fivethirthyeight--2020-10-17--Confidence Interval: Will Democrats Win The House, Senate And Presidency In November?

It ’ s another installment of Confidence Interval , where we make a persuasive case for a hot take we @ @ @ @ @ and then reveal how confident we really feel about the idea .
This time , @ @ @ @ @ Galen Druke wonders how likely it is that Democrats will win the trifecta — that @ @ @ @ @ , gain control of the Senate and maintain control of the House this November .

It’s another installment of Confidence Interval, where we make a persuasive case for a hot take we’ve been hearing … and then reveal how confident we really feel about the idea. This time, politics podcast host and producer Galen Druke wonders how likely it is that Democrats will win the trifecta — that is, win the presidency, gain control of the Senate and maintain control of the House this November.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-18--8 Tips To Stay Sane In The Final 15 Days Of The Campaign

We ’ re in the final stretch of the campaign , with just 15 days to go until the election .
Indeed , “ the election ” is something of a misnomer , since early or mail voting is already underway in most states and around 30 million people have already cast ballots .
This is a period of high anxiety for almost everybody .
So here are a few tips for how to process news and polls over the final two weeks .
I ’ m going to keep these fairly short and sweet ; we ’ ll save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , etc .
for elsewhere .
1 .
Keep the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in mind .
The most important story in the country is that 210,000 Americans and counting have died from the coronavirus , plus virtually everybody ’ s lives have been disrupted in some way by the pandemic .
And far from the U.S. having turned the corner , cases and hospitalizations are growing again in most parts of the country .
President Trump ’ s approval ratings on COVID-19 are poor , too , considerably worse than his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t a new story , but it ’ s liable to be more important to voters than , say , whatever is in Hunter Biden ’ s emails 2 .
Don ’ t assume the race is in the bag for Biden .
Although COVID-19 and other issues make Trump ’ s road to reelection difficult , he still has a 12 percent chance of winning the Electoral College , according to the FiveThirtyEight model as of Sunday afternoon .
And if Joe Biden maintains his current lead in the polls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — although the forecast thinks it ’ s more likely that the race will tighten .
But say Trump ’ s chances do decline further — to 5 percent by Election Day , for example — I ’ d keep a few things in mind .
First , even a 5 percent chance is something you ought to take seriously if the consequences are very high , something I think both Trump and Biden supporters would say is true of this election .
And second , the outcomes in this election aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : His margin of victory will still be heavily scrutinized .
Does he win by double digits nationally ?
Does he win a state like Texas ?
This could affect both the degree to which Democrats pursue a more aggressive agenda , and the extent to which Republicans regard Trumpism as having been repudiated .
Also , many Senate races are competitive , and having control of 50 versus 52 versus 54 or more Senate seats will greatly affect Biden ’ s first two years in office .
Statewide races matter too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redistricting process is still in play .
3 .
But also don ’ t buy the narrative that “ polling is broken.
” Polling is an imperfect instrument , more so in some years than others .
However , 2016 — while far from a banner year from the polls — was not quite so bad as some critics assume .
The national polls were pretty good , and Trump ’ s wins in the swing states were not that surprising based on the close margins in those states beforehand .
The 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years for polling on record , meanwhile .
One other thing to keep in mind about polls in an election like this one : They do provide some way to measure public sentiment , however imperfect , independent of election results , which could be important if the election is disputed .
It ’ s not surprising then that Trump frequently disparages polls — which could give Americans more confidence about the results if they closely resemble the polls — when he ’ s also repeatedly failed to commit to accepting the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get too obsessed with comparisons to 2016 .
I know it ’ s fashionable to make comparisons between 2016 and 2020 , and to discuss the various ways in which they might or might not be similar ( there are fewer undecided voters this year , for instance ) .
But to some extent , I think those comparisons are misguided .
You shouldn ’ t make too much of a sample size of one election .
And you should avoid thinking in binaries , i.e.
, that the polls will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right.
” Instead , it ’ s more of a spectrum : The larger Biden ’ s lead in the tipping-point states , the more that polls could be wrong and he could win anyway .
And there ’ s also no guarantee that a polling error will work in Trump ’ s favor as it did in 2016 .
In 2012 , polls underestimated then-President Barack Obama and Democrats instead .
At the same time , while there is no particular reason to think that polls will be wrong in exactly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are also precedents for larger polling errors than the one we experienced in 2016 .
The final Gallup poll in 1948 had Harry Truman 5 points behind Thomas Dewey , for example , but Truman actually won by 4 points , making for a 9-point polling error .
A polling error of that magnitude probably would be enough for Trump to win the Electoral College , although not necessarily the popular vote .
5 .
Don ’ t pay much attention to individual polls ; wait for polling averages to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of advice we give most often at FiveThirtyEight , but it ’ s especially important in the final couple weeks of a campaign .
After a lull this weekend , there are likely to be a lot of polls the rest of the way out .
On any given day , it will be possible to take the 2 or 3 best polls for Biden and tell a story of his holding or expanding his lead , or the 2 or 3 best polls for Trump and make a claim that the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into those narratives .
Instead , turn to polling averages like FiveThirtyEight ’ s that are smart at distinguishing ( ahem ) the signal from the noise .
We do program our averages to be more aggressive in the closing days of the campaign — so if there ’ s a shift in the race , our average should start to detect it within a few days .
But while there is such a thing as underreacting to news developments , the more common problem in the last days of a campaign is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media trying to hype big swings in the polls when they actually show a fairly steady race .
Indeed , while the Comey letter really did matter in 2016 , contributing to a 3-point shift toward Trump in the waning days of the campaign , it ’ s more the exception than the rule .
On average , in elections since 1972 , national polling averages shifted by an average of 1.8 points and a median of just 1.4 points in the final 15 days of the race .
Also , keep in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , and that many people have already voted , which could dampen the effect of any last-minute news developments .
7 .
Don ’ t read too much into the campaigns ’ behavior .
These last two points are things I ’ ve learned by experience .
There ’ s enough conflicting information in the final days of the campaign that it can help to triage , and one category of information I ’ d generally ignore are reports about how the Biden or Trump campaigns are feeling about the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into campaigns and are accurately reflecting their thinking , presidential campaigns often do not have a better read on the race than public polls .
Campaigns are often just as surprised by unexpected results as anyone else ; the Trump campaign ’ s models gave it a 30 percent chance of winning the Electoral College on the eve of the election in 2016 , the same as FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast did .
And of course , less diligent reporters are subject to being spun by the campaigns , or to publishing information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign ’ s opponents .
8 .
Don ’ t get carried away with early voting data .
Democrats have a huge edge in early voting so far … but as I talked about on my weekly segment for ABC ’ s “ This Week , ” I ’ m not sure I ’ d read too much into it .
