fivethirtyeight--2020-06-30--What You Need To Know About Today’s Elections In Colorado, Oklahoma And Utah

30On Tuesday , primary voters in three states decide who will take on some of the nation ’ s most vulnerable incumbents .
In Colorado , Sen. Cory Gardner is generally considered an underdog in November , but would he be replaced by a moderate Democrat or someone further left ?
And in Oklahoma and Utah , Republicans pretty much have to defeat Reps. Kendra Horn and Ben McAdams if they have any hope of taking back the House .
Whom will the GOP nominate ?
We hope to bring you the answers tomorrow — depending on how fast we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-awaited results from Kentucky and New York .
Remember John Hickenlooper ?
After he dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in August 2019 , the former Colorado governor announced he would instead run for U.S. Senate at the behest of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee .
His entry into the race mostly cleared what had been a crowded primary field , with attention soon turning to whether Hickenlooper could beat Gardner in the general election .
( The answer seems to be yes . )
But Hickenlooper still faces a primary challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Speaker Andrew Romanoff .
While Romanoff had a fairly centrist record in the legislature , he has recently embraced progressive policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal in an effort to position himself to the left of Hickenlooper , who governed and ran for president as a moderate .
Hickenlooper outspent Romanoff $ 6.7 million to $ 2.2 million through June 10 , but as the campaign has drawn to a close , Hickenlooper has run into trouble .
On June 5 , the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid for by corporations had violated a state law prohibiting elected officials from receiving gifts .
Hickenlooper also drew bad headlines when the commission initially held him in contempt for defying a subpoena to testify in the case ( he quickly changed his mind ) .
In addition , Hickenlooper stumbled over answers to questions about racial justice , saying “ every life matters ” and referencing the “ shooting of George Floyd ” ( a Minneapolis police officer killed Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes ) .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2014 in which he compared the relationship between a politician and a scheduling staffer to that of a slave and a master .
[ Related : John Hickenlooper Is Running For Senate .
But Did He Miss His Chance ? ]
Romanoff is now cleverly using a new TV commercial that riffs off a well-known Hickenlooper ad from 2010 to attack Hickenlooper on these very issues , and Republicans have started their negative ad campaigns early too , which could redound to Romanoff ’ s benefit in the primary .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s rescue : A mysterious new PAC has dropped more than $ 1 million on TV ads attacking Romanoff for overseeing the passage of strict anti-immigration laws in the legislature , and the last two weeks have seen $ 1.1 million in TV ad spending from Hickenlooper ’ s campaign and at least $ 1.6 million from his allies at Senate Majority PAC .
At the end of the day , Hickenlooper ’ s money and name recognition may be too much for Romanoff to overcome : The latest poll , conducted June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hickenlooper a 58 percent to 28 percent lead .
It ’ s not a primary , but the biggest race on Oklahoma ’ s ballot today is arguably State Question 802 , a ballot measure that would expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act .
Currently , Oklahoma is one of 14 states that has not expanded Medicaid , and supporters of the measure say that it would make about 200,000 Oklahomans eligible for Medicaid benefits .
Medicaid expansion generally polls pretty well , even in red states ( three of them passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , and early on at least , Oklahoma ’ s proposal was no exception : A February poll by Change Research found that 67 percent supported expanding Medicaid in Oklahoma .
( However , there are two pretty big caveats : The poll was paid for the Yes on 802 campaign and ballot measures tend to lose support over the course of the campaign . )
In terms of actual primaries , there ’ s one we ’ ll be keeping a close eye on : the GOP primary in Oklahoma ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge shock on election night 2018 when Democrat Kendra Horn flipped this district that voted for President Trump by 13 points in 2016 .
Now , sensing an opening , nine Republicans are lining up to face Horn in this Oklahoma City-based district .
For a party that has struggled to elect female members of Congress , it ’ s notable that three of the four most serious candidates are women : state Sen. Stephanie Bice , businesswoman Terry Neese and former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi .
[ Related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Few Women ] Bice has spent the most money on the race ( $ 854,946 as of June 10 ) and enjoys the endorsement of two groups trying to elect more Republican women , but she ’ s also been on the receiving end of some nasty attack ads by the Club for Growth , including one obliquely tying her to convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein .
With the help of $ 450,000 of her own money , Neese has spent the second-most , at $ 629,419 .
Barresi has also almost entirely self-funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , businessman David Hill , has narrowly outspent her , $ 389,047 to $ 383,718 .
On paper , Bice has the strongest chance to beat Horn , as she ’ s an elected official who already represents part of the district and ran ahead of Trump ’ s 2016 vote share in her 2018 reelection campaign .
Someone like Barresi may have a harder time : During her one term as state schools chief , she faced a revolt over the adoption of new educational standards ( she initially supported , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lost reelection in the primary .
Local political observers told Bloomberg Government that some suburban voters may still hold her tenure against her .
Barresi is also the only one of the top four candidates not identified by the National Republican Congressional Committee ’ s “ Young Guns ” program as a potentially competitive contender .
If no candidate wins a majority today , the top two finishers will advance to a runoff on Aug. 25 .
Utah Republicans , meanwhile , are abuzz over three competitive Republican primaries .
Two races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mansion , one for a House seat — have major consequences for November , given the jurisdictions ’ deep-red hues , while the third is liable to be competitive .
The GOP primary for Utah governor is shaping up to be a close race between Lt. Gov .
Spencer Cox and former Gov .
Jon Huntsman , though former state House Speaker Greg Hughes is also in the mix .
Huntsman has been targeted for his connection to former President Barack Obama , which could play poorly in the conservative state .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has sent mailers to voters attacking Huntsman for leaving Utah to become Obama ’ s ambassador to China , arguing that Utah needs a leader “ who will be there for us.
” ( Huntsman later served as President Trump ’ s ambassador to Russia . )
Still , Huntsman was quite popular during his time as governor , as his job approval sometimes topped 80 percent .
However , Cox has the backing of popular Republican Gov .
Gary Herbert , who took over for Huntsman , as well as many business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contest ’ s third man , has tried to run to the right of Cox and Huntsman as head of the self-proclaimed “ conservative ticket ” for governor .
Recent public surveys show a race that is too close to predict .
Last week , a poll by Dan Jones & Associates , sponsored by Salt Lake City ’ s chamber of commerce , found Cox at 30 percent and Huntsman at 29 percent , while a Y2 Analytics survey from the week prior put Cox up 4 points , 34 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line with surveys over the last couple of months , though Hughes was within shouting distance in the most recent polls , garnering between 15 and 26 percent support , so he could pull off a surprise upset .
There is a fourth contender in the race — former state GOP chair Thomas Wright — but he ’ s mostly polled in the single digits .
We ’ re also keeping an eye on who wins the Republican primary in Utah ’ s 1st Congressional District , as like the gubernatorial race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — no Democrat has won more than 30 percent of the vote here in recent years .
Perhaps it ’ s no surprise , then , that there ’ s a crowded Republican race to replace outgoing Rep .
Rob Bishop , who is now running for lieutenant governor on Wright ’ s ticket .
All four candidates appear to have a chance , too , but the race has offered plenty of negative headlines .
Kaysville Mayor Katie Witt was censured by her city council because she supported hosting a public concert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , businessman Blake Moore has drawn accusations of being a carpetbagger , as he does not live in this northern Utah district .
Former Weber County Commissioner Kerry Gibson has attracted controversy over the years , including accusations of helping a company win a state contract to grow medical marijuana while he was Utah ’ s agricultural commissioner and misappropriating funds as a county commissioner .
These controversies might be good news for Davis County Commissioner Bob Stevenson , who led in the most recent public poll of the race not sponsored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Y2 Analytics survey found Stevenson at 38 percent , followed by Witt at 26 percent , Gibson at 20 percent and Moore at 16 percent , but the poll had a very small sample size ( just 127 respondents ) and a big margin of error .
A more recent internal poll from Moore ’ s campaign found him and Stevenson tied with 16 percent , with Gibson at 13 percent , Witt at 7 percent and a whopping 48 percent of respondents undecided .
( But since this was from an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about reading too much into it . )
As no single candidate has dominated the fundraising game , the money figures also point to an uncertain outcome .
Moore and Stevenson have raised a bit more than Witt or Gibson , but not by much .
Lastly , Utah ’ s 4th Congressional District is one of the few elections in the state that will be really competitive in November .
And on Tuesday , Republicans decide who will face Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams in this swing seat .
There ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Former NFL player Burgess Owens , a regular guest on Fox News , has raised the most money .
But state Rep. Kim Coleman isn ’ t that far behind Owens , and she ’ s also earned the endorsement of former Rep. Mia Love , who narrowly lost to McAdams in 2018 .
Owens and Coleman both qualified for the primary through the party convention process in April , suggesting they may have the most ardent conservative support .
But don ’ t discount the other two contenders in the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who goes by “ JayMac ” ) came up short at the convention but he still gathered enough signatures to make the primary ballot , and while he hasn ’ t attracted as much financial support , he may have a fair bit of name recognition from his time on the airwaves .
Nonprofit CEO Trent Christensen is also in the race , though he hasn ’ t raised much money .
The only public poll we have here is , like in the 1st District , a small-sample survey ( 148 respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 36 percent , McFarland at 28 percent , Coleman at 23 percent and Christensen at 13 percent .
Whoever wins will take on McAdams in the least Republican seat in Utah , which Trump won with 39 percent to Hillary Clinton ’ s 32 percent in 2016 ( independent Evan McMullin garnered 22 percent of the vote ) .
[ Related : The Elections In Kentucky And New York Are High-Stakes For The Progressive Movement ] So there ’ s a lot to keep an eye on today , including results from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New York .
We ’ ll be back on Wednesday with quick reactions to the available results and what they might mean for November .
CORRECTION ( June 30 , 2020 , 10:08 a.m. ) : An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Huntsman led Cox in a Y2 Analytics survey by 4 percentage points .
But it was Cox who led Huntsman by 4 points .

