated looking back, even if they were unpopular at the time.
“There is a fundamental — a Constitutional — right to protest, and I’m against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, in a rare rebuke of Trump from an elected official in his own party.
The fact that Trump was trying to end the protests at all was problematic. But the way he and his team chose to do so — by having law enforcement officials fire tear gas at protesters — made the situation even worse. It was one of the most aggressive ways possible to end the protests, and it potentially established a way to limit them in the future, if people are scared they will be injured or killed if they protest.
It’s important to emphasize that the Trump administration is not alone in using tear gas amid these protests of Floyd’s death. Cities across the country, including many run by Democratic mayors, are using tear gas on protesters too, arguing that they are violating curfews or that some want to harm police officers.
But two things distinguish Trump’s action from those mayors’. First, the people in D.C. were not in violation of the city’s 7 p.m. curfew — the tear gas was used about 20 minutes before the curfew went into effect, and it seems to have been used for no other purpose than to clear the protesters out of Trump’s walking path. Second, the president of the U.S. allowing the use of tear gas on civilians protesting peacefully is simply a bigger deal than a mayor or governor doing it. The fact that Trump has used tear gas on protesters could lead to its use by more officials, too.
This is another instance, though, where norms and democratic values have not always aligned. While the First Amendment protects the right of people to freely assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances, government interference with this right is not uncommon. But the escalation we saw from the White House on Monday is.
Police and the military not being aligned with one political side
It’s not just that the president’s actions violated the right of people to protest, either. How he did this — by using law enforcement officials — matters too. Democracy scholars believe that the police and military must avoid being tied to any one political party or leader, and instead must view themselves as defending the broader public, following laws and rules no matter which party is in charge. Being apolitical has been a long-standing tradition of the U.S. military in particular.
But during Trump’s presidency, the idea that our police and military are separate from partisan politics has appeared increasingly strained. For instance, the national Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups were strongly behind Trump during his 2016 campaign. And the Minneapolis police force recently faced pushback over its policy of preventing officers from attending Trump rallies in uniform. The president has even gone as far as to refer to military officers as “my generals.” And on Monday, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, was on site at the White House before the tear gas was fired at the protesters.
It’s a tricky balance, as individual police and military personnel have the right to support candidates and hold political views. But as institutions, it’s critical that they don’t work for any one politician or any one political side. However, by encouraging the police and military to take on the protesters across the country, Trump has crossed a crucial and dangerous line.
This could have significant ramifications as the act of policing has become a more partisan issue. Pew Research Center polling conducted in 2016 found that nearly 70 percent of police officers thought that deaths of black Americans during encounters with police were isolated incidents. But while there is not much recent polling of police officers, a 2019 YouGov survey found that an overwhelming majority of Democrats thought these deaths were part of a broader pattern.
A president concerned about this dynamic and its implications might try to ease those tensions. But Trump, in both his words and his actions on Monday, is doing the opposite.
To conclude, in a democracy that is running smoothly, most citizens may not think very much about our shared norms and democratic values, but America is not running smoothly right now. That means we are forced to grapple with what these norms and values mean — and why they matter.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: The data behind police violence


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-02--How The Protests Against Police Brutality Could Shape Electoral Politics

In this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Samuel Sinyangwe , a data analyst and co-founder of Campaign Zero @ @ @ @ @ data on police violence and the politics of the protests that have spread across the @ @

In this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Samuel Sinyangwe, a data analyst and co-founder of Campaign Zero, joins us to discuss data on police violence and the politics of the protests that have spread across the country.