The early-voting lead for Democrats is largely in line with what polls predicted , and Republicans are likely to draw the race closer with a huge Election Day turnout .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people tend to read more into early voting data than is warranted and often cherry-pick data in ways that are favorable to their preferred party or candidate .
Also , the huge partisan split in early in-person voting and mail voting is new — historically , it was something that both parties took advantage of — and that makes it hard to put it into context .
Maybe it really will turn out to be a bad sign for Republicans that Democrats are banking so many votes .
Or maybe Democrats will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher rate of ballot spoilage .
On balance I ’ d rather have a lot of votes locked in than not , but we ’ re flying pretty blind here .
Besides , most polls try to account for early voting — for instance , by asking voters whether they ’ ve already voted — so to the extent that Democrats are benefiting from it , it should be reflected in the polls already .
It ’ s going to a long 15 days — and perhaps beyond , since we may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight will be providing all the content that you might want , from daily podcasts to near-constant updates of our forecast .
But you ’ ll usually know all that you need to if you ’ re pacing yourself and only checking in with news coverage of the campaign once a day or a couple of times a week .
Stay safe and stay sane , and we ’ ll enjoy watching the rest of the election with you .

We’re in the final stretch of the campaign, with just 15 days to go until the election. Indeed, “the election” is something of a misnomer, since early or mail voting is already underway in most states and about 30 million people have already cast ballots.
This is a period of high anxiety for almost everybody. So here are a few tips on how to process news and polls over the final two weeks. I’m going to keep these fairly short and sweet; we’ll save the more philosophical stuff about election forecasting, etc., for elsewhere.
Confidence Interval: Will Democrats win the trifecta? l FiveThirtyEight
1. Keep the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in mind.
The most important story in the country is that 210,000 Americans and counting have died from the coronavirus, plus virtually everybody’s lives have been disrupted in some way by the pandemic. And far from the U.S. having turned the corner, cases and hospitalizations are growing again in most parts of the country. President Trump’s approval ratings on COVID-19 are poor, too, considerably worse than his overall approval numbers. The pandemic isn’t a new story, but it’s liable to be more important to voters than, say, whatever is in Hunter Biden’s emails.
2. Don’t assume the race is in the bag for Biden.
Although COVID-19 and other issues make Trump’s road to reelection difficult, he still has a 12 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight model as of Sunday afternoon. And if Joe Biden maintains his current lead in the polls, Trump’s chances will fall further — although the forecast thinks it’s more likely that the race will tighten.
But say Trump’s chances do decline further — to 5 percent by Election Day, for example — I’d keep a few things in mind.
First, even a 5 percent chance is something you ought to take seriously if the consequences are very high, something I think both Trump and Biden supporters would say is true of this election. And second, the outcomes in this election aren’t entirely binary. Say Biden wins: His margin of victory will still be heavily scrutinized. Does he win by double digits nationally? Does he win a state like Texas? This could affect both the degree to which Democrats pursue a more aggressive agenda, and the extent to which Republicans regard Trumpism as having been repudiated. Also, many Senate races are competitive, and having control of 50 versus 52 versus 54 or more Senate seats will greatly affect Biden’s first two years in office. Statewide races matter too, especially in states where control of the redistricting process is still in play.
3. But also don’t buy the narrative that “polling is broken.”
Polling is an imperfect instrument, more so in some years than others. However, 2016 — while far from a banner year from the polls — was not quite so bad as some critics assume. The national polls were pretty good, and Trump’s wins in the swing states were not that surprising based on the close margins in those states beforehand. Meanwhile, 2018, with the midterms, was one of the more accurate years for polling on record.
One other thing to keep in mind about polls in an election like this one: They do provide some way to measure public sentiment, however imperfect, independent of election results, which could be important if the election is disputed. It’s not surprising then that Trump frequently disparages polls — which could give Americans more confidence about the results if they closely resemble the polls — when he’s also repeatedly failed to commit to accepting the results of the election.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
4. Don’t get too obsessed with comparisons to 2016.
I know it’s fashionable to make comparisons between 2016 and 2020, and to discuss the various ways in which they might or might not be similar (there are fewer undecided voters this year, for instance). But to some extent, I think those comparisons are misguided. You shouldn’t make too much of a sample size of one election. And you should avoid thinking in binaries, i.e., that the polls will either be “wrong” or “right.” Instead, it’s more of a spectrum: The larger Biden’s lead in the tipping-point states, the more that polls could be wrong and he could win anyway. And there’s also no guarantee that a polling error will work in Trump’s favor as it did in 2016. In 2012, polls underestimated then-President Barack Obama and Democrats instead.
At the same time, while there is no particular reason to think that polls will be wrong in exactly the same ways that they were in 2016, there are also precedents for larger polling errors than the one we experienced in 2016. The final Gallup poll in 1948 had Harry Truman 5 points behind Thomas Dewey, for example, but Truman actually won by 4 points, making for a 9-point polling error. A polling error of that magnitude probably would be enough for Trump to win the Electoral College, although not necessarily the popular vote.
5. Don’t pay much attention to individual polls; wait for polling averages to move.
This is perhaps the single piece of advice we give most often at FiveThirtyEight, but it’s especially important in the final couple weeks of a campaign. After a lull this weekend, there are likely to be a lot of polls the rest of the way out. On any given day, it will be possible to take the two or three best polls for Biden and tell a story of his holding or expanding his lead, or the two or three best polls for Trump and make a claim that the race is tightening.
Resist buying too much into those narratives. Instead, turn to polling averages like FiveThirtyEight’s that are smart at distinguishing (ahem) the signal from the noise. We do program our averages to be more aggressive in the closing days of the campaign — so if there’s a shift in the race, our average should start to detect it within a few days. But while there is such a thing as underreacting to news developments, the more common problem in the last days of a campaign is false positives, with partisans and the media trying to hype big swings in the polls when they actually show a fairly steady race.
6. Beware talk of “October surprises.” They’re usually overhyped.
Indeed, while the Comey letter really did matter in 2016, contributing to a 3-point shift toward Trump in the waning days of the campaign, it’s more the exception than the rule. On average, in elections since 1972, national polling averages shifted by an average of 1.8 points and a median of just 1.4 points in the final 15 days of the race.