30On Tuesday, primary voters in three states decide who will take on some of the nation’s most vulnerable incumbents. In Colorado, Sen. Cory Gardner is generally considered an underdog in November, but would he be replaced by a moderate Democrat or someone further left? And in Oklahoma and Utah, Republicans pretty much have to defeat Reps. Kendra Horn and Ben McAdams if they have any hope of taking back the House. Whom will the GOP nominate? We hope to bring you the answers tomorrow — depending on how fast we get results — as well as the long-awaited results from Kentucky and New York.
Colorado
Remember John Hickenlooper? After he dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in August 2019, the former Colorado governor announced he would instead run for U.S. Senate at the behest of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. His entry into the race mostly cleared what had been a crowded primary field, with attention soon turning to whether Hickenlooper could beat Gardner in the general election. (The answer seems to be yes.)
But Hickenlooper still faces a primary challenge from one high-profile candidate: former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. While Romanoff had a fairly centrist record in the legislature, he has recently embraced progressive policies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal in an effort to position himself to the left of Hickenlooper, who governed and ran for president as a moderate.
Hickenlooper outspent Romanoff $6.7 million to $2.2 million through June 10, but as the campaign has drawn to a close, Hickenlooper has run into trouble. On June 5, the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission ruled that two trips he took as governor paid for by corporations had violated a state law prohibiting elected officials from receiving gifts. Hickenlooper also drew bad headlines when the commission initially held him in contempt for defying a subpoena to testify in the case (he quickly changed his mind). In addition, Hickenlooper stumbled over answers to questions about racial justice, saying “every life matters” and referencing the “shooting of George Floyd” (a Minneapolis police officer killed Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes). He also had to apologize for a video from 2014 in which he compared the relationship between a politician and a scheduling staffer to that of a slave and a master.
[Related: John Hickenlooper Is Running For Senate. But Did He Miss His Chance?]
Romanoff is now cleverly using a new TV commercial that riffs off a well-known Hickenlooper ad from 2010 to attack Hickenlooper on these very issues, and Republicans have started their negative ad campaigns early too, which could redound to Romanoff’s benefit in the primary. But the cavalry has recently come to Hickenlooper’s rescue: A mysterious new PAC has dropped more than $1 million on TV ads attacking Romanoff for overseeing the passage of strict anti-immigration laws in the legislature, and the last two weeks have seen $1.1 million in TV ad spending from Hickenlooper’s campaign and at least $1.6 million from his allies at Senate Majority PAC.
At the end of the day, Hickenlooper’s money and name recognition may be too much for Romanoff to overcome: The latest poll, conducted June 19-24 by SurveyUSA for KUSA-TV, gave Hickenlooper a 58 percent to 28 percent lead.
Oklahoma
It’s not a primary, but the biggest race on Oklahoma’s ballot today is arguably State Question 802, a ballot measure that would expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Currently, Oklahoma is one of 14 states that has not expanded Medicaid, and supporters of the measure say that it would make about 200,000 Oklahomans eligible for Medicaid benefits. Medicaid expansion generally polls pretty well, even in red states (three of them passed it at the ballot box in 2018), and early on at least, Oklahoma’s proposal was no exception: A February poll by Change Research found that 67 percent supported expanding Medicaid in Oklahoma. (However, there are two pretty big caveats: The poll was paid for the Yes on 802 campaign and ballot measures tend to lose support over the course of the campaign.)
In terms of actual primaries, there’s one we’ll be keeping a close eye on: the GOP primary in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District. It was a huge shock on election night 2018 when Democrat Kendra Horn flipped this district that voted for President Trump by 13 points in 2016. Now, sensing an opening, nine Republicans are lining up to face Horn in this Oklahoma City-based district. For a party that has struggled to elect female members of Congress, it’s notable that three of the four most serious candidates are women: state Sen. Stephanie Bice, businesswoman Terry Neese and former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Janet Barresi.
[Related: Why The Republican Party Elects So Few Women]
Bice has spent the most money on the race ($854,946 as of June 10) and enjoys the endorsement of two groups trying to elect more Republican women, but she’s also been on the receiving end of some nasty attack ads by the Club for Growth, including one obliquely tying her to convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein. With the help of $450,000 of her own money, Neese has spent the second-most, at $629,419. Barresi has also almost entirely self-funded her campaign, but a fourth contender, businessman David Hill, has narrowly outspent her, $389,047 to $383,718.
On paper, Bice has the strongest chance to beat Horn, as she’s an elected official who already represents part of the district and ran ahead of Trump’s 2016 vote share in her 2018 reelection campaign. Someone like Barresi may have a harder time: During her one term as state schools chief, she faced a revolt over the adoption of new educational standards (she initially supported, then backed away from, Common Core) and lost reelection in the primary. Local political observers told Bloomberg Government that some suburban voters may still hold her tenure against her. Barresi is also the only one of the top four candidates not identified by the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program as a potentially competitive contender.
If no candidate wins a majority today, the top two finishers will advance to a runoff on Aug. 25.
Utah
Utah Republicans, meanwhile, are abuzz over three competitive Republican primaries. Two races — one for the governor’s mansion, one for a House seat — have major consequences for November, given the jurisdictions’ deep-red hues, while the third is liable to be competitive.
The GOP primary for Utah governor is shaping up to be a close race between Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox and former Gov. Jon Huntsman, though former state House Speaker Greg Hughes is also in the mix.
Huntsman has been targeted for his connection to former President Barack Obama, which could play poorly in the conservative state. An outside group, Protecting Our Constitution, has sent mailers to voters attacking Huntsman for leaving Utah to become Obama’s ambassador to China, arguing that Utah needs a leader “who will be there for us.” (Huntsman later served as President Trump’s ambassador to Russia.) Still, Huntsman was quite popular during his time as governor, as his job approval sometimes topped 80 percent. However, Cox has the backing of popular Republican Gov. Gary Herbert, who took over for Huntsman, as well as many business leaders in the state. Hughes, the contest’s third man, has tried to run to the right of Cox and Huntsman as head of the self-proclaimed “conservative ticket” for governor.
Recent public surveys show a race that is too close to predict. Last week, a poll by Dan Jones & Associates, sponsored by Salt Lake City’s chamber of commerce, found Cox at 30 percent and Huntsman at 29 percent, while a Y2 Analytics survey from the week prior put Cox up 4 points, 34 percent to 30 percent. These are largely in line with surveys over the last couple of months, though Hughes was within shouting distance in the most recent polls, garnering between 15 and 26 percent support, so he could pull off a surprise upset. There is a fourth contender in the race — former state GOP chair Thomas Wright — but he’s mostly polled in the single digits.
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
We’re also keeping an eye on who wins the Republican primary in Utah’s 1st Congressional District, as like the gubernatorial race, they will likely win in November — no Democrat has won more than 30 percent of the vote here in recent years. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that there’s a crowded Republican race to replace outgoing Rep. Rob Bishop, who is now running for lieutenant governor on Wright’s ticket. All four candidates appear to have a chance, too, but the race has offered plenty of negative headlines. Kaysville Mayor Katie Witt was censured by her city council because she supported hosting a public concert aimed at protesting coronavirus-related restrictions. Meanwhile, businessman Blake Moore has drawn accusations of being a carpetbagger, as he does not live in this northern Utah district. Former Weber County Commissioner Kerry Gibson has attracted controversy over the years, including accusations of helping a company win a state contract to grow medical marijuana while he was Utah’s agricultural commissioner and misappropriating funds as a county commissioner.
These controversies might be good news for Davis County Commissioner Bob Stevenson, who led in the most recent public poll of the race not sponsored by a campaign: In late May, a Y2 Analytics survey found Stevenson at 38 percent, followed by Witt at 26 percent, Gibson at 20 percent and Moore at 16 percent, but the poll had a very small sample size (just 127 respondents) and a big margin of error. A more recent internal poll from Moore’s campaign found him and Stevenson tied with 16 percent, with Gibson at 13 percent, Witt at 7 percent and a whopping 48 percent of respondents undecided. (But since this was from an internal poll, we should be cautious about reading too much into it.) As no single candidate has dominated the fundraising game, the money figures also point to an uncertain outcome. Moore and Stevenson have raised a bit more than Witt or Gibson, but not by much.
Lastly, Utah’s 4th Congressional District is one of the few elections in the state that will be really competitive in November. And on Tuesday, Republicans decide who will face Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams in this swing seat. There’s a crowded four-way primary race here, too.
Former NFL player Burgess Owens, a regular guest on Fox News, has raised the most money. But state Rep. Kim Coleman isn’t that far behind Owens, and she’s also earned the endorsement of former Rep. Mia Love, who narrowly lost to McAdams in 2018. Owens and Coleman both qualified for the primary through the party convention process in April, suggesting they may have the most ardent conservative support. But don’t discount the other two contenders in the race. Former radio host Jay Mcfarland (who goes by “JayMac”) came up short at the convention but he still gathered enough signatures to make the primary ballot, and while he hasn’t attracted as much financial support, he may have a fair bit of name recognition from his time on the airwaves. Nonprofit CEO Trent Christensen is also in the race, though he hasn’t raised much money.
The only public poll we have here is, like in the 1st District, a small-sample survey (148 respondents) from Y2 Analytics that put Owens at 36 percent, McFarland at 28 percent, Coleman at 23 percent and Christensen at 13 percent. Whoever wins will take on McAdams in the least Republican seat in Utah, which Trump won with 39 percent to Hillary Clinton’s 32 percent in 2016 (independent Evan McMullin garnered 22 percent of the vote).
[Related: The Elections In Kentucky And New York Are High-Stakes For The Progressive Movement]
So there’s a lot to keep an eye on today, including results from elections that happened last week in Kentucky and New York. We’ll be back on Wednesday with quick reactions to the available results and what they might mean for November.
‘Trump’s getting into underdog territory’: Nate Silver
CORRECTION (June 30, 2020, 10:08 a.m.): An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Huntsman led Cox in a Y2 Analytics survey by 4 percentage points. But it was Cox who led Huntsman by 4 points.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-30--In 2008, Everyone Thought The Recession Was Bad. But in 2020, Many Americans’ Views Depend On Their

