fivethirtyeight--2020-06-04--If Republicans Are Ever Going To Turn On Trump, This Might Be The Moment

While the past few days have felt unprecedented in almost all respects , they ’ ve been familiar in at least one way : President Trump has once again done something widely viewed as outrageous .
In this case , his administration had law enforcement officials clear a path for Trump to visit a nearby church , leading to protesters being tear gassed outside the White House .
And , as has often been the case when Trump draws criticism , many GOP senators have evaded questions about the violence and Trump ’ s role in it .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
I haven ’ t seen footage.
” “ I didn ’ t follow , I ’ m sorry.
” And even , “ He has moments .
But I mean , as you know , it lasts generally as long as the next tweet.
” Yet maybe this time is a little different .
Even before the protesters were driven away from the White House , we ’ d begun to hear a number of strong condemnations of both Trump and how he was handling the protests across the country — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more surprising sources , like military leaders .
On the usual suspects list there ’ s Sens .
Mitt Romney , Susan Collins , Ben Sasse and Lisa Murkowski ( although Murkowski avoided saying much about the protests specifically , she did say she is “ struggling ” with whether to vote for Trump in 2020 ) .
But some current and former members of the president ’ s inner circle have also criticized him .
Most notably , former Secretary of Defense James Mattis , who resigned in protest in December 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions on Wednesday night , writing , “ We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.
” ( He also said , “ The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation.
” ) Current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has also objected to using active-duty troops to respond to mostly peaceful protests .
Former President George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the protesters , writing , “ The only way to see ourselves in a true light is to listen to the voices of so many who are hurting and grieving .
Those who set out to silence those voices do not understand the meaning of America.
” Bush didn ’ t name Trump directly , but it ’ s still a telling rebuke from a former president of the same political party .
This is one of those rare moments of uncertainty when it ’ s possible that the wall of Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still unlikely to happen , but as I ’ ve written before , if it does happen , it will happen suddenly .
Political science helps us understand why this is the case .
In my previous article , I cited political scientist Timur Kuran ’ s classic work , “ Private Truth , Public Lies : The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification , ” to help explain why : [ Kuran ] argues that political regimes can persist despite being unpopular , which is why a government overthrow , when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sudden .
Consider the Arab Spring , which began with one Tunisian vendor , who protested being mistreated by government officials by setting himself on fire .
His death triggered a series of events , and a month later , the long-unpopular authoritarian Tunisian president fled the country after more than 23 years in power .
A few weeks later , protesters in Egypt ousted their own long-serving authoritarian leader .
What looked like ironclad power collapsed in a matter of weeks .
Why ?
Kuran argues in his book that protests need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to force change .
The logic is that there ’ s safety in numbers , so if multiple citizens rise up in protest of a regime , it signals that it ’ s OK to protest — which can cause decades-old regimes to collapse all at once .
Of course , so far the criticism against Trump has mostly come from retired generals or members of Congress who already had a history of publicly chastising the president .
But as conflict escalates over the protests , more and more elected Republicans may start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s continued unpopularity threatens to weigh down Republicans ’ chances of holding on to the Senate or taking back the House , and head-to-head polling shows Biden holds a steady lead against Trump in the general election .
Is it possible , then , that Republican leaders might privately be wondering if they ’ d be better off with somebody else on the ticket in November ?
With unemployment at historic levels , protests spreading and the coronavirus pandemic lingering , Trump faces an increasingly difficult path to reelection .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually find a way to defend Trump ’ s actions , as they have done before ( remember the impeachment trial ? )
.
Trump may not be perfect , they may say , but the Democrats are much worse .
This is the prevailing rationalization of our zero-sum politics .
But in moments like this , when nobody knows exactly what to say or do , a few unlikely public critiques of Trump could have a surprising cascade effect .
And if the president continues to transgress widely-shared democratic values — putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position — we may yet see a consequential crack in the Republican Party .

If Republicans Are Ever Going To Turn On Trump, This Might Be The Moment
While the past few days have felt unprecedented in almost all respects, they’ve been familiar in at least one way: President Trump has once again done something widely viewed as outrageous. In this case, his administration had law enforcement officials clear a path for Trump to visit a nearby church, leading to protesters being tear gassed outside the White House.
And, as has often been the case when Trump draws criticism, many GOP senators have evaded questions about the violence and Trump’s role in it. “I don’t have any reaction to it. I haven’t seen footage.” “I didn’t follow, I’m sorry.” And even, “He has moments. But I mean, as you know, it lasts generally as long as the next tweet.”
Yet maybe this time is a little different. Even before the protesters were driven away from the White House, we’d begun to hear a number of strong condemnations of both Trump and how he was handling the protests across the country — some from familiar corners and others from more surprising sources, like military leaders.
On the usual suspects list there’s Sens. Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse and Lisa Murkowski (although Murkowski avoided saying much about the protests specifically, she did say she is “struggling” with whether to vote for Trump in 2020). But some current and former members of the president’s inner circle have also criticized him. Most notably, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who resigned in protest in December 2018, issued a scathing rebuke of Trump’s actions on Wednesday night, writing, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” (He also said, “The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation.”) Current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has also objected to using active-duty troops to respond to mostly peaceful protests.
Former President George W. Bush also weighed in on the side of the protesters, writing, “The only way to see ourselves in a true light is to listen to the voices of so many who are hurting and grieving. Those who set out to silence those voices do not understand the meaning of America.” Bush didn’t name Trump directly, but it’s still a telling rebuke from a former president of the same political party.
This is one of those rare moments of uncertainty when it’s possible that the wall of Republican support sheltering Trump finally crumbles. It is still unlikely to happen, but as I’ve written before, if it does happen, it will happen suddenly.
Political science helps us understand why this is the case. In my previous article, I cited political scientist Timur Kuran’s classic work, “Private Truth, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification,” to help explain why:
[Kuran] argues that political regimes can persist despite being unpopular, which is why a government overthrow, when it does come, can often seem so sudden. Consider the Arab Spring, which began with one Tunisian vendor, who protested being mistreated by government officials by setting himself on fire. His death triggered a series of events, and a month later, the long-unpopular authoritarian Tunisian president fled the country after more than 23 years in power. A few weeks later, protesters in Egypt ousted their own long-serving authoritarian leader. What looked like ironclad power collapsed in a matter of weeks. Why? Kuran argues in his book that protests need a critical mass of supporters in order to force change. The logic is that there’s safety in numbers, so if multiple citizens rise up in protest of a regime, it signals that it’s OK to protest — which can cause decades-old regimes to collapse all at once.
Of course, so far the criticism against Trump has mostly come from retired generals or members of Congress who already had a history of publicly chastising the president. But as conflict escalates over the protests, more and more elected Republicans may start to speak up.
After all, Trump’s continued unpopularity threatens to weigh down Republicans’ chances of holding on to the Senate or taking back the House, and head-to-head polling shows Biden holds a steady lead against Trump in the general election. Is it possible, then, that Republican leaders might privately be wondering if they’d be better off with somebody else on the ticket in November? With unemployment at historic levels, protests spreading and the coronavirus pandemic lingering, Trump faces an increasingly difficult path to reelection.
Most likely, Senate and House Republicans will eventually find a way to defend Trump’s actions, as they have done before (remember the impeachment trial?). Trump may not be perfect, they may say, but the Democrats are much worse. This is the prevailing rationalization of our zero-sum politics.