The final two weeks usually don’t change much How much the national polling margin changed between 15 days before the presidential election and Election Day, since 1972 Leader in FiveThirtyEight national polling average Year 15 days before ELECTION Election Day Change 2016 Clinton +6.9 Clinton +3.8 3.1 2012 Romney +1.2 Obama +0.4 1.6 2008 Obama +6.8 Obama +7.1 0.3 2004 Bush +2.4 Bush +1.6 0.8 2000 Bush +2.7 Bush +3.5 0.8 1996 Clinton +14.9 Clinton +12.8 2.1 1992 Clinton +14.1 Clinton +7.1 7.0 1988 Bush +11.8 Bush +10.4 1.4 1984 Reagan +16.7 Reagan +18.0 1.3 1980 Reagan +2.3 Reagan +2.1 0.2 1976 Carter +2.0 Carter +0.8 1.2 1972 Nixon +25.5 Nixon +24.1 1.4 The averages listed are calculated retroactively based on FiveThirtyEight’s current polling average methodology.
Also, keep in mind that relatively few voters are undecided this year, and that many people have already voted, which could dampen the effect of any last-minute news developments.
7. Don’t read too much into the campaigns’ behavior.
These last two points are things I’ve learned by experience. There’s enough conflicting information in the final days of the campaign that it can help to triage, and one category of information I’d generally ignore are reports about how the Biden or Trump campaigns are feeling about the race. Even if reporters have good access into campaigns and are accurately reflecting their thinking, presidential campaigns often do not have a better read on the race than public polls. Campaigns are often just as surprised by unexpected results as anyone else; the Trump campaign’s models gave it a 30 percent chance of winning the Electoral College on the eve of the election in 2016, the same as FiveThirtyEight’s forecast did. And of course, less diligent reporters are subject to being spun by the campaigns, or to publishing information that is designed to deceive or bluff the campaign’s opponents.
Over 25 million have already voted, but this is what pollsters expected: Nate Silver
8. Don’t get carried away with early voting data.
Democrats have a huge edge in early voting so far … but as I talked about on my weekly segment for ABC’s “This Week,” I’m not sure I’d read too much into it. The early-voting lead for Democrats is largely in line with what polls predicted, and Republicans are likely to draw the race closer with a huge Election Day turnout. Moreover, our experience in past elections is that people tend to read more into early voting data than is warranted and often cherry-pick data in ways that are favorable to their preferred party or candidate.
Also, the huge partisan split in early in-person voting and mail voting is new — historically, it was something that both parties took advantage of — and that makes it hard to put it into context. Maybe it really will turn out to be a bad sign for Republicans that Democrats are banking so many votes. Or maybe Democrats will underperform polls because mail votes have a higher rate of ballot spoilage. On balance I’d rather have a lot of votes locked in than not, but we’re flying pretty blind here. Besides, most polls try to account for early voting — for instance, by asking voters whether they’ve already voted — so to the extent that Democrats are benefiting from it, it should be reflected in the polls already.
It’s going to be a long 15 days — and perhaps beyond, since we may not know the winner on Nov. 3. FiveThirtyEight will be providing all the content that you might want, from daily podcasts to near-constant updates of our forecast. But you’ll usually know all that you need to if you’re pacing yourself and only checking in with news coverage of the campaign once a day or a couple of times a week. Stay safe and stay sane, and we’ll enjoy watching the rest of the election with you.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--Trump Is Losing Ground With White Voters But Gaining Among Black And Hispanic Americans

There ’ s a well-known truth in politics : No one group swings an election .
But that doesn ’ t mean that the demographic trends bubbling beneath the surface can ’ t have an outsized effect .
Take 2016 .
President Trump won in large part because he carried white voters without a college degree by a bigger margin than any recent GOP presidential nominee , though there had been signs that this group was shifting rightward for a while .
Likewise in 2018 , a strong showing by Democrats in suburban districts and among white voters with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House , a shift we first saw in 2016 when Trump likely became the first Republican to lose this group in 60 years .
And this is just scratching the surface .
In the past few years , we ’ ve also seen hints that more women voters are identifying as Democrats and that some nonwhite voters might be getting more Republican-leaning .
The question , then , in 2020 — as it is in every election — is what will the electorate look like this time around ?
Can we expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 and 2018 , or might some of those trends slow or reverse direction ?
And , of course , are there any surprises lurking beneath the surface that we haven ’ t quite identified yet ?
We tried to answer this question by comparing data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to 2020 data from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape polling conducted over the past month .
This comparison is hardly perfect — the 2016 CCES data is based on data from people who were confirmed to have actually voted while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey of people who say they have voted or will vote , and the two studies use different methodologies , which could lead to differences in what types of voters were reached and how they were weighted .
But this is as close as we can get to a direct comparison before the election , and it did allow us to identify some interesting trends .
First off , Democratic nominee Joe Biden is attracting more support than Hillary Clinton did among white voters as a whole — especially white women , older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college degree — which has helped him build a substantial lead of around 10 points , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s national polling average .
However , Trump is performing slightly better than last time among college-educated white voters , and he has gained among voters of color , especially Hispanic voters and younger Black voters .
White voters made up more than 7 out of 10 voters in the 2016 electorate according to CCES , so any large shifts in their attitudes could greatly alter the electoral calculus .
And as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more or less what has happened : Trump ’ s edge among white voters is around half of what it was in 2016 , which could be especially consequential as this group is overrepresented in the states that are most likely to decide the winner of the Electoral College .
One factor driving this is that Biden looks to be doing better than Clinton among white voters without a college degree , a voting bloc that made up close to half of the overall electorate in 2016 and forms a majority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
While Clinton lost this group by more than 20 points four years ago , Biden is behind by just 12 points in UCLA Nationscape ’ s polling .
This isn ’ t entirely a surprise : We saw some signs of Biden ’ s strength with non-college whites in the 2020 Democratic primary , as he did better than Clinton in counties that had larger shares of white Americans without a college degree .
It ’ s hard to pinpoint exactly why we ’ re seeing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as an older white man , Biden just resonates more with these voters than Clinton did in 2016 , especially considering the role sexism and racism played in voter attitudes in 2016 .
But it ’ s also possible that some of these voters are just turned off by Trump after four years with him in the White House .
Take white women .
They backed Trump over Clinton in 2016 but were split pretty evenly between the two parties in the 2018 midterms .
And now they favor Biden by 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be around a 15-point swing toward the Democrats compared to what CCES found for the 2016 race .
Trump has also taken a major hit among older white voters .
In 2016 , he won white voters age 45 or older by more than 20 points , but according to UCLA Nationscape polling , he now leads by only 4 points .
Trump isn ’ t losing ground among all white voters , though .
White men , for instance , look likely to back Trump by around 20 points again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ college-educated white voters .
Trump lost this group by more than 10 points in 2016 , and Republican House and Senate candidates lost it by a similar margin in 2018 , but Trump may be running closer to even among them now .
As FiveThirtyEight ’ s Perry Bacon Jr. recently noted , many college-educated white voters are Republican-leaning , especially south of the Mason-Dixon line .
The question will be whether Trump can attract support from this group nationally , as he ’ s already essentially got a lock on many Southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Southern states as he ’ d like ) .