The U.S. economy is objectively awful right now .
The unemployment rate is at levels not seen since the Great Depression and this quarter ’ s decline in gross domestic product is expected to be the worst on record .
Most economists believe it will take years to recover from this recession .
Not everyone thinks the economy is doing so poorly , though .
In the most recent Quinnipiac University national survey , 69 percent of Republicans described the U.S. economy as “ excellent ” or “ good.
” Similarly , nearly two-thirds of Republicans in both Civiqs ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 11-15 Associated Press/NORC Poll said that the nation ’ s current economy is at least leaning toward good .
By contrast , only around 10 percent of Democrats thought that the national economy was doing well in those surveys .
In fact , a closer look at Civiqs ’ data shows that Democrats ’ and Republicans ’ views of the economy are more polarized now than they ’ ve been at any point during President Trump ’ s time in office .
That isn ’ t to say that Democrats and Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy at previous points in Trump ’ s presidency .
They haven ’ t .
As you can see in the chart above , there has been a fairly large — and persistent — gap in how Democrats and Republicans think about the economy .
However , that gap did shrink after the pandemic ’ s dire economic effects became apparent , and by early May , only one-third of Republicans still thought that the economy was in good shape .
Republicans ’ economic optimism , however , quickly rebounded in June as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May jobs report was released with better-than-expected news .
Even when Republicans ’ outlook on the economy was at its lowest point this year , according to Civiqs data , they still felt more upbeat about the state of the economy than at any point in 2016 before Trump was elected , when the economy was objectively better .
[ Related : What Economists Fear Most During This Recovery ] This isn ’ t necessarily surprising , though , as political science research has found that a strong economy might not benefit a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in part because voters ’ views on whether the economy is healthy tend to be linked to whether their preferred party is in power .
That says a lot about how polarized our politics have become , and it also underscores a key point that John Sides , Lynn Vavreck , and I have repeatedly made about the 2016 election : The widespread economic dissatisfaction and anxiety driving much of the media narrative about Trump ’ s political rise and the 2016 presidential campaign wasn ’ t a reflection of actual economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of partisanship .
Of course , the difficulty is that these attitudes aren ’ t just partisanship either .
After eight years of Obama ’ s presidency , racial and economic anxiety became increasingly intertwined to the point that racial resentment was a much stronger predictor of economic pessimism under Obama than it had been under George W. Bush .
That is , white people — especially white Trump voters — believed that Black people were getting ahead while they were left behind .
Take the 2016 American National Election Studies survey .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial discrimination white people thought their own group faced , the more likely they were to say that the economy was worse than it had been a year earlier .
These voters largely voted for Trump .
But under Trump ’ s presidency , a similar poll found that white voters were less likely to say the economy had gotten worse if they believed white people faced high levels of racial discrimination .
In addition , nearly three-quarters of the 69,000 respondents surveyed for the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is worse than it was a year ago .
But only around half of white respondents who think their racial group faces a lot or a great deal of discrimination shared this economic pessimism .
( This was true even after controlling for several other factors , such as partisanship and income . )
In other words , Americans ’ political allegiances and views on race influence their views of the economy .
That marks a significant departure from the last time there was an economic downturn during a presidential election campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial attitudes , universally thought the economy was in terrible shape after the financial collapse in 2008 .
But that isn ’ t the case now .
So why is the coronavirus recession so different ?
[ Related : The Economy Is A Mess .
So Why Isn ’ t The Stock Market ? ]
One reason is that even though the national economy is in shambles , it ’ s also ticking back up .
It ’ s unclear how fast the economy will recover , but this uncertainty opens the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racialized explanations for the economy ’ s performance .
Additionally , in a presidential election where the incumbent had long planned to base his case for reelection on a strong economy , Americans are all the more motivated to view the economy through political lenses .
Not to mention , Trump has also tried to bend the country ’ s bleak economic reality to his will .
He has said that the economy is springing back from the coronavirus recession like “ a rocket ship , ” claiming that the economic recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history.
” This is very different from 2008 , when few Republicans made the case that the economy was in good shape .
At the time , GOP presidential nominee John McCain was even widely mocked for saying “ the fundamentals of our economy are strong ” before quickly reversing his position to say the economy was in “ total crisis.
” But now the fact that most economists disagree with the president ’ s optimism about a quick rebound may not matter .
As we ’ ve seen with the Civiqs data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in good shape now than thought so in 2016 .
And a long line of social science research shows that when political elites are sharply divided — as they are now over the economy — the public follows the lead of the elites .
That is , partisan messaging is now so powerful that Americans tend to adopt their party ’ s standpoint even when that position runs counter to science or objective facts .
And that ’ s what makes the coronavirus recession so different .
Americans are increasingly unlikely to abandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
So as long as Trump projects economic confidence , Republicans will likely continue to have a much more positive view of the economy than Democrats do .
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast : Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas

In 2008, Everyone Thought The Recession Was Bad. But in 2020, Many Americans’ Views Depend On Their Party.
The U.S. economy is objectively awful right now. The unemployment rate is at levels not seen since the Great Depression and this quarter’s decline in gross domestic product is expected to be the worst on record. Most economists believe it will take years to recover from this recession.
Not everyone thinks the economy is doing so poorly, though.
In the most recent Quinnipiac University national survey, 69 percent of Republicans described the U.S. economy as “excellent” or “good.” Similarly, nearly two-thirds of Republicans in both Civiqs’s daily tracking polls and in a June 11-15 Associated Press/NORC Poll said that the nation’s current economy is at least leaning toward good. By contrast, only around 10 percent of Democrats thought that the national economy was doing well in those surveys.
In fact, a closer look at Civiqs’ data shows that Democrats’ and Republicans’ views of the economy are more polarized now than they’ve been at any point during President Trump’s time in office.
That isn’t to say that Democrats and Republicans have seen eye to eye on the economy at previous points in Trump’s presidency. They haven’t.
As you can see in the chart above, there has been a fairly large — and persistent — gap in how Democrats and Republicans think about the economy. However, that gap did shrink after the pandemic’s dire economic effects became apparent, and by early May, only one-third of Republicans still thought that the economy was in good shape.
Republicans’ economic optimism, however, quickly rebounded in June as states allowed businesses to reopen and the May jobs report was released with better-than-expected news.
Even when Republicans’ outlook on the economy was at its lowest point this year, according to Civiqs data, they still felt more upbeat about the state of the economy than at any point in 2016 before Trump was elected, when the economy was objectively better.
[Related: What Economists Fear Most During This Recovery]
This isn’t necessarily surprising, though, as political science research has found that a strong economy might not benefit a president as much as it once did, in part because voters’ views on whether the economy is healthy tend to be linked to whether their preferred party is in power. That says a lot about how polarized our politics have become, and it also underscores a key point that John Sides, Lynn Vavreck, and I have repeatedly made about the 2016 election: The widespread economic dissatisfaction and anxiety driving much of the media narrative about Trump’s political rise and the 2016 presidential campaign wasn’t a reflection of actual economic realities, it was largely a consequence of partisanship.
Of course, the difficulty is that these attitudes aren’t just partisanship either. After eight years of Obama’s presidency, racial and economic anxiety became increasingly intertwined to the point that racial resentment was a much stronger predictor of economic pessimism under Obama than it had been under George W. Bush. That is, white people — especially white Trump voters — believed that Black people were getting ahead while they were left behind.
Take the 2016 American National Election Studies survey. Before Trump took office, the more racial discrimination white people thought their own group faced, the more likely they were to say that the economy was worse than it had been a year earlier. These voters largely voted for Trump. But under Trump’s presidency, a similar poll found that white voters were less likely to say the economy had gotten worse if they believed white people faced high levels of racial discrimination.
In addition, nearly three-quarters of the 69,000 respondents surveyed for the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape in the past three months have said that the economy is worse than it was a year ago. But only around half of white respondents who think their racial group faces a lot or a great deal of discrimination shared this economic pessimism. (This was true even after controlling for several other factors, such as partisanship and income.)
In other words, Americans’ political allegiances and views on race influence their views of the economy. That marks a significant departure from the last time there was an economic downturn during a presidential election campaign. Americans, regardless of their partisanship and racial attitudes, universally thought the economy was in terrible shape after the financial collapse in 2008.
But that isn’t the case now. So why is the coronavirus recession so different?
[Related: The Economy Is A Mess. So Why Isn’t The Stock Market?]
One reason is that even though the national economy is in shambles, it’s also ticking back up. It’s unclear how fast the economy will recover, but this uncertainty opens the door for voters to adopt their own partisan and racialized explanations for the economy’s performance. Additionally, in a presidential election where the incumbent had long planned to base his case for reelection on a strong economy, Americans are all the more motivated to view the economy through political lenses.
Not to mention, Trump has also tried to bend the country’s bleak economic reality to his will. He has said that the economy is springing back from the coronavirus recession like “a rocket ship,” claiming that the economic recovery is “the greatest comeback in American history.” This is very different from 2008, when few Republicans made the case that the economy was in good shape. At the time, GOP presidential nominee John McCain was even widely mocked for saying “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” before quickly reversing his position to say the economy was in “total crisis.”
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
But now the fact that most economists disagree with the president’s optimism about a quick rebound may not matter. As we’ve seen with the Civiqs data, more Republicans think the economy is in good shape now than thought so in 2016. And a long line of social science research shows that when political elites are sharply divided — as they are now over the economy — the public follows the lead of the elites. That is, partisan messaging is now so powerful that Americans tend to adopt their party’s standpoint even when that position runs counter to science or objective facts.
And that’s what makes the coronavirus recession so different. Americans are increasingly unlikely to abandon their partisan and racialized views of the economy. So as long as Trump projects economic confidence, Republicans will likely continue to have a much more positive view of the economy than Democrats do.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-29--Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas

A slew of new , high-quality polls provides the clearest picture yet of the presidential race in swing states , @ @ @ @ @ looking good for President Trump .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden leading in every swing state and essentially tied in Georgia and Texas .
@ @ @ @ @ how Republican politicians are responding to new outbreaks of COVID-19 across the Sun Belt .
@ @ @ @ @ Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas You can listen to the episode by clicking @ @ @ @ @ in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App @ @ @ @ @ .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight @ @ @ @ @ Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review @ @ @ @ @ comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter or in the comments .

A slew of new, high-quality polls provides the clearest picture yet of the presidential race in swing states, and it isn’t looking good for President Trump. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses polling showing Joe Biden leading in every swing state and essentially tied in Georgia and Texas. The team also looks at how Republican politicians are responding to new outbreaks of COVID-19 across the Sun Belt.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-06-29--The Supreme Court Struck Down A Louisiana Abortion Law. Here’s Where The Fight Could Head Next.

On Monday morning , Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court ’ s liberals yet again to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law that could have left the state with a single clinic .
This case was one of the most-watched items on the docket this term for a reason .
It was the first ruling on abortion since President Trump appointed two new justices to the court , which meant abortion-rights opponents were optimistic that a new conservative majority might be willing to undo past decisions on abortion rights — even though the Louisiana law was basically identical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by the court in 2016 .
The laws banned doctors from providing abortions unless they had admitting privileges at a local hospital .
[ Related : The Supreme Court Put DACA ’ s Fate In The Hands Of Voters ] It turned out this was a bad bet .
Roberts ultimately wasn ’ t willing to backtrack on what the court had so recently decided .
“ The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law , for the same reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion from the majority .
“ Therefore Louisiana ’ s law can not stand under our precedents.
” But this could turn out to be only a temporary setback for anti-abortion activists .
Roberts made it clear that he still thinks the 2016 ruling was incorrect .
This means abortion rights will likely be back on the Supreme Court ’ s docket soon , and it ’ s very possible that in a future case , Roberts will be willing to uphold other restrictions that could severely limit access to the procedure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have passed plenty of different types of restrictions already .
Today ’ s ruling means that the center of gravity in the abortion debate will likely shift away from requirements placed on clinics — particularly those that are similar to the ones struck down in Texas and Louisiana .
According to the Guttmacher institute , a research organization that supports legal abortion , 14 states , including Louisiana and Texas , have passed admitting-privileges restrictions since 2011 .
The Supreme Court striking those laws down is a significant victory for abortion-rights supporters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onerous for doctors to comply with .
A ruling in favor of Louisiana in this case would have almost certainly made it even harder to get an abortion in the state — and perhaps also in other parts of the country .
But as you can see in the chart above , there are still hundreds of other laws that limit abortion rights on the books .
And a few kinds of laws that several Republican-controlled legislatures have recently passed could turn into the next big front in the abortion wars .
[ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Electoral College Vote However It Wants , Will Chaos Ensue ? ]
One such category includes bans on a specific second-trimester abortion procedure that involves dilating the patient ’ s cervix and removing the fetus in pieces ( on the chart , these are represented by the blue dots — the category for restrictions on a certain type of abortion or for specific reasons ) .
And according to Mary Ziegler , a professor at Florida State University College of Law and the author of “ Abortion and the Law in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” anti-abortion advocates could argue that these bans are in line with a Supreme Court case decided in 2007 , where the court upheld a federal ban on another commonly used method of second-trimester abortion .
Another possibility is that anti-abortion opponents will start to focus on laws that ban abortion solely for specific reasons — like when the fetus has genetic abnormalities , or if the goal is to ensure a child of a specific sex or race ( these are also represented by blue dots on the chart ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these bans last year , leaving the possibility that they could return to the court in the future .
[ Related : Here ’ s Why The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Escalating ] There are also many outright bans on abortion at different stages of pregnancy — including laws like the one passed earlier this month in Tennessee , which would prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion starting around the sixth week of pregnancy .
As I wrote last year , these types of bans are increasingly popular in the anti-abortion movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a legal perspective , because they directly challenge the court ’ s original precedent in Roe v. Wade — and they ’ re also not really in line with most Americans ’ views about when abortion should be legal .
That is , most Americans think Roe v. Wade should not be reversed , and many think abortion should be legal in the first trimester .
[ Related : Will The Supreme Court Finally Force Trump ’ s Tax Returns To Be Released ? ]
So another option that could be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general public — is a set of restrictions that land closer to the threshold for fetal viability , which is around 22 weeks .
That wouldn ’ t necessarily involve a full-scale reversal of precedent , which Roberts seems reluctant to consider at this point .
For instance , in today ’ s case the court brushed aside anti-abortion advocates ’ request to revisit several decades of precedent that allows abortion doctors to sue to protect or expand abortion rights on behalf of their patients , rather than forcing patients themselves to sue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which of these restrictions are most likely to end up at the Supreme Court or how quickly that would happen .
But Leah Litman , a law professor at the University of Michigan , said that while Roberts ’ s emphasis on maintaining precedent may prompt anti-abortion advocates to change their strategy , some of these other laws could get a warmer reception from the chief justice .
“ There are just so many varieties of restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court hasn ’ t definitively weighed in on , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an invitation to bring them different kinds of restrictions.
” FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast : Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas

On Monday morning, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberals yet again to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law that could have left the state with a single clinic.
This case was one of the most-watched items on the docket this term for a reason. It was the first ruling on abortion since President Trump appointed two new justices to the court, which meant abortion-rights opponents were optimistic that a new conservative majority might be willing to undo past decisions on abortion rights — even though the Louisiana law was basically identical to a Texas restriction that was struck down by the court in 2016. The laws banned doctors from providing abortions unless they had admitting privileges at a local hospital.
[Related: The Supreme Court Put DACA’s Fate In The Hands Of Voters]
It turned out this was a bad bet. Roberts ultimately wasn’t willing to backtrack on what the court had so recently decided. “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” he wrote in a separate opinion from the majority. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
But this could turn out to be only a temporary setback for anti-abortion activists. Roberts made it clear that he still thinks the 2016 ruling was incorrect. This means abortion rights will likely be back on the Supreme Court’s docket soon, and it’s very possible that in a future case, Roberts will be willing to uphold other restrictions that could severely limit access to the procedure.
As the map below shows, states have passed plenty of different types of restrictions already.
Today’s ruling means that the center of gravity in the abortion debate will likely shift away from requirements placed on clinics — particularly those that are similar to the ones struck down in Texas and Louisiana. According to the Guttmacher institute, a research organization that supports legal abortion, 14 states, including Louisiana and Texas, have passed admitting-privileges restrictions since 2011. The Supreme Court striking those laws down is a significant victory for abortion-rights supporters, because those types of restrictions were very onerous for doctors to comply with. A ruling in favor of Louisiana in this case would have almost certainly made it even harder to get an abortion in the state — and perhaps also in other parts of the country.
But as you can see in the chart above, there are still hundreds of other laws that limit abortion rights on the books. And a few kinds of laws that several Republican-controlled legislatures have recently passed could turn into the next big front in the abortion wars.
[Related: If The Supreme Court Lets The Electoral College Vote However It Wants, Will Chaos Ensue?]
One such category includes bans on a specific second-trimester abortion procedure that involves dilating the patient’s cervix and removing the fetus in pieces (on the chart, these are represented by the blue dots — the category for restrictions on a certain type of abortion or for specific reasons). And according to Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law and the author of “Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present,” anti-abortion advocates could argue that these bans are in line with a Supreme Court case decided in 2007, where the court upheld a federal ban on another commonly used method of second-trimester abortion.
Another possibility is that anti-abortion opponents will start to focus on laws that ban abortion solely for specific reasons — like when the fetus has genetic abnormalities, or if the goal is to ensure a child of a specific sex or race (these are also represented by blue dots on the chart). The Supreme Court sidestepped ruling on one of these bans last year, leaving the possibility that they could return to the court in the future.
[Related: Here’s Why The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Escalating]
There are also many outright bans on abortion at different stages of pregnancy — including laws like the one passed earlier this month in Tennessee, which would prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion starting around the sixth week of pregnancy.
As I wrote last year, these types of bans are increasingly popular in the anti-abortion movement. But they’re riskier propositions from a legal perspective, because they directly challenge the court’s original precedent in Roe v. Wade — and they’re also not really in line with most Americans’ views about when abortion should be legal. That is, most Americans think Roe v. Wade should not be reversed, and many think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.
[Related: Will The Supreme Court Finally Force Trump’s Tax Returns To Be Released?]
So another option that could be more palatable — both to Roberts and the general public — is a set of restrictions that land closer to the threshold for fetal viability, which is around 22 weeks. That wouldn’t necessarily involve a full-scale reversal of precedent, which Roberts seems reluctant to consider at this point. For instance, in today’s case the court brushed aside anti-abortion advocates’ request to revisit several decades of precedent that allows abortion doctors to sue to protect or expand abortion rights on behalf of their patients, rather than forcing patients themselves to sue.
It’s hard to predict which of these restrictions are most likely to end up at the Supreme Court or how quickly that would happen. But Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said that while Roberts’s emphasis on maintaining precedent may prompt anti-abortion advocates to change their strategy, some of these other laws could get a warmer reception from the chief justice. “There are just so many varieties of restrictions on abortion that the Supreme Court hasn’t definitively weighed in on,” she said. “This kind of ruling is an invitation to bring them different kinds of restrictions.”
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Biden Is Currently Competitive In Georgia And Texas


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-01--When Proof Is Not Enough

When Proof Is Not Enough

According to the pundits , the revolution , if you would call it that , began with video .
The first and foremost was the excruciating recording of George Floyd ’ s last moments as Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin publicly pinned the life out of him .
That was on May 25 , but more than a month later , the recordings have continued to disseminate .
Protesters uploaded photos of rubber bullets , their wounds and their mangled faces , while journalists and other concerned members of the public aggregated footage of police brutality into lists and websites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jar something loose , for now .
Corporations are pledging to donate millions to racial and social justice causes , legislators have proposed tentative yet unprecedented restrictions on the police , and the Marines and Navy have banned the Confederate battle flag some 150 years after the ending of the war that sparked its creation .
But is this really going to be what commentator Van Jones has called a “ Great Awakening of empathy and solidarity ” ?
And if it is , is it really appropriate to claim that video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with civic data and teach about the power of data collection , so I want to believe that data ( in the form of video footage depicting police brutality against Black people ) can effect social change .
Just as it is comforting to see corporate and institutional pledges as revolution , it is comforting to attribute power to the millions of glowing screens that have been called as witnesses .
Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we already know to be true , but it is far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it is precisely because of my attachment to the power of data collection that I ’ m unconvinced video footage can solely , or even primarily , lead to meaningful change .
I know too well the stories of a century of Black Americans who have presented evidence of violence and racism only to have it summarily denied or ignored .
The idea that structural racism can be proven and overcome by gathering just enough or the right kind of evidence is nothing more than a myth .
Historically , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , the study that the Bureau of Labor commissioned famed Black scholar W.E.B .
DuBois to complete in the early 1900s .
Determined to employ sound sociological methods to disprove racist beliefs that Black people were inferior , he and a team of researchers spent three years in Lowndes County , Alabama , gathering data from 5,000 Black families ( approximately 25,000 individuals ) .
It detailed the conditions of life in the region , and was one of the largest sociological studies of rural Black life ever conducted .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a handwritten document full of charts and infographics .
Not only did the government bureau refuse to publish the study , but it destroyed the document entirely , claiming it was rejected due to technical matters .
DuBois made the case in his correspondence and autobiography , however , that the bureau rejected the document because it revealed the inconvenient political truth about conditions for Black Americans .
In the case of Sam Faulkner , an innocent 20-year-old Black man who was shot in the head inside his sister ’ s home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence came in the form of testimony from the other cop on the scene as well as bullet fragments .
Yet this was not enough to bring about a conviction , and the officer who killed Faulkner continued to work in the LAPD for two more years .
In 1951 , the Civil Rights Congress appealed to the United Nations for help , asserting that the history of disenfranchisement , lynching , and police brutality that Black people faced in the United States was tantamount to genocide .
The CRC ’ s petition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Americans but was ignored by the U.N. , which at the time was heavily influenced by the U.S .
In 1969 , Illinois Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton , 21 , was gunned down in his Chicago apartment after being sedated by an FBI Informant .
A target of the FBI ’ s Counterintelligence Program , he was perceived to be a threat to the nation for negotiating a truce between street gangs , organizing rallies and instituting free breakfast programs for children .
A coroner ’ s jury ruled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more recent incidents including video footage of police brutality have been doubted .
When Philando Castile was pulled over and shot by police in 2016 , the dashcam footage revealed that Castile , who had been stopped by the police at least 46 times prior for minor infractions , had followed all the instructions that officer Jeronimo Yanez had given him .
Regardless , an NRA spokesperson still blamed Castile for the incident , while conservative commentator Sean Hannity criticized Castile ’ s girlfriend , who was seated beside him in the car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place .
These killings , and the many more that reveal just a glimpse of how totalizing anti-Blackness can be , are part of a longer trend .
It is a trend that has claimed countless more names , and still more stories .
By nearly every statistical measurement possible , from housing to incarceration to wealth to land ownership , Black Americans are disproportionately disadvantaged .
But the grand ritual of collecting and reporting this data has not improved the situation .
American history is lined with innumerable instances of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand that this suffering be materialized and evidenced by the display of the tortured body or endless recitations of the ghastly and the terrible , ” only for very little to change .
If the data hasn ’ t undone the bias , then surely we must acknowledge that there are deeper forces that tug the levers of change in America .
I am reminded of James Baldwin ’ s response to the 1954 Supreme Court case that ended segregation : “ Had it been a matter of love or justice , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; were it not for the realities of power in this difficult era , it might very well not have occurred yet.
” Love , justice , data — alone , none have been enough .
But perhaps we have asked too much of the evidence in the first place .
Or perhaps we have asked too much of those who wield evidence , and too little of those presented with it .
These are two different groups .
After all , evidence is not intended for the people who have been harmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the person it burned ?
In most cases , evidence is used to convince an Other of a thing that they did not encounter .
Ironically , data is not very good at this .
In 1949 , two psychologists , Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman , designed an experiment to test people ’ s responses to anomalies , or moments when they faced events that deviated from what they had expected to encounter .
In the experiment , participants were shown sets of playing cards and asked to identify the cards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that , in addition to regular cards , the sets contained irregular “ trick ” cards in which the color and suit of the cards had been reversed to create incongruities ( like a black three of hearts or a red two of spades ) .
In the early rounds , the participants were quick to identify the cards , in part because they simply could not see the anomalies .
When presented with a trick card like a red six of spades , they would confidently misidentify it as a red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of spades .
But as they were exposed to the cards for longer periods of time , some participants began to notice that something was off .
They could sense strangeness but could not determine what caused it .
It was only with further exposure that some participants finally experienced what the psychologists called a “ shock of recognition.
” Abruptly and quite clearly , the participants were able to recognize what they had not seen before .
Suddenly they could see that they had been looking at a red six of spades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , they were more easily able to identify the anomalous cards , having developed a new perception .
The conclusion : When confronted with something that does not fit the paradigm we know , we are likely to resist acknowledging the incongruity .
This is because we see what we have been primed — through shared education and culture , and our own lived experiences — to see , so that new evidence that we encounter is immediately , as philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn would explain it more than a decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conceptual categories prepared by prior experience.
” Kuhn applied this reasoning to explaining the tumultuous nature of scientific revolutions , where he argued that the conceptual categories that ordered scientific research were precisely those that made it so difficult for scientists to accept information that could challenge the frameworks they operated within .
In such moments , logic and experiment alone were not enough to settle the matter .
Kuhn noted , too , that the more time and effort a scientist had already invested in a research paradigm , the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhibit toward accepting change .
In other words , the higher the stakes , the greater the resistance .
If wider society recognizes data ’ s limitations , it , too , can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence .
You can see how this is a useful metaphor for considering the United States , racism and the role that data has historically played in unraveling the latter ’ s hold on the former .
Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is far more limited in terms of shifting them .
To those who have not experienced the ever more creative forms that structural racism can take , even when presented with evidence of racism , the world may still appear to be full of regular playing cards .
This is complicated , too , by the fact that in life we face different likelihoods of encountering anomalous cards , depending on factors like the color of our skin ( whiteness , of course , lowering frequency of exposure ) and proximity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cultural/political capital .
Regardless , any exposure to an anomaly card is more likely to be dismissed if it does not support the expectations of the receiver .
Of course , as in the experiment , there is the opportunity for change .
Perhaps one part of what has characterized this current moment is that some sections of American society have experienced their own moments akin to when the experiment participants first squinted at the trick cards and felt that something now felt off .
At some point , America will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country not only has long educated its children to deny anti-Blackness and to treat any conversation of racism with silence or wariness but also has exported this worldview around the globe .
For some , that point may have come .
But regardless , a luckless great many of us know that the deck has been stacked from the beginning .
And because we know that no amount of shouting , pleading , calculating or visualizing will persuade those who have been educated and raised to deny this , we have put our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society recognizes data ’ s limitations , it , too , can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence .
That which can be captured on camera is always incomplete .
It is never the totality of what occurs in our lives , let alone what occurs in our communities .
By considering the vast context and evidence present in the nation ’ s history , we can save ourselves from tacitly reinforcing the idea that structural violence matters only when it can be compressed into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence .
And , in doing so , we give ourselves new frames for thinking about the many people who have died at the hands of brutality and whose deaths were not recorded .
As we find a fluency in addressing the greater mass of life that is lived outside of our data , we can begin , finally , to fully address the living .