But in moments like this, when nobody knows exactly what to say or do, a few unlikely public critiques of Trump could have a surprising cascade effect. And if the president continues to transgress widely-shared democratic values — putting congressional Republicans in an increasingly difficult electoral position — we may yet see a consequential crack in the Republican Party.
Confidence Interval: If Trump Loses In 2020, Heâll Be The Nominee Again In 2024


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-04--Why It’s So Rare For Police Officers To Face Legal Consequences

On Friday , former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was arrested and charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter after he was caught on video pressing his knee on George Floyd ’ s neck for nearly nine minutes , even though Floyd told him repeatedly he couldn ’ t breathe .
And now Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is adding a second-degree murder charge , in addition to charging the three officers who were on the scene when Floyd was killed .
The fact that Chauvin was charged at all was significant .
The elevation of the charges — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also being charged — is even more so .
That ’ s because it ’ s still quite rare for police officers to be prosecuted .
A review of the data we have on police prosecutions shows that it ’ s uncommon for police officers to face any kind of legal consequences — let alone be convicted — for committing fatal violence against civilians .
The data we have on police misconduct is , admittedly , far from perfect .
There is no national system for reporting police misconduct , and state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details about investigations into police wrongdoing .
That means some of the most reliable data sets on police misconduct — usually focusing on shootings — come from journalists , researchers or political activists who study it , not the federal government .
And according to data from Philip M. Stinson , a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University , who collects one of the most reliable data sets on police prosecutions , only a handful of police officers are charged with murder or manslaughter every year .
What ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantially more police officers are facing charges , despite an uptick in protests against the use of excessive force by police .
Many major cities continue to pay out millions of dollars each year to settle lawsuits against police officers , too , often without firing officers who have been repeatedly sued .
So even though police misconduct has drawn greater national attention , it ’ s still really difficult to hold police officers legally accountable for any kind of misconduct — including fatal violence .
Over the past few years , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of police officers , but it ’ s often hard to know whether more police are being prosecuted , or if the issue is just receiving more attention .
Stinson ’ s Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database is among the best sources available on prosecutions of police ; it logs 10,287 criminal arrest cases between 2005 and 2014 involving 8,495 non-federal sworn law enforcement officers .
Updating this data is difficult and time-consuming , but Stinson was able to send us more recent data for prosecutions resulting from on-duty police shootings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track .
That doesn ’ t include police killings that aren ’ t shootings , but Stinson told us that prosecutions for deaths like Floyd ’ s are especially rare .
In fact , Stinson has found only 110 law enforcement officers nationwide have been charged with murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting — despite the fact that around around 1,000 people are fatally shot by police annually , according to a database maintained by The Washington Post .
Furthermore , only 42 officers were convicted .
Fifty were not and 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table below shows , many of these convictions ended up being for a lesser offense — only five of these officers were convicted of murder ( and did not have that conviction overturned ) .
Most years , the number of officers charged with murder or manslaughter in connection with an on-duty shooting is in the single digits .
And despite the increased scrutiny on police violence since 2014 ( when the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson , Missouri , and the Black Lives Matter movement raised public awareness of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers charged nor the number of convictions has meaningfully increased .
The number of officers charged has edged into the double digits in four of the last six years ( topping out at 18 in 2015 ) , but Stinson told us that the uptick was too small to be statistically significant .
What ’ s more , officers are still being convicted about as often as they are not — about the same rate as before 2014 — although many of the cases since 2016 are still pending .
Why are police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last few years , many cities have pledged to reform their police departments , and progressive prosecutors have even won on promises to hold police accountable for misconduct .
But Kate Levine , a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law who studies police prosecutions , told us that not all misconduct — including use of excessive or even fatal force — is illegal .
“ If a civilian is displaying a weapon , it ’ s very hard to charge [ the police officer ] with murder for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
“ And even if a civilian doesn ’ t have a weapon , it ’ s hard to charge a police officer if [ the officer ] can credibly say they feared for their life.
” There are other barriers to charging and convicting police , too .
Prosecutors work closely with police departments , which means they may be reluctant to jeopardize that relationship by pursuing cases against officers .
Police officers ’ contracts also often protect them from interrogation techniques that are often used on civilians , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that make it to trial , judges and juries may be more inclined to believe law enforcement officers when they say their lives were threatened .
All of these challenges are so baked into the system that it ’ s very difficult to make meaningful changes .
Altering prosecutors ’ relationship with police isn ’ t a simple or easy reform , for instance — it would be a fundamental shift in the way our criminal justice system works .
Of course , prosecution isn ’ t the only legal route for holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also sue if their constitutional rights are violated by police , which includes offenses like use of excessive force .
There ’ s no national data source for this either , but we looked at data on police misconduct settlements in New York , Los Angeles , Chicago and Philadelphia .
And New York has paid more than $ 100 million on police misconduct settlements each fiscal year between 2015 and 2018 , per data from the New York City Comptroller ’ s Office .
In total , New York Police Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million between the fiscal years of 2011 and 2017 .
In Los Angeles , they totaled more than $ 139 million in that same time period , according to data compiled by the Los Angeles Times .
And in Chicago , police misconduct settlements between the calendar years of 2011 to 2018 totaled $ 398 million , according to data compiled by The Chicago Reporter .
In Philadelphia , that number is nearly $ 90 million , per data from the city ’ s Law Department .
This might seem like a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not an especially effective way of promoting police accountability .
For one thing , according to research by Joanna Schwartz , a law professor at the University of California , Los Angeles , police almost never pay the settlements out of pocket — instead , the money comes from cities or police departments , and often in ways that don ’ t put financial strain on police departments .
That may help explain why some of the nation ’ s largest cities have a history of keeping officers on the force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many lawsuits — the legal actions may not actually prompt police departments to internally discipline or fire officers who are sued over and over again .
Part of the problem , according to Schwartz and others , is that it ’ s also very difficult to successfully sue a police officer for misconduct because the courts have granted them broad protections from legal liability for actions they take on the job .
This doctrine , called “ qualified immunity , ” protects government officials from being sued if there isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means , in practical terms , that a case against a police officer will often be dismissed if the alleged behavior hasn ’ t previously been found unconstitutional .
This has resulted in a bizarre and circular trap for people trying to sue police for misconduct : To succeed , they need to find previous cases where similar misconduct occurred , but there are very few other precedents because other plaintiffs hit the same stumbling block .
“ This is a big part of the reason victims of police misconduct are very rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for law enforcement officers who step out of line , ” said Jay Schweikert , a policy analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute .
His organization is one of many across the ideological spectrum that are currently urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the protections afforded to law enforcement professionals by this doctrine .
Nearly all of the experts we spoke with stressed that the legal system isn ’ t the only way — or even the best way — to prevent police misconduct .
Seth Stoughton , a former police officer who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of South Carolina , said he thinks police prosecutions shouldn ’ t overshadow other solutions that might also help change police culture .
This includes being more proactive about yanking police licenses or more transparent about misconduct data , so the scope of the problem is clearer .
“ Legal accountability is just one type of accountability , ” he told us .
“ It ’ s certainly very important — but it ’ s not the silver bullet I think a lot of people expect it to be .
”

UPDATE (September 23, 2020, 4:53 p.m.): On Wednesday, a grand jury decided not to charge any Louisville police officers with killing Breonna Taylor earlier this year. One former police officer was indicted for recklessly endangering Taylor’s neighbors, but the other two officers were not charged.
As we wrote earlier this summer, it’s actually quite rare for police officers to face criminal legal consequences for using excessive force — or even fatal violence — against civilians.