Trump is currently polling at 49 percent among white , college-educated voters in UCLA Nationscape ’ s polling , and if he stays there , that could help him hold on to battleground states he carried in 2016 , such as Florida , Georgia , North Carolina and Texas , where college-educated white voters are more likely to prefer the GOP .
Trump has also gained real ground among nonwhite voters .
To be clear , he still trails Biden considerably with these groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling over the past month , he was down by 39 points with these voters , a double-digit improvement from his 53-point deficit in 2016 .
While older Black voters look as if they ’ ll vote for Biden by margins similar to Clinton ’ s in 2016 , Trump ’ s support among young Black voters ( 18 to 44 ) has jumped from around 10 percent in 2016 to 21 percent in UCLA Nationscape ’ s polling .
Black voters remain an overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning constituency , but a notable reduction in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Biden .
Notably , young Black voters don ’ t seem to feel as negatively about Trump as older Black Americans do .
For instance , an early-July African American Research Collaborative poll of battleground states found that 35 percent of 18-to-29-year-old Black adults agreed that although they didn ’ t always like Trump ’ s policies , they liked his strong demeanor and defiance of the establishment .
Conversely , just 10 percent of those 60 and older said the same .
It ’ s a similar story with younger Hispanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also made gains .
According to UCLA Nationscape ’ s polling , Trump is attracting 35 percent of Hispanic voters under age 45 , up from the 22 percent who backed him four years ago in the CCES data .
Most notably , even though Trump stands to gain with nonwhite voters across the board , his support seems to have risen the most among Hispanic voters with a four-year college degree .
We don ’ t want to overstate the influence of this group — they make up about 2 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but they are disproportionately concentrated in one especially vital swing state : Florida .
In fact , 24 percent of Hispanic Floridians have a college degree , compared to 16 percent of Hispanic adults nationally .
So even if Trump isn ’ t doing as well among older white voters , his gains among Hispanic voters , including highly educated ones , could offer a path to victory in the Sunshine State .
One last point on where Trump has made gains among Black and Hispanic voters : He has done particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which might speak to how his campaign has actively courted them .
For instance , the Republican National Convention featured a number of Black men as speakers this year .
And Politico talked with more than 20 Democratic strategists , lawmakers , pollsters and activists who explained that many Black and Latino men are open to supporting Trump as they think the Democratic Party has taken them for granted .
The same can ’ t be said of Black and Hispanic women , though , and the gender gap among nonwhite voters is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was in 2016 .
Ninety percent of Black women supported Biden in UCLA Nationscape polling — unsurprising , as this group is arguably the most staunchly Democratic demographic in the electorate — whereas less than 80 percent of Black men did the same .
And among Hispanic voters , 64 percent of women backed Biden compared to 57 percent of men .
In the end , elections are all about margins .
That means Biden doesn ’ t necessarily have to win more white voters than Trump to win the election ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s performance four years ago .
By the same token , if Trump can do better among nonwhite voters than he did in 2016 — even if he still doesn ’ t win them outright — that could open a door for him to win if white voters don ’ t shift toward Biden as much as the polls currently suggest .
But at the moment , the real margin to keep an eye on is Biden ’ s double-digit lead in the polls .
That kind of advantage will be hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away at the edges of Biden ’ s support , especially when so many of Biden ’ s gains seem to have come at Trump ’ s expense .

There’s a well-known truth in politics: No one group swings an election.
But that doesn’t mean that the demographic trends bubbling beneath the surface can’t have an outsized effect. Take 2016. President Trump won in large part because he carried white voters without a college degree by a bigger margin than any recent GOP presidential nominee, though there had been signs that this group was shifting rightward for a while.
Likewise in 2018, a strong showing by Democrats in suburban districts and among white voters with a four-year college degree helped the party retake the House, a shift we first saw in 2016 when Trump likely became the first Republican to lose this group in 60 years. And this is just scratching the surface. In the past few years, we’ve also seen hints that more women voters are identifying as Democrats and that some nonwhite voters might be getting more Republican-leaning.
How does early voting affect the forecast? l FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
The question, then, in 2020 — as it is in every election — is what will the electorate look like this time around? Can we expect a continuation of what we saw in 2016 and 2018, or might some of those trends slow or reverse direction? And, of course, are there any surprises lurking beneath the surface that we haven’t quite identified yet?
We tried to answer this question by comparing data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study to 2020 data from Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape polling conducted over the past month. This comparison is hardly perfect — the 2016 CCES data is based on data from people who were confirmed to have actually voted while the UCLA Nationscape data is a large-scale survey of people who say they have voted or will vote, and the two studies use different methodologies, which could lead to differences in what types of voters were reached and how they were weighted. But this is as close as we can get to a direct comparison before the election, and it did allow us to identify some interesting trends.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
First off, Democratic nominee Joe Biden is attracting more support than Hillary Clinton did among white voters as a whole — especially white women, older white voters and those without a four-year college degree — which has helped him build a substantial lead of around 10 points, according to FiveThirtyEight’s national polling average. However, Trump is performing slightly better than last time among college-educated white voters, and he has gained among voters of color, especially Hispanic voters and younger Black voters.
White voters made up more than 7 out of 10 voters in the 2016 electorate according to CCES, so any large shifts in their attitudes could greatly alter the electoral calculus. And as the chart below shows, that’s more or less what has happened: Trump’s edge among white voters is around half of what it was in 2016, which could be especially consequential as this group is overrepresented in the states that are most likely to decide the winner of the Electoral College.
One factor driving this is that Biden looks to be doing better than Clinton among white voters without a college degree, a voting bloc that made up close to half of the overall electorate in 2016 and forms a majority of the population in key swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. While Clinton lost this group by more than 20 points four years ago, Biden is behind by just 12 points in UCLA Nationscape’s polling. This isn’t entirely a surprise: We saw some signs of Biden’s strength with non-college whites in the 2020 Democratic primary, as he did better than Clinton in counties that had larger shares of white Americans without a college degree. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly why we’re seeing this, though. One possible explanation is that as an older white man, Biden just resonates more with these voters than Clinton did in 2016, especially considering the role sexism and racism played in voter attitudes in 2016. But it’s also possible that some of these voters are just turned off by Trump after four years with him in the White House.
Take white women. They backed Trump over Clinton in 2016 but were split pretty evenly between the two parties in the 2018 midterms. And now they favor Biden by 6 points in UCLA Nationscape polling, which would be around a 15-point swing toward the Democrats compared to what CCES found for the 2016 race. Trump has also taken a major hit among older white voters. In 2016, he won white voters age 45 or older by more than 20 points, but according to UCLA Nationscape polling, he now leads by only 4 points.