According to the pundits, the revolution, if you would call it that, began with video. The first and foremost was the excruciating recording of George Floyd’s last moments as Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin publicly pinned the life out of him. That was on May 25, but more than a month later, the recordings have continued to disseminate. Protesters uploaded photos of rubber bullets, their wounds and their mangled faces, while journalists and other concerned members of the public aggregated footage of police brutality into lists and websites.
The compilation of evidence has seemed to jar something loose, for now. Corporations are pledging to donate millions to racial and social justice causes, legislators have proposed tentative yet unprecedented restrictions on the police, and the Marines and Navy have banned the Confederate battle flag some 150 years after the ending of the war that sparked its creation.
But is this really going to be what commentator Van Jones has called a “Great Awakening of empathy and solidarity”? And if it is, is it really appropriate to claim that video has been the catalyst? I work with civic data and teach about the power of data collection, so I want to believe that data (in the form of video footage depicting police brutality against Black people) can effect social change. Just as it is comforting to see corporate and institutional pledges as revolution, it is comforting to attribute power to the millions of glowing screens that have been called as witnesses.
Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we already know to be true, but it is far more limited in terms of shifting them.
But it is precisely because of my attachment to the power of data collection that I’m unconvinced video footage can solely, or even primarily, lead to meaningful change. I know too well the stories of a century of Black Americans who have presented evidence of violence and racism only to have it summarily denied or ignored. The idea that structural racism can be proven and overcome by gathering just enough or the right kind of evidence is nothing more than a myth. Historically, it has rarely been the case.
Consider, for instance, the study that the Bureau of Labor commissioned famed Black scholar W.E.B. DuBois to complete in the early 1900s. Determined to employ sound sociological methods to disprove racist beliefs that Black people were inferior, he and a team of researchers spent three years in Lowndes County, Alabama, gathering data from 5,000 Black families (approximately 25,000 individuals). It detailed the conditions of life in the region, and was one of the largest sociological studies of rural Black life ever conducted. When DuBois submitted the final manuscript, it was a handwritten document full of charts and infographics. Not only did the government bureau refuse to publish the study, but it destroyed the document entirely, claiming it was rejected due to technical matters. DuBois made the case in his correspondence and autobiography, however, that the bureau rejected the document because it revealed the inconvenient political truth about conditions for Black Americans.
[Related: The States Taking On Police Reform After The Death Of George Floyd]
In the case of Sam Faulkner, an innocent 20-year-old Black man who was shot in the head inside his sister’s home by Los Angeles police in 1927, evidence came in the form of testimony from the other cop on the scene as well as bullet fragments. Yet this was not enough to bring about a conviction, and the officer who killed Faulkner continued to work in the LAPD for two more years.
In 1951, the Civil Rights Congress appealed to the United Nations for help, asserting that the history of disenfranchisement, lynching, and police brutality that Black people faced in the United States was tantamount to genocide. The CRC’s petition documented years’ worth of atrocities against Black Americans but was ignored by the U.N., which at the time was heavily influenced by the U.S.
In 1969, Illinois Black Panther Party leader Fred Hampton, 21, was gunned down in his Chicago apartment after being sedated by an FBI Informant. A target of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program, he was perceived to be a threat to the nation for negotiating a truce between street gangs, organizing rallies and instituting free breakfast programs for children. A coroner’s jury ruled the killing a justifiable homicide.
And even more recent incidents including video footage of police brutality have been doubted. When Philando Castile was pulled over and shot by police in 2016, the dashcam footage revealed that Castile, who had been stopped by the police at least 46 times prior for minor infractions, had followed all the instructions that officer Jeronimo Yanez had given him. Regardless, an NRA spokesperson still blamed Castile for the incident, while conservative commentator Sean Hannity criticized Castile’s girlfriend, who was seated beside him in the car, for live-streaming the interaction in the first place.
These killings, and the many more that reveal just a glimpse of how totalizing anti-Blackness can be, are part of a longer trend. It is a trend that has claimed countless more names, and still more stories. By nearly every statistical measurement possible, from housing to incarceration to wealth to land ownership, Black Americans are disproportionately disadvantaged. But the grand ritual of collecting and reporting this data has not improved the situation. American history is lined with innumerable instances of what scholar Saidiya Hartman bemoans as “the demand that this suffering be materialized and evidenced by the display of the tortured body or endless recitations of the ghastly and the terrible,” only for very little to change.
If the data hasn’t undone the bias, then surely we must acknowledge that there are deeper forces that tug the levers of change in America. I am reminded of James Baldwin’s response to the 1954 Supreme Court case that ended segregation: “Had it been a matter of love or justice, the 1954 decision would surely have occurred sooner; were it not for the realities of power in this difficult era, it might very well not have occurred yet.” Love, justice, data — alone, none have been enough.
But perhaps we have asked too much of the evidence in the first place. Or perhaps we have asked too much of those who wield evidence, and too little of those presented with it. These are two different groups. After all, evidence is not intended for the people who have been harmed — why show proof of a fire to the person it burned? In most cases, evidence is used to convince an Other of a thing that they did not encounter. Ironically, data is not very good at this.
In 1949, two psychologists, Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, designed an experiment to test people’s responses to anomalies, or moments when they faced events that deviated from what they had expected to encounter. In the experiment, participants were shown sets of playing cards and asked to identify the cards’ color and suit. The catch was that, in addition to regular cards, the sets contained irregular “trick” cards in which the color and suit of the cards had been reversed to create incongruities (like a black three of hearts or a red two of spades).
[Related: Why Statistics Don’t Capture The Full Extent Of The Systemic Bias In Policing]
In the early rounds, the participants were quick to identify the cards, in part because they simply could not see the anomalies. When presented with a trick card like a red six of spades, they would confidently misidentify it as a red six of hearts or a black six of spades. But as they were exposed to the cards for longer periods of time, some participants began to notice that something was off. They could sense strangeness but could not determine what caused it. It was only with further exposure that some participants finally experienced what the psychologists called a “shock of recognition.” Abruptly and quite clearly, the participants were able to recognize what they had not seen before. Suddenly they could see that they had been looking at a red six of spades the entire time. From that point on, they were more easily able to identify the anomalous cards, having developed a new perception.
The conclusion: When confronted with something that does not fit the paradigm we know, we are likely to resist acknowledging the incongruity. This is because we see what we have been primed — through shared education and culture, and our own lived experiences — to see, so that new evidence that we encounter is immediately, as philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn would explain it more than a decade later, “fitted to one of the conceptual categories prepared by prior experience.” Kuhn applied this reasoning to explaining the tumultuous nature of scientific revolutions, where he argued that the conceptual categories that ordered scientific research were precisely those that made it so difficult for scientists to accept information that could challenge the frameworks they operated within. In such moments, logic and experiment alone were not enough to settle the matter. Kuhn noted, too, that the more time and effort a scientist had already invested in a research paradigm, the more resistance he or she was likely to exhibit toward accepting change. In other words, the higher the stakes, the greater the resistance.
If wider society recognizes data’s limitations, it, too, can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence.
You can see how this is a useful metaphor for considering the United States, racism and the role that data has historically played in unraveling the latter’s hold on the former. Data showing racism might be useful in clarifying the things we already know to be true, but it is far more limited in terms of shifting them. To those who have not experienced the ever more creative forms that structural racism can take, even when presented with evidence of racism, the world may still appear to be full of regular playing cards. This is complicated, too, by the fact that in life we face different likelihoods of encountering anomalous cards, depending on factors like the color of our skin (whiteness, of course, lowering frequency of exposure) and proximity to the affordances promised by wealth, influence and cultural/political capital. Regardless, any exposure to an anomaly card is more likely to be dismissed if it does not support the expectations of the receiver.
Of course, as in the experiment, there is the opportunity for change. Perhaps one part of what has characterized this current moment is that some sections of American society have experienced their own moments akin to when the experiment participants first squinted at the trick cards and felt that something now felt off. At some point, America will have to confront head-on the fact that the country not only has long educated its children to deny anti-Blackness and to treat any conversation of racism with silence or wariness but also has exported this worldview around the globe. For some, that point may have come.
But regardless, a luckless great many of us know that the deck has been stacked from the beginning. And because we know that no amount of shouting, pleading, calculating or visualizing will persuade those who have been educated and raised to deny this, we have put our efforts in other places.
If wider society recognizes data’s limitations, it, too, can move on from overly relying upon it as the only proxy for evidence. That which can be captured on camera is always incomplete. It is never the totality of what occurs in our lives, let alone what occurs in our communities. By considering the vast context and evidence present in the nation’s history, we can save ourselves from tacitly reinforcing the idea that structural violence matters only when it can be compressed into a form that fits what we recognize as evidence. And, in doing so, we give ourselves new frames for thinking about the many people who have died at the hands of brutality and whose deaths were not recorded. As we find a fluency in addressing the greater mass of life that is lived outside of our data, we can begin, finally, to fully address the living.
How cable news is talking about the protests — and why it matters | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-02--Politics Podcast: How The GOP Chose To Be A White Party