On Friday, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was arrested and charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter after he was caught on video pressing his knee on George Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes, even though Floyd told him repeatedly he couldn’t breathe. And now Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is adding a second-degree murder charge, in addition to charging the three officers who were on the scene when Floyd was killed.
The fact that Chauvin was charged at all was significant. The elevation of the charges — and the fact that the other three officers are also being charged — is even more so. That’s because it’s still quite rare for police officers to be prosecuted. A review of the data we have on police prosecutions shows that it’s uncommon for police officers to face any kind of legal consequences — let alone be convicted — for committing fatal violence against civilians.
The data we have on police misconduct is, admittedly, far from perfect. There is no national system for reporting police misconduct, and state agencies are often reluctant to release any details about investigations into police wrongdoing.
That means some of the most reliable data sets on police misconduct — usually focusing on shootings — come from journalists, researchers or political activists who study it, not the federal government. And according to data from Philip M. Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University, who collects one of the most reliable data sets on police prosecutions, only a handful of police officers are charged with murder or manslaughter every year.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: The data behind police violence
What’s more, there’s no evidence that substantially more police officers are facing charges, despite an uptick in protests against the use of excessive force by police. Many major cities continue to pay out millions of dollars each year to settle lawsuits against police officers, too, often without firing officers who have been repeatedly sued. So even though police misconduct has drawn greater national attention, it’s still really difficult to hold police officers legally accountable for any kind of misconduct — including fatal violence.
Over the past few years, there have been a number of high-profile trials of police officers, but it’s often hard to know whether more police are being prosecuted, or if the issue is just receiving more attention. Stinson’s Henry A. Wallace Police Crime Database is among the best sources available on prosecutions of police; it logs 10,287 criminal arrest cases between 2005 and 2014 involving 8,495 non-federal sworn law enforcement officers.
Updating this data is difficult and time-consuming, but Stinson was able to send us more recent data for prosecutions resulting from on-duty police shootings, since those are rarer and easier to track. That doesn’t include police killings that aren’t shootings, but Stinson told us that prosecutions for deaths like Floyd’s are especially rare. In fact, Stinson has found only 110 law enforcement officers nationwide have been charged with murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting — despite the fact that around around 1,000 people are fatally shot by police annually, according to a database maintained by The Washington Post. Furthermore, only 42 officers were convicted. Fifty were not and 18 cases are still pending. And as the table below shows, many of these convictions ended up being for a lesser offense — only five of these officers were convicted of murder (and did not have that conviction overturned).
In shootings, police are rarely convicted of murder Charges on which nonfederal law enforcement officers arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting were convicted, since 2005 Charge Number of Convictions Manslaughter 11 Involuntary manslaughter 6 Murder* 5 Voluntary manslaughter 5 Federal criminal deprivation of civil rights 5 Official misconduct 3 Negligent homicide 3 Reckless homicide 2 Aggravated assault 1 Reckless discharge of a firearm 1 *Not counting convictions that were later overturned. Source: Philip Stinson
Most years, the number of officers charged with murder or manslaughter in connection with an on-duty shooting is in the single digits. And despite the increased scrutiny on police violence since 2014 (when the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the Black Lives Matter movement raised public awareness of the issue), neither the number of officers charged nor the number of convictions has meaningfully increased. The number of officers charged has edged into the double digits in four of the last six years (topping out at 18 in 2015), but Stinson told us that the uptick was too small to be statistically significant. What’s more, officers are still being convicted about as often as they are not — about the same rate as before 2014 — although many of the cases since 2016 are still pending.
Why are police prosecutions still so rare? In the last few years, many cities have pledged to reform their police departments, and progressive prosecutors have even won on promises to hold police accountable for misconduct. But Kate Levine, a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law who studies police prosecutions, told us that not all misconduct — including use of excessive or even fatal force — is illegal. “If a civilian is displaying a weapon, it’s very hard to charge [the police officer] with murder for taking action against that civilian,” she said. “And even if a civilian doesn’t have a weapon, it’s hard to charge a police officer if [the officer] can credibly say they feared for their life.”
There are other barriers to charging and convicting police, too. Prosecutors work closely with police departments, which means they may be reluctant to jeopardize that relationship by pursuing cases against officers. Police officers’ contracts also often protect them from interrogation techniques that are often used on civilians, according to Levine. And in the cases that make it to trial, judges and juries may be more inclined to believe law enforcement officers when they say their lives were threatened. All of these challenges are so baked into the system that it’s very difficult to make meaningful changes. Altering prosecutors’ relationship with police isn’t a simple or easy reform, for instance — it would be a fundamental shift in the way our criminal justice system works.
Of course, prosecution isn’t the only legal route for holding police officers accountable for misconduct. People can also sue if their constitutional rights are violated by police, which includes offenses like use of excessive force. There’s no national data source for this either, but we looked at data on police misconduct settlements in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia. And New York has paid more than $100 million on police misconduct settlements each fiscal year between 2015 and 2018, per data from the New York City Comptroller’s Office. In total, New York Police Department misconduct settlements cost the city $630 million between the fiscal years of 2011 and 2017. In Los Angeles, they totaled more than $139 million in that same time period, according to data compiled by the Los Angeles Times. And in Chicago, police misconduct settlements between the calendar years of 2011 to 2018 totaled $398 million, according to data compiled by The Chicago Reporter. In Philadelphia, that number is nearly $90 million, per data from the city’s Law Department.
This might seem like a lot of money, but experts say it’s not an especially effective way of promoting police accountability. For one thing, according to research by Joanna Schwartz, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, police almost never pay the settlements out of pocket — instead, the money comes from cities or police departments, and often in ways that don’t put financial strain on police departments. That may help explain why some of the nation’s largest cities have a history of keeping officers on the force even when their conduct has resulted in many lawsuits — the legal actions may not actually prompt police departments to internally discipline or fire officers who are sued over and over again.
Part of the problem, according to Schwartz and others, is that it’s also very difficult to successfully sue a police officer for misconduct because the courts have granted them broad protections from legal liability for actions they take on the job. This doctrine, called “qualified immunity,” protects government officials from being sued if there isn’t a violation of clearly established law — which means, in practical terms, that a case against a police officer will often be dismissed if the alleged behavior hasn’t previously been found unconstitutional.
This has resulted in a bizarre and circular trap for people trying to sue police for misconduct: To succeed, they need to find previous cases where similar misconduct occurred, but there are very few other precedents because other plaintiffs hit the same stumbling block. “This is a big part of the reason victims of police misconduct are very rarely compensated and there is no predictable accountability for law enforcement officers who step out of line,” said Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute. His organization is one of many across the ideological spectrum that are currently urging the Supreme Court to reconsider the protections afforded to law enforcement professionals by this doctrine.
Nearly all of the experts we spoke with stressed that the legal system isn’t the only way — or even the best way — to prevent police misconduct. Seth Stoughton, a former police officer who’s now a law professor at the University of South Carolina, said he thinks police prosecutions shouldn’t overshadow other solutions that might also help change police culture. This includes being more proactive about yanking police licenses or more transparent about misconduct data, so the scope of the problem is clearer. “Legal accountability is just one type of accountability,” he told us. “It’s certainly very important — but it’s not the silver bullet I think a lot of people expect it to be.”


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-03--Fact-Checking Misinformation Can Work. But It Might Not Be Enough.

Last week , Twitter tried something new .
When President Trump tweeted that “ There is NO WAY ( ZERO ! )
that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent , ” Twitter appended this message to Trump ’ s tweet : “ Get the facts about mail-in ballots ” — which in turn , linked to a page with the headline : “ Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.