Trump isn’t losing ground among all white voters, though. White men, for instance, look likely to back Trump by around 20 points again. And Trump is also making inroads with college-educated white voters. Trump lost this group by more than 10 points in 2016, and Republican House and Senate candidates lost it by a similar margin in 2018, but Trump may be running closer to even among them now. As FiveThirtyEight’s Perry Bacon Jr. recently noted, many college-educated white voters are Republican-leaning, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line. The question will be whether Trump can attract support from this group nationally, as he’s already essentially got a lock on many Southern states (although maybe not as many Southern states as he’d like). Trump is currently polling at 49 percent among white, college-educated voters in UCLA Nationscape’s polling, and if he stays there, that could help him hold on to battleground states he carried in 2016, such as Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas, where college-educated white voters are more likely to prefer the GOP.
Trump has also gained real ground among nonwhite voters. To be clear, he still trails Biden considerably with these groups, but in UCLA Nationscape’s polling over the past month, he was down by 39 points with these voters, a double-digit improvement from his 53-point deficit in 2016.
While older Black voters look as if they’ll vote for Biden by margins similar to Clinton’s in 2016, Trump’s support among young Black voters (18 to 44) has jumped from around 10 percent in 2016 to 21 percent in UCLA Nationscape’s polling. Black voters remain an overwhelmingly Democratic-leaning constituency, but a notable reduction in their support could still be a problem for Biden.
Notably, young Black voters don’t seem to feel as negatively about Trump as older Black Americans do. For instance, an early-July African American Research Collaborative poll of battleground states found that 35 percent of 18-to-29-year-old Black adults agreed that although they didn’t always like Trump’s policies, they liked his strong demeanor and defiance of the establishment. Conversely, just 10 percent of those 60 and older said the same.
It’s a similar story with younger Hispanic Americans, a group where Trump has also made gains. According to UCLA Nationscape’s polling, Trump is attracting 35 percent of Hispanic voters under age 45, up from the 22 percent who backed him four years ago in the CCES data.
Most notably, even though Trump stands to gain with nonwhite voters across the board, his support seems to have risen the most among Hispanic voters with a four-year college degree. We don’t want to overstate the influence of this group — they make up about 2 percent of the population age 25 and older nationwide — but they are disproportionately concentrated in one especially vital swing state: Florida. In fact, 24 percent of Hispanic Floridians have a college degree, compared to 16 percent of Hispanic adults nationally. So even if Trump isn’t doing as well among older white voters, his gains among Hispanic voters, including highly educated ones, could offer a path to victory in the Sunshine State.
One last point on where Trump has made gains among Black and Hispanic voters: He has done particularly well with Black and Hispanic men, which might speak to how his campaign has actively courted them. For instance, the Republican National Convention featured a number of Black men as speakers this year. And Politico talked with more than 20 Democratic strategists, lawmakers, pollsters and activists who explained that many Black and Latino men are open to supporting Trump as they think the Democratic Party has taken them for granted. The same can’t be said of Black and Hispanic women, though, and the gender gap among nonwhite voters is shaping up to be even bigger than it was in 2016. Ninety percent of Black women supported Biden in UCLA Nationscape polling — unsurprising, as this group is arguably the most staunchly Democratic demographic in the electorate — whereas less than 80 percent of Black men did the same. And among Hispanic voters, 64 percent of women backed Biden compared to 57 percent of men.
In the end, elections are all about margins. That means Biden doesn’t necessarily have to win more white voters than Trump to win the election; he just needs to improve on Clinton’s performance four years ago. By the same token, if Trump can do better among nonwhite voters than he did in 2016 — even if he still doesn’t win them outright — that could open a door for him to win if white voters don’t shift toward Biden as much as the polls currently suggest.
But at the moment, the real margin to keep an eye on is Biden’s double-digit lead in the polls. That kind of advantage will be hard to overcome if Trump is merely chipping away at the edges of Biden’s support, especially when so many of Biden’s gains seem to have come at Trump’s expense.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--What Full Democratic Control Of The White House And Congress Would Look Like

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew compares Joe Biden ’ s lead now with Hillary @ @ @ @ @ and considers the agenda Democrats might pursue if they win the presidency , House and @ @ @ @

What Full Democratic Control Of The White House And Congress Would Look Like
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew compares Joe Biden’s lead now with Hillary Clinton’s in 2016 and considers the agenda Democrats might pursue if they win the presidency, House and Senate in November.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--Politics Podcast: Why Biden’s Lead Is Different

According to our forecast , Democrats have a 72 percent chance of winning a trifecta — that is , controlling @ @ @ @ @ and the Senate .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew @ @ @ @ @ would prioritize in such a scenario and what divisions might emerge .
They also compare @ @ @ @ @ now with Hillary Clinton ’ s in 2016 and explain what ’ s similar ( @ @ @ @ @ ) about their circumstances .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ @ @ @ @ @ audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your @ @ @ @ @ you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

According to our forecast, Democrats have a 72 percent chance of winning a trifecta — that is, controlling the presidency, the House and the Senate. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses what policies the party would prioritize in such a scenario and what divisions might emerge. They also compare Joe Biden’s position now with Hillary Clinton’s in 2016 and explain what’s similar (and what’s different) about their circumstances.
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 is recorded 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.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--The Most Vulnerable Incumbent In The House Is A Democrat, But Republicans Are Defending More Competi

The Most Vulnerable Incumbent In The House Is A Democrat, But Republicans Are Defending More Competitive Seats

In the face of a whirlwind presidential campaign and massive fundraising numbers coming out of marquee U.S. Senate contests , it ’ s easy to overlook what ’ s happening in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives .
That might be because Democrats look like strong bets to hold onto power there .
In fact , FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast is most confident about the House , as the Deluxe version of our model gives Democrats a 95 in 100 shot at retaining control of the House , better than Joe Biden ’ s 88 in 100 chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 74 in 100 chance of capturing the Senate .
However , even if Democrats do hold onto the House , that doesn ’ t mean they ’ ll retain every seat they control .
In fact , there are a number of seats they might lose , including that of Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson , the most vulnerable House incumbent seeking reelection in 2020 .
The Deluxe version of our House forecast only gives him about a 1 in 4 shot of winning in Minnesota ’ s 7th Congressional District against Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come down partly to the makeup of his rural district in western Minnesota .
The 7th Congressional District is 26 points more Republican than the country as a whole , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s partisan lean metric , making it the most GOP-leaning House seat held by a Democrat .
Seeking his 16th term in office , Peterson has won past elections as a Democrat thanks to his moderate views , his anti-abortion stance and his focus on agricultural issues .
And as the chair of the House Agriculture Committee , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests , especially the sugar beet industry , which is important to his constituency .