In general , the Republican Party gets between 5 and 10 percent of the Black vote and less than a @ @ @ @ @ nationally .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Clare Malone discusses the @ @ @ @ @ made , spanning decades , that made it an overwhelmingly white party .
At key @ @ @ @ @ considered greater outreach to minority voters but ultimately didn ’ t take that path .
@ @ @ @ @ episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by @ @ @ @ @ the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts @ @ @ @ @ .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the @ @ @ @ @ rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ @ @ @ @ @ ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

In general, the Republican Party gets between 5 and 10 percent of the Black vote and less than a third of the Hispanic vote nationally. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Clare Malone discusses the series of choices the GOP made, spanning decades, that made it an overwhelmingly white party. At key moments in history, Republicans considered greater outreach to minority voters but ultimately didn’t take that path.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-07-02--The Unemployment Rate Is Falling, But More People Are Losing Their Jobs Permanently

These days , reading the monthly jobs report can feel like opening a time capsule .
According to the data for June , which was released today , the recovery from the COVID-19 recession was still chugging along as of the middle of last month , when the two surveys that form the backbone of the report were conducted .
The unemployment rate fell from 13.3 percent in May to 11.1 percent in June , and 4.8 million more people were employed in June than in May .
Those numbers look promising — but it ’ s important to remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what the economy looked like in mid-June .
And a lot has changed since then .
Most importantly , COVID-19 infections have spiked in states across the country , and many governors have rolled back the phased reopenings that brought many jobless workers back into the labor force .
That could have a seismic impact on the sectors of the economy , like leisure and hospitality , that saw the biggest gains in June .
Even underneath the surface of the June report , there were signs that the recession is deepening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have permanently lost their jobs rose quite a bit — signaling that for an increasing number of Americans , getting back to work won ’ t be an easy matter .
And the unemployment rate for white Americans continues to be much lower than the unemployment rate for Black , Hispanic or Asian Americans .
That ’ s an important reminder that some workers are continuing to do much better than others as the recovery creaks into gear .
If you just focus on the report ’ s headline numbers — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the country ’ s economic situation was looking up in June .
In fact , the drop in the unemployment rate may have been even more dramatic than the topline number lets on .
Over the past few months , the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been struggling with an issue that ’ s unique to our pandemic-ridden times : A substantial number of workers were reporting that they were absent from their jobs for the entire week referenced in the survey for “ other reasons.
” That probably meant they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but they weren ’ t counted as unemployed .
To be clear : The BLS has been extremely transparent about the presence of this problem , and it does not mean that the numbers were fudged .
Our methods for measuring unemployment are simply not designed for a pandemic-induced recession .
But it is important to take the misclassification issue into account because if those workers had been included in April , BLS estimates that the unemployment rate would have been about 20 percent ; in May , the rate would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the BLS reported that it mostly had the misclassification issue under control — which meant the actual unemployment rate declined even more substantially , to around 12 percent .
Bear in mind , though , that we still have a long way to go before we ’ re anywhere near pre-pandemic levels of unemployment .
It ’ s all about your frame of reference : An 11.1 percent unemployment rate is stunningly low compared with where we were in April , when close to 20 percent of the population was unemployed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any point in modern history — including the unemployment rate at the apex of the Great Recession .
And there are many reasons to believe that the recovery could stall — or even backslide — in the coming months .
One clue is tucked in the June report : Of those who did lose jobs , a larger share of them were permanent than in previous months .
In April and May , 88.6 percent of job losses were classified by the BLS as “ temporary , ” which fit the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down temporarily to stop the spread of COVID-19 but planned to reopen later as the virus came under control — particularly with the assistance of government loans such as the Paycheck Protection Program , which incentivized small businesses to keep employees on payroll during the closures .
But in June , the share of job losses that were temporary fell to 78.6 percent , a sign that a growing number of workers will not have a job waiting for them when the crisis lifts .
“ As more job losses become permanent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like an ordinary recession , where in recent history the recovery has been a slow slog , ” said Nick Bunker , the director of economic research for North America at the Indeed Hiring Lab , a research institute connected to the job-search site Indeed .
“ That means the hopes of a quick recovery will be slimmer and slimmer.
” The fact that some of the industries hit hardest early in the recession made big gains in June is both good and bad news .
Leisure and hospitality , which had lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and April , built on its May gains to add 2.1 million more workers in June , an increase of nearly 21 percent month over month .
Similarly , retail trade , which lost 2.4 million jobs in March and April , bounced back with about 740,000 new workers in June , a 5.4 percent increase month over month .
And education and health services , another of the industries most affected ( with 2.8 million total job losses in March and April ) , added 568,000 jobs in June , for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , almost every major industry sector of the economy added jobs in June , with total private employment up by 4.3 percent since May .
However , it is worth noting that despite better-than-expected jobs reports in both May and now June , total private employment is still down 10.2 percent relative to its pre-crisis level in February .
Things are looking better , but there is still a lot of room for improvement .
And the hammer might fall yet again on sectors like leisure and hospitality , which includes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even bars and casinos to reopen at partial capacity in May and June — only to abruptly close them again when case counts started to spike .
That means that some of the workers who finally got to return to their jobs as servers , bartenders or blackjack dealers might well be unemployed again in the July report .
That everything these days is in a state of flux complicates even the most seasoned experts ’ ability to read the report .
Erica Groshen , who served as BLS commissioner from 2013 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely difficult to isolate the impact of the many different forces that are churning underneath the report .
“ We ’ ve got all of these effects that are going at cross-purposes , ” she said .
“ We have the ongoing effects of restrictions in place .
We have the effects of some restrictions being lifted .
And we have the deepening of the recession itself.
” All of that , she said , makes it hard to assess exactly what ’ s happening under the surface — much less what will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains have not been equally distributed throughout the population — another theme of this very unequal recession .
Although the unemployment rate for women dropped at a faster rate ( 2.8 percentage points ) than for men ( 1.6 ) in June , women still had a higher overall unemployment rate than men did .
Likewise , the unemployment rate for white Americans dropped by 2.3 percentage points last month , while it only fell by 1.4 percent for Black Americans and 1.2 percentage points for Asian Americans .
And at 15.4 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment rate of any racial or ethnic group , 5.3 percentage points higher than their white counterparts .
Perhaps one bit of encouraging data in this jobs report was that the unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic Americans did drop by quite a bit — it was down 3.1 percentage points in June .
However , that still left their overall unemployment rate at 14.5 percent , which is not only far higher than it was before the coronavirus recession began ( it was 4.4 percent in February ) but also higher than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ) or Asian ( 13.8 percent ) Americans .
As we ’ ve said often during this crisis , you really need the next jobs report in order to interpret the current one .
The June report shows that the unexpected employment gains of May were not a mirage — the economy really did start recovering earlier and more quickly than many economists expected .
But next month ’ s report could be a sobering reminder of just how fragile any economic gains are — at least while the virus is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country .
So we ’ ll know better by next month whether the concerning trends in this report have deepened , as well as how much the recent COVID-19 outbreaks across the country have hamstrung the nascent recovery .
In typical fashion , our economic data is moving at a much slower pace than the virus , which leaves us guessing at where things might head next .
CORRECTION ( July 2 , 2020 , 4:45 p.m. ) : An earlier version of the permanent layoffs chart in this article incorrectly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the thousands when they should have been in the millions .