” Given the dangers misinformation poses to both democracy and public health , many believe social media platforms have a responsibility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But can corrections like this even work ?
And what role should social media platforms play in combating misinformation ?
Well , it turns out there is evidence that fact checks do work .
Numerous studies have demonstrated that when confronted with a correction , a significant share of people do , in fact , update their beliefs .
Political scientists Ethan Porter and Thomas J .
Wood conducted an exhaustive battery of surveys on fact-checking , across more than 10,000 participants and 13 studies that covered a range of political , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 60 percent of respondents gave accurate answers when presented with a correction , while just 32 percent of respondents who were not given a correction expressed accurate beliefs .
That ’ s pretty solid proof that fact-checking can work .
But Porter and Wood have found , alongside many other fact-checking researchers , some methods of fact-checking are more effective than others .
Broadly speaking , the most effective fact checks have this in common : • They are from highly credible sources ( with extra credit for those that are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Democrats contradicting other Democrats ) .
• They offer a new frame for thinking about the issue ( that is , they don ’ t simply dismiss a claim as “ wrong ” or “ unsubstantiated ” ) .
So despite a few studies suggesting that fact checks may make misinformation more prevalent ( most prominently a widely-cited paper from political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010 , which popularized the concept of the “ backfire effect ” ) , the overwhelming majority of studies have found that fact checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least , do no harm .
Still , some pieces of misinformation are harder to fight than others .
And this episode involving Trump has several qualities that may make Twitter ’ s “ get the facts ” approach not exactly effective .
First , there ’ s the source : Donald Trump .
Trust him or doubt him , chances are you have an opinion of the president .
And if you already trust him , who are you going to trust more in this particular disagreement ?
Trump ?
Or CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources Twitter listed in its fact check ) ?
But given Trump ’ s notoriety , his misstatements may just be harder to combat .
In one of Porter and Wood ’ s experiments , they took an op-ed by Trump and issued a correction on two versions of the piece : one ( correctly ) attributed to Trump and one attributed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
The authors found that the fact-check of McConnell moved significantly more respondents toward the accurate position than did the fact check of Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Twitter referenced articles from CNN and the Washington Post to correct the record .
Research shows that an unlikely , surprising source for debunking misinformation , like a fellow Republican criticizing Trump , is just much more effective at making a correction stick than a more predictable and unsurprising source ( like CNN or the Washington Post , both of which Trump has also cast as his enemies ) .
A Trump-supporting reader might take a closer look if told that Republican state officials in Idaho and Washington had complete confidence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or that an exhaustive 17-month law enforcement inquiry into voter fraud in Florida , a state governed by fellow Republican Ron DeSantis , found no evidence of wrongdoing .
This combination of surprise and credibility , in theory , would activate a closer look — the kind of attention required for mental updating .
And although Republicans en masse did not criticize Trump ’ s tweet that equated voting by mail with voter fraud , one recent example of a surprising debunk ( and therefore , perhaps a maybe more effective fact check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s editorial board ’ s take down of Trump ’ s allegation that cable news host Joe Scarborough was responsible for the death of a female staffer while he was a Republican congressman in Florida .
The WSJ editorial board wrote that Trump ’ s suggestion “ that the talk-show host is implicated in the woman ’ s death isn ’ t political hardball .
It ’ s a smear.
” But fact-checking Trump is also further complicated by the fact that he is just really good at making memorable — if misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s bizarre assertion that the hacker who released the DNC ’ s emails was not someone in Russia but instead “ somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds ?
” You probably do .
It was a memorable , specific image , and catchy enough that “ 400poundhacker ” briefly trended on Twitter .
And as a memory expert will tell you , the more specific and outrageous the image , the more likely you are to remember it .
This latest tweet was no exception .
And this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply dismissing it as “ not true ” especially ineffective .
Political scientist Emily Thorson calls this phenomenon a “ belief echo , ” or the phenomenon that even when an idea is rejected as false , it can still continue to shape attitudes .
Think about someone like President Nixon saying “ I ’ m not a crook ” in response to the allegations that he oversaw a break-in at the Watergate Hotel to wiretap his political opponents .
By refuting the allegation , he ’ s also repeating it , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the more evocative and colorful the original claim , the stronger the echo , Thorson finds , if the rejection also repeats the claim .
“ Unfortunately , this means that the times when we are most tempted to repeat misinformation — a horrifyingly inaccurate graph , an offensive comment in a debate — are also the times when it is most likely to create belief echoes , ” Thorson wrote .
Rather than simply saying there is no evidence to support Trump ’ s claim that voting by mail will lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact check might offer an alternate explanation for why voting by mail doesn ’ t cause voter fraud .
For instance , a good fact check could explain that many governors support voting-by-mail to protect vulnerable family members from getting sick from the coronavirus , not because they think it will benefit their party politically .
Or it could detail all the specific measures governors are taking to ensure a secure process , like signature matching and ballot tracing .
But this brings us to perhaps the trickiest obstacles regarding effective corrections in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research shows that people can easily incorporate new information — even if it ’ s inaccurate — as long as it fits in an existing worldview .
Take Trump ’ s misstatement on voting by mail causing voter fraud .
Even though there isn ’ t evidence to support this , it already fits within a preexisting narrative that many Republicans believe — that voter fraud is widespread and Democrats help perpetuate it .
This is what makes the problem of combating misinformation so challenging .
When premises are familiar ( e.g.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s easier to incorporate new information uncritically , especially when partisanship is involved .
Partisans are typically much more receptive to any facts that make their side look good and any facts that make the other side look bad .
Likewise , they ’ re likely to reject facts that make their side look bad and make the other side look good .
Practically , this has meant that as Democrats and Republicans have cocooned themselves in separate information streams , they ’ ve increasingly incorporated not only different worldviews , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those worldviews .
The more partisanship itself becomes an identity , the more intense this motivated reasoning has become .
But there is one thing that might make this particular correction effective : It was issued simultaneously with the misstatement .
And research has shown that the most effective corrections are immediate responses .
A team of researchers led by Nyhan recently found that “ disputed ” tags , like the one Twitter issued , successfully reduce belief in false stories on social media .
There ’ s a very real question , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms should be controlling what we do — and don ’ t — see .
Facebook , for instance , has taken a different approach than Twitter so far .
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg criticized Twitter ’ s new policy , saying that , “ I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn ’ t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.
” Twitter and Facebook are also two of the very few places that both Democrats and Republicans turn to for news , even if their feeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective fact check might not make the difference that policymakers are hoping for in political attitudes .
While it ’ s possible for fact checks to shift beliefs , attitudes are much harder to change and much more resilient to fact checks .
In other words , even if some Twitter users now know that voting by mail doesn ’ t cause voter fraud , it ’ s unlikely that their attitudes about Trump will change , let alone their attitudes about voting by mail ( they might find other reasons to oppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility of fraud , even if they don ’ t think it is widespread ) .
After all , in our two-party system , it is still a tremendous leap for a Trump supporter to defect to voting for a Democrat .
Fact-checking can help with updating and correcting prior knowledge , but breaking the hyper-partisanship that nurtures misinformation in the first place will require a whole lot more work .
But the more aggressively Twitter combats misinformation coming from Trump , the more it risks both the ire of the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican users .
A more comprehensive corrections department that fact checks all public figures ( not just Trump ) might allay some criticisms from the right that Twitter is biased against conservatives .