Still , the rightward shift in his district in the last decade or so narrowed his margin of victory to about 4 points in 2018 .
But beyond the seat ’ s increasingly deep red hue , Peterson is up against his most daunting challenger in years .
Fischbach served as the state ’ s lieutenant governor and , before that , as president of the Minnesota Senate .
And unlike recent Peterson opponents , Fischbach has nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , Republican groups have spent $ 5 million on her behalf , while Peterson has received a little less than $ 4 million in outside support .
It ’ s no wonder then that the expert handicappers at The Cook Political Report , Inside Elections and Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball all rate this race as a toss-up , which factors into the Deluxe version of our forecast .
However , despite Peterson ’ s trying circumstances , the good news for Democrats is that his vulnerability makes him a rare bird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic-held House seats , Democrats are clear underdogs in just Peterson ’ s district .
In fact , as the table below shows , Democrats are slightly favored in most competitive seats they are defending ( races where they have less than a 3 in 4 shot of winning ) .
Just two other Democratic incumbents face toss-up races : Rep. Kendra Horn in Oklahoma ’ s 5th Congressional District and Rep. TJ Cox in California ’ s 21st Congressional District .
Horn ’ s race is particularly close , as the district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Republican than the country as a whole ) and she won in 2018 by just 1 point .
Meanwhile , Cox is defending more Democratic-leaning turf , but he ’ s faced scrutiny over owing back taxes and is running against former Republican Rep. David Valadao , whom Cox edged out by a slim margin in 2018 ( less than 1 point ) .
And in California ’ s top-two primary system back in March , Cox trailed Valadao by 11 points , which could be a poor harbinger for the freshman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the others where Democrats are marginally favored , could be especially vulnerable if things go better for Trump than currently expected .
Nevertheless , Democrats are helped out by the fact that they have incumbents running in all but one of these seats , and 12 are freshmen incumbents who have raised huge sums of money .
By comparison , Republicans find themselves defending far more vulnerable seats than Democrats despite controlling fewer seats overall .
This is mostly thanks to redistricting , retirements and the Democratic-leaning electoral environment .
As the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in three Republican-held seats , roughly 50-50 in nine others and have less than a 3 in 4 shot of winning in 13 more .
Two North Carolina seats are almost surefire Democratic pickups due to court-ordered redistricting , while retiring Rep. Will Hurd ’ s seat in Texas ’ s 23rd Congressional District is leaning toward the Democrats , too .
Retirements and primary losses have left five of the nine GOP toss-up seats open , which helps Democrats even if the incumbency advantage isn ’ t what it once was .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward Republicans are all seats that could conceivably flip toward Democrats if 2020 is another “ blue wave ” election .
Put it all together and you can see why the Democrats ’ chances of holding onto the House look pretty good , even if they do have the most endangered incumbent up in 2020 .

In the face of a whirlwind presidential campaign and massive fundraising numbers coming out of marquee U.S. Senate contests, it’s easy to overlook what’s happening in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives. That might be because Democrats look like strong bets to hold onto power there. In fact, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast is most confident about the House, as the Deluxe version of our model gives Democrats a 95 in 100 shot at retaining control of the House, better than Joe Biden’s 88 in 100 chance of winning the presidency or the Democrats’ 74 in 100 chance of capturing the Senate.
However, even if Democrats do hold onto the House, that doesn’t mean they’ll retain every seat they control. In fact, there are a number of seats they might lose, including that of Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the most vulnerable House incumbent seeking reelection in 2020. The Deluxe version of our House forecast only gives him about a 1 in 4 shot of winning in Minnesota’s 7th Congressional District against Republican Michelle Fischbach.
Peterson’s chances come down partly to the makeup of his rural district in western Minnesota. The 7th Congressional District is 26 points more Republican than the country as a whole, according to FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean metric, making it the most GOP-leaning House seat held by a Democrat. Seeking his 16th term in office, Peterson has won past elections as a Democrat thanks to his moderate views, his anti-abortion stance and his focus on agricultural issues. And as the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, he’s been very attentive to farming interests, especially the sugar beet industry, which is important to his constituency. Still, the rightward shift in his district in the last decade or so narrowed his margin of victory to about 4 points in 2018.
But beyond the seat’s increasingly deep red hue, Peterson is up against his most daunting challenger in years. Fischbach served as the state’s lieutenant governor and, before that, as president of the Minnesota Senate. And unlike recent Peterson opponents, Fischbach has nearly matched his fundraising. On top of that, Republican groups have spent $5 million on her behalf, while Peterson has received a little less than $4 million in outside support. It’s no wonder then that the expert handicappers at The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball all rate this race as a toss-up, which factors into the Deluxe version of our forecast.
However, despite Peterson’s trying circumstances, the good news for Democrats is that his vulnerability makes him a rare bird in 2020. Of the most endangered Democratic-held House seats, Democrats are clear underdogs in just Peterson’s district. In fact, as the table below shows, Democrats are slightly favored in most competitive seats they are defending (races where they have less than a 3 in 4 shot of winning). Just two other Democratic incumbents face toss-up races: Rep. Kendra Horn in Oklahoma’s 5th Congressional District and Rep. TJ Cox in California’s 21st Congressional District.
Endangered Democrats are still mostly favored Democratic-held seats that Democrats have less than a 75 in 100 shot of winning in the Deluxe version of FiveThirtyEight’s House forecast, as of 4:30 p.m. on Oct. 19 District Democratic Incumbent Partisan Lean Win chance Rating MN-07 Collin Peterson R+26 24% Likely R OK-05 Kendra Horn R+13 49 Toss-up CA-21 TJ Cox D+9 53 Toss-up UT-04 Ben McAdams R+19 63 Lean D NM-02 Xochitl Torres Small R+10 64 Lean D SC-01 Joe Cunningham R+18 64 Lean D CA-48 Harly Rouda R+8 66 Lean D GA-06 Lucy McBath R+15 68 Lean D NY-22 Anthony Brindisi R+12 69 Lean D NV-04 Steven Horsford D+2 70 Lean D IA-02 OPEN R+3 71 Lean D NY-11 Max Rose R+7 72 Lean D NJ-07 Tom Malinowski R+6 72 Lean D CA-39 Gil Cisneros R+1 73 Lean D TX-07 Lizzie Fletcher R+12 74 Lean D
Horn’s race is particularly close, as the district is still heavily red (13 points more Republican than the country as a whole) and she won in 2018 by just 1 point. Meanwhile, Cox is defending more Democratic-leaning turf, but he’s faced scrutiny over owing back taxes and is running against former Republican Rep. David Valadao, whom Cox edged out by a slim margin in 2018 (less than 1 point). And in California’s top-two primary system back in March, Cox trailed Valadao by 11 points, which could be a poor harbinger for the freshman incumbent.