These days, reading the monthly jobs report can feel like opening a time capsule. According to the data for June, which was released today, the recovery from the COVID-19 recession was still chugging along as of the middle of last month, when the two surveys that form the backbone of the report were conducted. The unemployment rate fell from 13.3 percent in May to 11.1 percent in June, and 4.8 million more people were employed in June than in May.
Those numbers look promising — but it’s important to remember that they’re just a snapshot of what the economy looked like in mid-June. And a lot has changed since then. Most importantly, COVID-19 infections have spiked in states across the country, and many governors have rolled back the phased reopenings that brought many jobless workers back into the labor force. That could have a seismic impact on the sectors of the economy, like leisure and hospitality, that saw the biggest gains in June.
Even underneath the surface of the June report, there were signs that the recession is deepening. Crucially, the number of workers who have permanently lost their jobs rose quite a bit — signaling that for an increasing number of Americans, getting back to work won’t be an easy matter. And the unemployment rate for white Americans continues to be much lower than the unemployment rate for Black, Hispanic or Asian Americans. That’s an important reminder that some workers are continuing to do much better than others as the recovery creaks into gear.
If you just focus on the report’s headline numbers — the unemployment rate and number of payroll jobs — the country’s economic situation was looking up in June. In fact, the drop in the unemployment rate may have been even more dramatic than the topline number lets on. Over the past few months, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been struggling with an issue that’s unique to our pandemic-ridden times: A substantial number of workers were reporting that they were absent from their jobs for the entire week referenced in the survey for “other reasons.” That probably meant they were temporarily out of work because of COVID-19 — but they weren’t counted as unemployed.
To be clear: The BLS has been extremely transparent about the presence of this problem, and it does not mean that the numbers were fudged. Our methods for measuring unemployment are simply not designed for a pandemic-induced recession. But it is important to take the misclassification issue into account because if those workers had been included in April, BLS estimates that the unemployment rate would have been about 20 percent; in May, the rate would have been about 16 percent. By June, the BLS reported that it mostly had the misclassification issue under control — which meant the actual unemployment rate declined even more substantially, to around 12 percent.
Bear in mind, though, that we still have a long way to go before we’re anywhere near pre-pandemic levels of unemployment. It’s all about your frame of reference: An 11.1 percent unemployment rate is stunningly low compared with where we were in April, when close to 20 percent of the population was unemployed. But it’s still higher than at any point in modern history — including the unemployment rate at the apex of the Great Recession.
And there are many reasons to believe that the recovery could stall — or even backslide — in the coming months. One clue is tucked in the June report: Of those who did lose jobs, a larger share of them were permanent than in previous months.
In April and May, 88.6 percent of job losses were classified by the BLS as “temporary,” which fit the early theme of this recession: Businesses shut down temporarily to stop the spread of COVID-19 but planned to reopen later as the virus came under control — particularly with the assistance of government loans such as the Paycheck Protection Program, which incentivized small businesses to keep employees on payroll during the closures. But in June, the share of job losses that were temporary fell to 78.6 percent, a sign that a growing number of workers will not have a job waiting for them when the crisis lifts.
“As more job losses become permanent, this recession will look more and more like an ordinary recession, where in recent history the recovery has been a slow slog,” said Nick Bunker, the director of economic research for North America at the Indeed Hiring Lab, a research institute connected to the job-search site Indeed. “That means the hopes of a quick recovery will be slimmer and slimmer.”
The fact that some of the industries hit hardest early in the recession made big gains in June is both good and bad news. Leisure and hospitality, which had lost a staggering 8.3 million jobs in March and April, built on its May gains to add 2.1 million more workers in June, an increase of nearly 21 percent month over month. Similarly, retail trade, which lost 2.4 million jobs in March and April, bounced back with about 740,000 new workers in June, a 5.4 percent increase month over month. And education and health services, another of the industries most affected (with 2.8 million total job losses in March and April), added 568,000 jobs in June, for a 2.6 percent gain month over month.
Overall, almost every major industry sector of the economy added jobs in June, with total private employment up by 4.3 percent since May. However, it is worth noting that despite better-than-expected jobs reports in both May and now June, total private employment is still down 10.2 percent relative to its pre-crisis level in February. Things are looking better, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.
And the hammer might fall yet again on sectors like leisure and hospitality, which includes the restaurant industry. Several states allowed restaurants and even bars and casinos to reopen at partial capacity in May and June — only to abruptly close them again when case counts started to spike. That means that some of the workers who finally got to return to their jobs as servers, bartenders or blackjack dealers might well be unemployed again in the July report.
That everything these days is in a state of flux complicates even the most seasoned experts’ ability to read the report. Erica Groshen, who served as BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said it’s extremely difficult to isolate the impact of the many different forces that are churning underneath the report. “We’ve got all of these effects that are going at cross-purposes,” she said. “We have the ongoing effects of restrictions in place. We have the effects of some restrictions being lifted. And we have the deepening of the recession itself.” All of that, she said, makes it hard to assess exactly what’s happening under the surface — much less what will happen next.
And again, the gains have not been equally distributed throughout the population — another theme of this very unequal recession. Although the unemployment rate for women dropped at a faster rate (2.8 percentage points) than for men (1.6) in June, women still had a higher overall unemployment rate than men did. Likewise, the unemployment rate for white Americans dropped by 2.3 percentage points last month, while it only fell by 1.4 percent for Black Americans and 1.2 percentage points for Asian Americans. And at 15.4 percent, Black Americans still have the highest unemployment rate of any racial or ethnic group, 5.3 percentage points higher than their white counterparts.
Perhaps one bit of encouraging data in this jobs report was that the unemployment rate for Latino or Hispanic Americans did drop by quite a bit — it was down 3.1 percentage points in June. However, that still left their overall unemployment rate at 14.5 percent, which is not only far higher than it was before the coronavirus recession began (it was 4.4 percent in February) but also higher than the unemployment rates for white (10.1 percent) or Asian (13.8 percent) Americans.
As we’ve said often during this crisis, you really need the next jobs report in order to interpret the current one. The June report shows that the unexpected employment gains of May were not a mirage — the economy really did start recovering earlier and more quickly than many economists expected. But next month’s report could be a sobering reminder of just how fragile any economic gains are — at least while the virus is still spiraling out of control in many parts of the country. So we’ll know better by next month whether the concerning trends in this report have deepened, as well as how much the recent COVID-19 outbreaks across the country have hamstrung the nascent recovery. In typical fashion, our economic data is moving at a much slower pace than the virus, which leaves us guessing at where things might head next.
CORRECTION (July 2, 2020, 4:45 p.m.): An earlier version of the permanent layoffs chart in this article incorrectly labeled the numbers of layoffs as being in the thousands when they should have been in the millions.