But it would also cost money to employ more fact-checkers , and it might still disproportionately correct conservative voices if they do share more misleading information than liberals .
If so , the information echo-chambers may fracture further , with liberals and conservatives seeking out their own platforms even more .
That could make fact-checking even harder .
Social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in deciding exactly how — and how much — they want to correct misinformation .
The good news is that fact-checking does work .
But the bad news is that it ’ s going to take a lot of concerted fact-checking efforts to make any difference — and even that might not be enough .
Confidence Interval : If Trump Loses In 2020 , He ’ ll Be The Nominee Again In 2024

Last week, Twitter tried something new. When President Trump tweeted that “There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent,” Twitter appended this message to Trump’s tweet: “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” — which in turn, linked to a page with the headline: “Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud.”
Given the dangers misinformation poses to both democracy and public health, many believe social media platforms have a responsibility to monitor and correct misinformation before it spreads. But can corrections like this even work? And what role should social media platforms play in combating misinformation?
Well, it turns out there is evidence that fact checks do work. Numerous studies have demonstrated that when confronted with a correction, a significant share of people do, in fact, update their beliefs.
Political scientists Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood conducted an exhaustive battery of surveys on fact-checking, across more than 10,000 participants and 13 studies that covered a range of political, economic and scientific topics. They found that 60 percent of respondents gave accurate answers when presented with a correction, while just 32 percent of respondents who were not given a correction expressed accurate beliefs. That’s pretty solid proof that fact-checking can work.
But Porter and Wood have found, alongside many other fact-checking researchers, some methods of fact-checking are more effective than others. Broadly speaking, the most effective fact checks have this in common:
So despite a few studies suggesting that fact checks may make misinformation more prevalent (most prominently a widely-cited paper from political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010, which popularized the concept of the “backfire effect”), the overwhelming majority of studies have found that fact checks do work — or at the very least, do no harm. Still, some pieces of misinformation are harder to fight than others. And this episode involving Trump has several qualities that may make Twitter’s “get the facts” approach not exactly effective.
First, there’s the source: Donald Trump. Trust him or doubt him, chances are you have an opinion of the president. And if you already trust him, who are you going to trust more in this particular disagreement? Trump? Or CNN and the Washington Post (the two sources Twitter listed in its fact check)?
But given Trump’s notoriety, his misstatements may just be harder to combat. In one of Porter and Wood’s experiments, they took an op-ed by Trump and issued a correction on two versions of the piece: one (correctly) attributed to Trump and one attributed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The authors found that the fact-check of McConnell moved significantly more respondents toward the accurate position than did the fact check of Trump.
Next, there’s the fact that Twitter referenced articles from CNN and the Washington Post to correct the record. Research shows that an unlikely, surprising source for debunking misinformation, like a fellow Republican criticizing Trump, is just much more effective at making a correction stick than a more predictable and unsurprising source (like CNN or the Washington Post, both of which Trump has also cast as his enemies).
A Trump-supporting reader might take a closer look if told that Republican state officials in Idaho and Washington had complete confidence in the security of voting by mail, or that an exhaustive 17-month law enforcement inquiry into voter fraud in Florida, a state governed by fellow Republican Ron DeSantis, found no evidence of wrongdoing. This combination of surprise and credibility, in theory, would activate a closer look — the kind of attention required for mental updating.
And although Republicans en masse did not criticize Trump’s tweet that equated voting by mail with voter fraud, one recent example of a surprising debunk (and therefore, perhaps a maybe more effective fact check) is the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board’s take down of Trump’s allegation that cable news host Joe Scarborough was responsible for the death of a female staffer while he was a Republican congressman in Florida. The WSJ editorial board wrote that Trump’s suggestion “that the talk-show host is implicated in the woman’s death isn’t political hardball. It’s a smear.”
But fact-checking Trump is also further complicated by the fact that he is just really good at making memorable — if misleading or completely baseless — allegations. Remember Trump’s bizarre assertion that the hacker who released the DNC’s emails was not someone in Russia but instead “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds?” You probably do. It was a memorable, specific image, and catchy enough that “400poundhacker” briefly trended on Twitter. And as a memory expert will tell you, the more specific and outrageous the image, the more likely you are to remember it. This latest tweet was no exception. And this makes refuting Trump’s claim by simply dismissing it as “not true” especially ineffective. Political scientist Emily Thorson calls this phenomenon a “belief echo,” or the phenomenon that even when an idea is rejected as false, it can still continue to shape attitudes.
Think about someone like President Nixon saying “I’m not a crook” in response to the allegations that he oversaw a break-in at the Watergate Hotel to wiretap his political opponents. By refuting the allegation, he’s also repeating it, and therefore, making it more memorable. And the more evocative and colorful the original claim, the stronger the echo, Thorson finds, if the rejection also repeats the claim. “Unfortunately, this means that the times when we are most tempted to repeat misinformation — a horrifyingly inaccurate graph, an offensive comment in a debate — are also the times when it is most likely to create belief echoes,” Thorson wrote.
Rather than simply saying there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that voting by mail will lead to widespread voter fraud, an effective fact check might offer an alternate explanation for why voting by mail doesn’t cause voter fraud. For instance, a good fact check could explain that many governors support voting-by-mail to protect vulnerable family members from getting sick from the coronavirus, not because they think it will benefit their party politically. Or it could detail all the specific measures governors are taking to ensure a secure process, like signature matching and ballot tracing.
But this brings us to perhaps the trickiest obstacles regarding effective corrections in this situation: partisanship and worldview. Research shows that people can easily incorporate new information — even if it’s inaccurate — as long as it fits in an existing worldview. Take Trump’s misstatement on voting by mail causing voter fraud. Even though there isn’t evidence to support this, it already fits within a preexisting narrative that many Republicans believe — that voter fraud is widespread and Democrats help perpetuate it. This is what makes the problem of combating misinformation so challenging.
When premises are familiar (e.g., Democrats perpetuate voter fraud), it’s easier to incorporate new information uncritically, especially when partisanship is involved. Partisans are typically much more receptive to any facts that make their side look good and any facts that make the other side look bad. Likewise, they’re likely to reject facts that make their side look bad and make the other side look good.
Practically, this has meant that as Democrats and Republicans have cocooned themselves in separate information streams, they’ve increasingly incorporated not only different worldviews, but also different sets of facts to support those worldviews. The more partisanship itself becomes an identity, the more intense this motivated reasoning has become.
But there is one thing that might make this particular correction effective: It was issued simultaneously with the misstatement. And research has shown that the most effective corrections are immediate responses. A team of researchers led by Nyhan recently found that “disputed” tags, like the one Twitter issued, successfully reduce belief in false stories on social media.
There’s a very real question, though, of how much these tech platforms should be controlling what we do — and don’t — see. Facebook, for instance, has taken a different approach than Twitter so far. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg criticized Twitter’s new policy, saying that, “I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” Twitter and Facebook are also two of the very few places that both Democrats and Republicans turn to for news, even if their feeds rarely overlap.
Finally, even an effective fact check might not make the difference that policymakers are hoping for in political attitudes. While it’s possible for fact checks to shift beliefs, attitudes are much harder to change and much more resilient to fact checks.
In other words, even if some Twitter users now know that voting by mail doesn’t cause voter fraud, it’s unlikely that their attitudes about Trump will change, let alone their attitudes about voting by mail (they might find other reasons to oppose it, or still be concerned about the possibility of fraud, even if they don’t think it is widespread). After all, in our two-party system, it is still a tremendous leap for a Trump supporter to defect to voting for a Democrat. Fact-checking can help with updating and correcting prior knowledge, but breaking the hyper-partisanship that nurtures misinformation in the first place will require a whole lot more work.