These three seats, plus the others where Democrats are marginally favored, could be especially vulnerable if things go better for Trump than currently expected. Nevertheless, Democrats are helped out by the fact that they have incumbents running in all but one of these seats, and 12 are freshmen incumbents who have raised huge sums of money.
By comparison, Republicans find themselves defending far more vulnerable seats than Democrats despite controlling fewer seats overall. This is mostly thanks to redistricting, retirements and the Democratic-leaning electoral environment. As the table below shows, GOP candidates are underdogs in three Republican-held seats, roughly 50-50 in nine others and have less than a 3 in 4 shot of winning in 13 more.
Republicans hold more vulnerable seats than Democrats Republican-held seats that Republicans have less than a 75 in 100 shot of winning in the Deluxe version of FiveThirtyEight’s House forecast, as of 4:30 p.m. on Oct. 19 District Republican incumbent Partisan Lean Win chance Rating NC-02 OPEN D+20 <1% Safe D NC-06 OPEN D+19 <1 Safe D TX-23 OPEN R+4 27 Lean D NY-02 OPEN R+7 43 Toss-up CA-25 Mike Garcia R+2 45 Toss-up VA-05 OPEN R+7 48 Toss-up IN-05 OPEN R+15 54 Toss-up NJ-02 Jeff Van Drew R+5 53 Toss-up PA-10 Scott Perry R+11 55 Toss-up GA-07 OPEN R+18 56 Toss-up NE-02 Don Bacon R+5 58 Toss-up TX-24 OPEN R+17 60 Toss-up CO-03 OPEN R+15 60 Lean R NY-24 John Katko D+6 60 Lean R TX-22 OPEN R+19 64 Lean R OH-01 Steve Chabot R+8 65 Lean R AZ-06 David Schweikert R+16 66 Lean R IL-13 Rodney Davis R+8 67 Lean R NC-08 Richard Hudson R+8 67 Lean R TX-21 Chip Roy R+20 69 Lean R MN-01 Jim Hagedorn R+12 70 Lean R MO-02 Ann Wagner R+17 70 Lean R MI-06 Fred Upton R+3 72 Lean R AR-02 French Hill R+11 73 Lean R MT-AL OPEN R+18 73 Lean R
Two North Carolina seats are almost surefire Democratic pickups due to court-ordered redistricting, while retiring Rep. Will Hurd’s seat in Texas’s 23rd Congressional District is leaning toward the Democrats, too. Retirements and primary losses have left five of the nine GOP toss-up seats open, which helps Democrats even if the incumbency advantage isn’t what it once was. Lastly, the 13 seats that lean toward Republicans are all seats that could conceivably flip toward Democrats if 2020 is another “blue wave” election.
Put it all together and you can see why the Democrats’ chances of holding onto the House look pretty good, even if they do have the most endangered incumbent up in 2020.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-19--Aaron Rodgers Has A Bad Day, The Titans’ Offense Keeps On Chugging, And The Bears Continue To Confou

sara.ziegler ( Sara Ziegler , sports editor ) : Week 6 is in the books save for two games to be played today : the regularly scheduled Monday Night Football matchup between the Dallas Cowboys and Arizona Cardinals AND the rescheduled game featuring the Buffalo Bills and Kansas City Chiefs .
Fun fact : After tonight , Kansas City will have played six games this season , and only two of those will have been on Sundays .
The Chiefs and Bills face big tests in their matchup , as other top-tier teams did this weekend — with varying outcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stayed undefeated , though they took very different routes to get there , while the previously unbeaten Green Bay Packers were trounced by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers .
Let ’ s start with the Packers : How surprised were you by that loss ?
joshua.hermsmeyer ( Josh Hermsmeyer , NFL analyst ) : I was shocked by how poorly Aaron Rodgers performed after his Hingle McCringleberry touchdown celebration was taken away from him .
Salfino ( Michael Salfino , FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : I was shocked by Rodgers being so bad , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thorough whipping .
What ’ s he going to say , though ?
neil ( Neil Paine , senior sportswriter ) : If this is the Bucs ’ defense , Tom Brady will feel at home compared with his late-era Pats teams .
They DOMINATED defensively .
Salfino : Rodgers was thoroughly abused .
And it was shocking to me after watching the Bucs ’ game last week , against Chicago , that the Packers couldn ’ t lay a glove on Tom Brady .
Maybe the Bears ’ pass rush is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rodgers ’ s third game this season with an off-target throw percentage of 16 percent or more , so perhaps those throws were bound to catch up to him .
sara.ziegler : Rodgers also seemed to be suffering from not having a good No .
2 option to throw to .
neil : They had been making due without Davante Adams , though — then he comes back and Rodgers struggles badly .
Salfino : I figured those struggles in prior weeks were due to the absence of Adams .
But maybe he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly .
sara.ziegler : They ’ re clearly missing Allen Lazard .
( My Iowa State reference for the week , guys . )
neil : Got ta sneak that in somehow .
sara.ziegler : LOLOL — if I didn ’ t know that before last week , I sure do now .
neil : I do think we have to acknowledge that the Bucs ’ D might also be good .
It didn ’ t look amazing against the Chargers or Bears , but otherwise it has had some pretty impressive games @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sara.ziegler : And Brady played well !
Nice to see the Tom-to-Gronk connection restored .
neil : Gronk got his jersey filthy and everything .
Salfino : Rob Gronkowski ’ s play was more shocking to me than the Packers ’ performance .
I thought he was basically an in-line blocker now .
He sort of looked like the Gronk of old .
And Ronald Jones gives Brady a running threat , which I think he needs now .
Jones seems explosive .
He looks like a second-round pick suddenly .
sara.ziegler : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steelers much this year — I had been a little suspect of their opposition up to this week .
But they beat a Browns team that was itself coming off a good win .
What do you guys make of the Steelers so far this year ?
neil : They seem like you might have expected the best-case scenario to be going into the season : still a great defense , and a much-improved passing game with Big Ben back .
Salfino : I think that the Steelers are generating enough points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no longer the same QB .
This is not remotely an explosive passing offense , despite a lot of wide receiver talent .
neil : I ’ m not sure it needs to be , though .
He just needed to be better than Mason Rudolph and Duck Dodgers ( or whatever his name was ) for them to improve a lot .
Salfino : Sure , the passing game is much improved from last year , though it ’ s much worse than it was in 2018. joshua.hermsmeyer : Part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s inability — or lack of desire — to run play-action .
The Steelers are once again last in the league in the best play type in football .
neil : Why do you think that is , Josh ?
Just that it clashes with his QB style ?
joshua.hermsmeyer : Some have speculated that he doesn ’ t like to turn his back to the defense .