But the more aggressively Twitter combats misinformation coming from Trump, the more it risks both the ire of the Trump administration and a potential loss of angered Republican users. A more comprehensive corrections department that fact checks all public figures (not just Trump) might allay some criticisms from the right that Twitter is biased against conservatives. But it would also cost money to employ more fact-checkers, and it might still disproportionately correct conservative voices if they do share more misleading information than liberals. If so, the information echo-chambers may fracture further, with liberals and conservatives seeking out their own platforms even more. That could make fact-checking even harder.
Social media companies will have to balance competing demands in deciding exactly how — and how much — they want to correct misinformation. The good news is that fact-checking does work. But the bad news is that it’s going to take a lot of concerted fact-checking efforts to make any difference — and even that might not be enough.
Confidence Interval: If Trump Loses In 2020, Heâll Be The Nominee Again In 2024


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-05--How Americans Feel About George Floyd’s Death And The Protests

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
This week , we have some of the first polls on how Americans feel about the death of George Floyd , a black man who was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis , and the protests that have cropped up across the U.S. in response .
On the one hand , an overwhelming majority of Americans say Floyd ’ s death was wrong and the police officers involved should be held accountable .
There is also some support for the frustration and anger that sparked the protests , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are vast racial inequities in policing .
But public opinion on the protests themselves is more muddled and suggests that Americans have mixed views of the protesters and their right to demonstrate , much of which falls along familiar partisan lines .
First , the public pretty clearly thinks the police were in the wrong .
A Yahoo News/YouGov survey , for instance , found that 84 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat approved of the firing of the officers involved in Floyd ’ s death , and 68 percent said they approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chauvin , who knelt on Floyd ’ s neck for nearly 9 minutes , with murder .
Similarly , 65 percent of respondents in a Data for Progress poll said that Chauvin murdered Floyd ; 25 percent of respondents said his death was partly a product of excessive force “ but not murder , ” and just 10 percent said it was a “ tragic accident.
” Additionally , most Americans said that policing is biased against African Americans .
In a new survey from Monmouth University , 57 percent said police were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult situations if the suspect is black , while just 33 percent said police were equally likely to use excessive force against white people and black people .
Similarly , 57 percent of respondents in a new CBS News/YouGov survey said police in most communities treat white people better than black people .
Thirty-nine percent said police treat both races equally .
On top of this , 61 percent of Americans said race was a “ major factor ” in Floyd ’ s death , according to the Yahoo News/YouGov survey .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents answered this question though : 87 percent of Democrats said race was a major factor compared with just 39 percent of Republicans .
More broadly , the public appears receptive to why people are protesting .
Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that , regardless of their actions , protesters ’ anger was “ fully justified , ” while 21 percent said it was “ partially justified ” and 18 percent said it was “ not at all justified.
” And 64 percent told Reuters/Ipsos that they were sympathetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while a Morning Consult poll found that 54 percent of adults supported “ the protest in general ” while 22 percent opposed it .
However , Americans had mixed views on what has happened during the protests , and many have expressed disapproval of protests that have been violent or destructive .
Forty-five percent of respondents told Morning Consult that , on the whole , most of the protesters are peaceful and desire meaningful social reform , while 42 percent said most protesters are trying to incite violence or destroy property .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent felt the actions of the protesters were fully justified , 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren ’ t justified at all .
And the Reuters/Ipsos survey found that most Americans ( 72 percent ) didn ’ t think violent protests were an appropriate response to Floyd ’ s killing , and that property damage caused by protesters undermined their goals ( 79 percent ) .
Morning Consult ’ s survey also found that Americans were less supportive of the protests when they were specifically asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political spectrum said they approved of some of the more forceful responses from local and state authorities .
In Morning Consult ’ s poll , 70 percent said they supported curfews and 66 percent backed calling in the national guard to aid city police , with large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans approving these measures .
Fifty-five percent of respondents even supported calling in the U.S. military , although there was a substantial partisan split on this question , with 74 percent of Republicans approving compared with 48 percent of Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of the protests , Americans largely gave him a thumbs down .
The CBS News/YouGov poll found that 32 percent approved of Trump ’ s response while 49 percent disapproved , and Reuters/Ipsos found that 33 percent approved while 56 percent disapproved .
Although Trump usually has overwhelming backing from Republicans on most job approval questions , there were some signs that at least a few GOP voters were breaking with him on this issue .
The CBS News/YouGov survey found that 65 percent approved of how he ’ s handling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent who approve of how he ’ s handling the coronavirus pandemic , for example — while 14 percent disapproved .
Similarly , in the Reuters/Ipsos poll , 20 percent disapproved while 67 percent approved .
There could be electoral repercussions to the protests and the president ’ s response to them .
Monmouth ’ s survey found that 74 percent of Americans felt the country was on the wrong track , the largest share since Monmouth first asked the question nationally in 2013 .
And as a result of Floyd ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of registered voters told Morning Consult they were more likely to now vote for former Vice President Joe Biden .
However , another 31 percent said they ’ d be more likely to vote for Trump .
And at this point , it ’ s hard to imagine that George Floyd ’ s death won ’ t be an important factor in the election .
• This month marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ’ s ruling that made same-sex marriage legal across the country , and Gallup ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans believe gay marriage should be legal , tying record-high support in 2018 .
Overall , this reflects a remarkable shift in public opinion .
In 1996 , 68 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage , while just 27 percent supported it .
• A new report from the Pew Research Center says that religion is increasingly becoming a dividing line between Democrats and Republicans .
Only 52 percent of Democrats identified as Christian in 2019 , down from 73 percent in 2008 , while 79 percent of Republicans identified as Christian last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 87 percent more than a decade ago .
• As many states and municipalities start to reopen after closing up shop to slow the spread of the coronavirus , a new ABC News/Washington Post survey reveals that many Americans are still hesitant to resume their pre-pandemic activities .
Fifty-eight percent said it was still “ too early ” to visit stores , restaurants and other public places , and 57 percent said it was more important to control the spread of the coronavirus than to restart the economy , compared with 37 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more important .
• However , Gallup finds that Americans aren ’ t quite as worried about being exposed to the coronavirus when they visit medical providers now compared with how they felt in late March and early April .
Back then , 84 percent said they were “ very ” or “ moderately ” concerned about exposure at a doctor ’ s office or hospital , whereas now just 64 percent said they were concerned .
• In the wake of Trump ’ s executive order targeting social media fact-checking policies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a social media platform if he spread offensive content compared with last year , according to a new poll from Morning Consult .
Just 24 percent said they wanted him banned , which is down from 38 percent in August 2019 .
( But the share who approved of a temporary suspension of his account remained relatively the same , 35 percent versus 36 percent . )
The weaker support for a ban was driven primarily by Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 .
In 2019 , 26 percent of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 percent in 2020 .
• The U.S. Senate race in Kansas is heating up , and a new survey from Democratic pollster Civiqs suggests it could be competitive in November despite the state ’ s Republican lean .
Presumptive Democratic nominee Barbara Bollier was in a dead heat against three Republican contenders , holding just a 1-point lead over two of them — former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and businessman Bob Hamilton — while trailing Rep. Roger Marshall by 1 point .
In the GOP primary , the poll gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent to 26 percent ) , with Hamilton in third at 15 percent .
• A new survey from Republican pollster Cygnal suggests that there may not be a runoff for the Democratic nomination in Georgia ’ s regularly scheduled U.S. Senate election .
The poll found journalist and former congressional candidate Jon Ossoff at nearly 49 percent in the June 9 primary race , just shy of the majority he needs to avoid an Aug. 11 runoff .
Meanwhile , former Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson had about 16 percent , and 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amico had around 8 percent .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 41.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 53.1 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -11.2 points ) .
At this time last week , 42.6 percent approved and 53.6 percent disapproved ( a net approval rating of -11.0 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 43.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.1 percent , for a net approval rating of -7.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 7.8 percentage points ( 48.7 percent to 40.9 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 7.7 points ( 48.2 percent to 40.5 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 7.7 points ( 48.0 percent to 40.3 percent ) .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
This week, we have some of the first polls on how Americans feel about the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis, and the protests that have cropped up across the U.S. in response.
On the one hand, an overwhelming majority of Americans say Floyd’s death was wrong and the police officers involved should be held accountable. There is also some support for the frustration and anger that sparked the protests, and a majority of Americans now agree that there are vast racial inequities in policing. But public opinion on the protests themselves is more muddled and suggests that Americans have mixed views of the protesters and their right to demonstrate, much of which falls along familiar partisan lines.
First, the public pretty clearly thinks the police were in the wrong. A Yahoo News/YouGov survey, for instance, found that 84 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat approved of the firing of the officers involved in Floyd’s death, and 68 percent said they approved of charging former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who knelt on Floyd’s neck for nearly 9 minutes, with murder. Similarly, 65 percent of respondents in a Data for Progress poll said that Chauvin murdered Floyd; 25 percent of respondents said his death was partly a product of excessive force “but not murder,” and just 10 percent said it was a “tragic accident.”
Additionally, most Americans said that policing is biased against African Americans. In a new survey from Monmouth University, 57 percent said police were more likely to use excessive force in difficult situations if the suspect is black, while just 33 percent said police were equally likely to use excessive force against white people and black people. Similarly, 57 percent of respondents in a new CBS News/YouGov survey said police in most communities treat white people better than black people. Thirty-nine percent said police treat both races equally. On top of this, 61 percent of Americans said race was a “major factor” in Floyd’s death, according to the Yahoo News/YouGov survey. There was a big partisan gap in how respondents answered this question though: 87 percent of Democrats said race was a major factor compared with just 39 percent of Republicans.
More broadly, the public appears receptive to why people are protesting. Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll felt that, regardless of their actions, protesters’ anger was “fully justified,” while 21 percent said it was “partially justified” and 18 percent said it was “not at all justified.” And 64 percent told Reuters/Ipsos that they were sympathetic to those participating in the protests, while a Morning Consult poll found that 54 percent of adults supported “the protest in general” while 22 percent opposed it.
However, Americans had mixed views on what has happened during the protests, and many have expressed disapproval of protests that have been violent or destructive. Forty-five percent of respondents told Morning Consult that, on the whole, most of the protesters are peaceful and desire meaningful social reform, while 42 percent said most protesters are trying to incite violence or destroy property. In Monmouth’s poll, only 17 percent felt the actions of the protesters were fully justified, 37 percent said they were partially justified and 38 percent said they weren’t justified at all. And the Reuters/Ipsos survey found that most Americans (72 percent) didn’t think violent protests were an appropriate response to Floyd’s killing, and that property damage caused by protesters undermined their goals (79 percent). Morning Consult’s survey also found that Americans were less supportive of the protests when they were specifically asked about black people protesting.
Americans across the political spectrum said they approved of some of the more forceful responses from local and state authorities. In Morning Consult’s poll, 70 percent said they supported curfews and 66 percent backed calling in the national guard to aid city police, with large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans approving these measures. Fifty-five percent of respondents even supported calling in the U.S. military, although there was a substantial partisan split on this question, with 74 percent of Republicans approving compared with 48 percent of Democrats.
As for President Trump’s handling of the protests, Americans largely gave him a thumbs down. The CBS News/YouGov poll found that 32 percent approved of Trump’s response while 49 percent disapproved, and Reuters/Ipsos found that 33 percent approved while 56 percent disapproved. Although Trump usually has overwhelming backing from Republicans on most job approval questions, there were some signs that at least a few GOP voters were breaking with him on this issue. The CBS News/YouGov survey found that 65 percent approved of how he’s handling the situation — far lower than the 84 percent who approve of how he’s handling the coronavirus pandemic, for example — while 14 percent disapproved. Similarly, in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 20 percent disapproved while 67 percent approved.
There could be electoral repercussions to the protests and the president’s response to them. Monmouth’s survey found that 74 percent of Americans felt the country was on the wrong track, the largest share since Monmouth first asked the question nationally in 2013. And as a result of Floyd’s death and the protests, 45 percent of registered voters told Morning Consult they were more likely to now vote for former Vice President Joe Biden. However, another 31 percent said they’d be more likely to vote for Trump. And at this point, it’s hard to imagine that George Floyd’s death won’t be an important factor in the election.
Other polling bites
This month marks the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that made same-sex marriage legal across the country, and Gallup’s latest data finds that 67 percent of Americans believe gay marriage should be legal, tying record-high support in 2018. Overall, this reflects a remarkable shift in public opinion. In 1996, 68 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while just 27 percent supported it.
A new report from the Pew Research Center says that religion is increasingly becoming a dividing line between Democrats and Republicans. Only 52 percent of Democrats identified as Christian in 2019, down from 73 percent in 2008, while 79 percent of Republicans identified as Christian last year, down 8 percentage points from 87 percent more than a decade ago.
As many states and municipalities start to reopen after closing up shop to slow the spread of the coronavirus, a new ABC News/Washington Post survey reveals that many Americans are still hesitant to resume their pre-pandemic activities. Fifty-eight percent said it was still “too early” to visit stores, restaurants and other public places, and 57 percent said it was more important to control the spread of the coronavirus than to restart the economy, compared with 37 percent who said that restarting the economy was more important.
However, Gallup finds that Americans aren’t quite as worried about being exposed to the coronavirus when they visit medical providers now compared with how they felt in late March and early April. Back then, 84 percent said they were “very” or “moderately” concerned about exposure at a doctor’s office or hospital, whereas now just 64 percent said they were concerned.
In the wake of Trump’s executive order targeting social media fact-checking policies, fewer Americans said they wanted Trump banned from a social media platform if he spread offensive content compared with last year, according to a new poll from Morning Consult. Just 24 percent said they wanted him banned, which is down from 38 percent in August 2019. (But the share who approved of a temporary suspension of his account remained relatively the same, 35 percent versus 36 percent.) The weaker support for a ban was driven primarily by Americans who voted for Trump in 2016. In 2019, 26 percent of Trump voters supported a ban compared with just 13 percent in 2020.
The U.S. Senate race in Kansas is heating up, and a new survey from Democratic pollster Civiqs suggests it could be competitive in November despite the state’s Republican lean. Presumptive Democratic nominee Barbara Bollier was in a dead heat against three Republican contenders, holding just a 1-point lead over two of them — former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and businessman Bob Hamilton — while trailing Rep. Roger Marshall by 1 point. In the GOP primary, the poll gave Kobach an edge over Marshall (35 percent to 26 percent), with Hamilton in third at 15 percent.
A new survey from Republican pollster Cygnal suggests that there may not be a runoff for the Democratic nomination in Georgia’s regularly scheduled U.S. Senate election. The poll found journalist and former congressional candidate Jon Ossoff at nearly 49 percent in the June 9 primary race, just shy of the majority he needs to avoid an Aug. 11 runoff. Meanwhile, former Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson had about 16 percent, and 2018 Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor Sarah Riggs Amico had around 8 percent.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 41.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 53.1 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -11.2 points). At this time last week, 42.6 percent approved and 53.6 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -11.0 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 43.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.1 percent, for a net approval rating of -7.8 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.8 percentage points (48.7 percent to 40.9 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.7 points (48.2 percent to 40.5 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.7 points (48.0 percent to 40.3 percent).
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Protests, then and now


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-05--A Good Jobs Report Does Not Mean A Rigged Jobs Report

The jobs report released this morning was shockingly good — which immediately made some people question whether it was too good to be true .
The most high-profile skeptic was left-leaning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman , who wondered on Twitter whether the Trump administration had “ gotten to ” the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) , which produces the jobs report .
( He apologized a few hours later . )
But while it ’ s hardly the first time conspiracy theories about the report have circulated , it would be a big mistake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hand in making the statistics look rosier than they really are .
The same was true when Republicans questioned whether the Obama administration had cooked the numbers .
Donald Trump himself said the unemployment rate was “ phony ” when he was campaigning for president , and that the real number was much higher .
And in fall 2012 , former General Electric CEO Jack Welch caused a stir when he suggested that the Obama administration had fudged the jobs report for political benefit .
Those conspiracy theories don ’ t engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BLS is insulated on many levels from political interference .
And if there were some kind of meddling , economists outside the government would quickly pick up on it and sound the alarm .
That doesn ’ t mean the numbers won ’ t change — some likely will be revised quite substantially .
But that ’ s not a sign of tampering .
“ This [ pandemic ] is a really difficult environment for producing economic statistics , and we know there are going to be errors and revisions of some kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are working hard to address , ” said Tara Sinclair , an economist at the George Washington University .
“ But that is a very different thing than choosing to report numbers because they look good for your boss , or your boss ’ s boss .
The way our statistical agencies are set up , that really can not happen.
” For one thing , a successfully rigged jobs report would have to involve a conspiracy of several dozen government statisticians who crunch the numbers from the two surveys of households and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who have access to the underlying data .
Nearly all of them are career bureaucrats who have been with the agency through multiple administrations .
Moreover , the process for producing the report is highly automated , which makes it harder to tamper with .
The process is also insulated from the political appointees who might , in theory , have more of an incentive to produce a result that ’ s more favorable to the president .
Even the people in charge of the bureau don ’ t know what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Groshen , who served as the commissioner of the BLS from 2013 to 2017 , told me that she wouldn ’ t receive the final headline numbers from the jobs report until a few days before it was released .
It would have been very difficult ( if not impossible ) for even someone in her position of power to tweak the numbers at that point , she said .
“ I got copies of the releases and I could ask for extra information , but I did not have access to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I wouldn ’ t have known how to tamper with them , and it would have been noticed if I had someone do it for me.
” This jobs report — while it certainly contradicted most economic forecasts — also didn ’ t raise any red flags for Groshen or Sinclair that might indicate the numbers were manipulated .
For one thing , Groshen said , it came out on time , with no sign that there was unrest or discomfort from BLS employees .
And Sinclair pointed out that simply defying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
Economists quickly dove into the data and found several plausible explanations for why jobs had been added and the unemployment rate had fallen .
And the separate surveys of the households and businesses found similar results — another indication that the findings , while surprising , are most likely accurately reflecting our economic reality .
Economists might be a little embarrassed that their predictions were so off the mark .
But that doesn ’ t mean there was a vast conspiracy to doctor the data .
After all , economists don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of predicting recessions — which is why , Groshen said , it ’ s so important to have high-quality economic data to rely on .
“ Sometimes our impressions of what is happening in the economy just aren ’ t right , ” Groshen said .
“ That ’ s why we need the gold-standard data with consistency in how the information is collected and processed — because we don ’ t always know the answers ahead of time.
” CORRECTION ( June 5 , 2020 , 4:47 p.m. ) : An earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jack Welch was the former CEO of General Motors .
He was the former CEO of General Electric .

The jobs report released this morning was shockingly good — which immediately made some people question whether it was too good to be true. The most high-profile skeptic was left-leaning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who wondered on Twitter whether the Trump administration had “gotten to” the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which produces the jobs report. (He apologized a few hours later.) But while it’s hardly the first time conspiracy theories about the report have circulated, it would be a big mistake to assume that the White House had a hand in making the statistics look rosier than they really are.
The same was true when Republicans questioned whether the Obama administration had cooked the numbers. Donald Trump himself said the unemployment rate was “phony” when he was campaigning for president, and that the real number was much higher. And in fall 2012, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch caused a stir when he suggested that the Obama administration had fudged the jobs report for political benefit.
Those conspiracy theories don’t engage with the facts, though. The BLS is insulated on many levels from political interference. And if there were some kind of meddling, economists outside the government would quickly pick up on it and sound the alarm. That doesn’t mean the numbers won’t change — some likely will be revised quite substantially. But that’s not a sign of tampering.
“This [pandemic] is a really difficult environment for producing economic statistics, and we know there are going to be errors and revisions of some kind, which the statisticians in the government are working hard to address,” said Tara Sinclair, an economist at the George Washington University. “But that is a very different thing than choosing to report numbers because they look good for your boss, or your boss’s boss. The way our statistical agencies are set up, that really cannot happen.”
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19
For one thing, a successfully rigged jobs report would have to involve a conspiracy of several dozen government statisticians who crunch the numbers from the two surveys of households and businesses that make up the report, and who have access to the underlying data. Nearly all of them are career bureaucrats who have been with the agency through multiple administrations. Moreover, the process for producing the report is highly automated, which makes it harder to tamper with. The process is also insulated from the political appointees who might, in theory, have more of an incentive to produce a result that’s more favorable to the president.
Even the people in charge of the bureau don’t know what’s coming far in advance. Erica Groshen, who served as the commissioner of the BLS from 2013 to 2017, told me that she wouldn’t receive the final headline numbers from the jobs report until a few days before it was released. It would have been very difficult (if not impossible) for even someone in her position of power to tweak the numbers at that point, she said. “I got copies of the releases and I could ask for extra information, but I did not have access to the underlying files,” she said. “I wouldn’t have known how to tamper with them, and it would have been noticed if I had someone do it for me.”
This jobs report — while it certainly contradicted most economic forecasts — also didn’t raise any red flags for Groshen or Sinclair that might indicate the numbers were manipulated. For one thing, Groshen said, it came out on time, with no sign that there was unrest or discomfort from BLS employees. And Sinclair pointed out that simply defying expectations doesn’t make a result wrong. Economists quickly dove into the data and found several plausible explanations for why jobs had been added and the unemployment rate had fallen. And the separate surveys of the households and businesses found similar results — another indication that the findings, while surprising, are most likely accurately reflecting our economic reality.
Economists might be a little embarrassed that their predictions were so off the mark. But that doesn’t mean there was a vast conspiracy to doctor the data. After all, economists don’t have a stellar track record of predicting recessions — which is why, Groshen said, it’s so important to have high-quality economic data to rely on. “Sometimes our impressions of what is happening in the economy just aren’t right,” Groshen said. “That’s why we need the gold-standard data with consistency in how the information is collected and processed — because we don’t always know the answers ahead of time.”
CORRECTION (June 5, 2020, 4:47 p.m.): An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Jack Welch was the former CEO of General Motors. He was the former CEO of General Electric.