And honestly , I can ’ t really blame a QB for that .
But play-action is a lot to give up .
Salfino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
( Note that this is old data . )
I ’ ve been wondering if there ’ s a difference in play-action under center vs. in shotgun .
I can ’ t imagine that play-action works as well in shotgun .
According to ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group , the average QBR for play-action under center is 76.2 ; for shotgun , it ’ s 65.1 .
( With the usual caveats about sample size and selection bias , etc .
etc . )
neil : Intuitively , it makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runner doesn ’ t seem to improve play-action effectiveness , the credibility of the threat to run in general does .
Salfino : In shotgun , a defense with the run would seem to me to be in wait-and-see mode .
Again , intuitively .
joshua.hermsmeyer : The Steelers would be pretty scary if they did run more play-action , so I think their division-mates are quite happy they don ’ t run more of it .
sara.ziegler : OK , so are you buying or selling the Steelers going forward ?
Salfino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Steelers offense is still at least fine .
To me , they ’ re the rich man ’ s Bears .
neil : Yeah .
I ’ m selling if the question is whether they are Super Bowl favorites now .
But they look solid .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Our model has them as the fourth-best team in the league , and I think that ’ s about right .
Though I have some nagging worries about Baltimore at No .
2 if their passing offense doesn ’ t improve .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can see the Steelers either beating every team ( except the Chiefs ) or losing to them .
To get to be a real favorite , Roethlisberger and their passing game needs to find their 2018 form .
neil : The Tennessee game on Sunday should be VERY interesting .
sara.ziegler : The Titans had to withstand a furious comeback from the Houston Texans to win in overtime and stay undefeated .
Are the Titans actually any good ?
Salfino : What do we make of the Titans ’ insane red-zone efficiency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stat that screams regression refuses to regress ?
neil : Derrick Henry probably helps with that .
But traditionally , that stat does regress pretty hard to the mean .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Agreed , I wouldn ’ t expect it to continue .
But to me the biggest crack in the Titans ’ armor is their defense : They ’ re allowing 6.2 yards per play , 28th in the league .
Salfino : Arthur Smith has to be the hottest coordinator in the league when it comes to the coaching carousel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offense is carrying them .
neil : Kind of like the anti-Steelers , who are 5-0 more because of their defense .
Salfino : They ’ re also lucky — tied for seventh in point differential .
sara.ziegler : Well , I ’ ll ask the same question I did with the Steelers : Are you buying or selling the Titans ?
joshua.hermsmeyer : I ’ m buying the Titans , even if they have a system QB .
Their offense does everything just right in my view .
Salfino : I always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the Titans — with the tandem of Henry and Ryan Tannehill — are very good on offense .
But the injury to tackle Taylor Lewan is a problem .
Fox ’ s Jay Glazer says he tore his ACL .
neil : Oooof .
Yeah .
And Ryan Tannehill playing well is so important to them going forward .
Got ta protect him — he has the third-lowest sack rate of any QB this year .
Salfino : Tennessee ’ s OL is so good .
They ’ re the new Cowboys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sack rate historically .
This has been transformative .
Sacks are basically punts .
sara.ziegler : Got ta admit , I was not expecting you all to be so high on the Titans .
A team that almost loses to the Vikings does not seem great to me !
( The Seahawks excluded . )
neil : I can no longer make excuses for the Vikings .
My goodness .
sara.ziegler : My self-care in 2020 is not watching Vikings games .
Salfino : Are the Vikings in the Trevor Lawrence sweepstakes ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They may be heading for a divorce .
sara.ziegler : Anyway , let ’ s talk about the one-loss teams that won this week : the Baltimore Ravens and the Chicago Bears .
We expected the Ravens to be in roughly this position ; we , uh , did not expect that of the Bears .
What is going on in Chicago ?
neil : I would love to credit Nick Foles , but it ’ s really just the defense .
This is the same Bears Formula as ever .
Salfino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar , along with the Steelers .
I don ’ t really believe in any of their offenses , which seems crazy given how the Ravens are scoring .
It ’ s just that Baltimore ’ s passing game is practically nonexistent .
neil : I guess Foles has a positive VOMiT : Value Over Mitch Trubisky .
It ’ s funny how there seems to be an NFL rule that when the Bears are good , their defense has to carry them .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Even their defense hasn ’ t been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sixth in yards per play allowed , which is good , but it doesn ’ t explain that 5-1 record .
They ’ ve just been weirdly lucky , and it ’ s why I think they ’ re the most fraudulent five-win team in the league ( small group , but still ) .
Salfino : That ’ s quasi-dominant , Josh .
It passes for dominant in 2020 .
The key for them is that they get pressure without blitzing .
Their four-man rush is the best in the game .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ neil : The Bears and Bills stand apart among the potentially fraudulent one-loss teams , for sure .
sara.ziegler : Interesting comparison to the Bills , Neil .
I found this tweet from Aaron Schatz instructive : neil : If the Bears and Bills merged their best parts , they might be Super Bowl favorites .
If they merged their worst parts , they ’ d be the Jets .
Salfino : That ’ s an interesting tweet .
At this stage of the season , I think I ’ d rather be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins and losses ) .
Maybe this is nerdy .
Salfino : What do you guys think about that question ?
Is it better to be 5-1 on paper or in the standings now ?
neil : I agree that it ’ s better to be good in the predictive stats now .
Get me at least halfway through the season with good descriptive stats , though , and I ’ m in decent shape .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Aaron is right , I guess , that wins are better than losses , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d much rather be the team coming up than the one that knows it ’ s just been barely getting by and gotten all the good bounces .
That seems like a special kind of hell in the NFL .
neil : Although I will say the flip-side — 1-5 but good on paper — isn ’ t a nice place to be either .
Salfino : Is there a team like that ?
Salfino : The Texans are another one of the good-offense , no-defense teams .
This is a 2020 trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantially better than their record , but who knows .
neil : The Patriots are probably the best sub-.500 team .
sara.ziegler : The Patriots game was the other big surprise to me this week .
neil : We ’ re definitely not used to seeing the Patriots lose at home to a team like Denver .
Salfino : The Patriots are not good on offense .
What ’ s happened to them after playing Seattle in Week 2 has been shocking .
Cam Newton ’ s throwing was ghastly .
They lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 39-0 when that happened under Bill Belichick .
neil : That is a shocking stat .
( Not that they had been so good , but that they couldn ’ t continue it Sunday . )
joshua.hermsmeyer : I wanted them to pass more , but as I look at their numbers , their pass EPA per play for the game was -0.35 vs -0.04 per rush .
They threw short and did so ineffectively , which is pretty hard to do .
Salfino : And Denver ’ s defense was banged up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ball into the ground 5 yards in front of his receiver , 10 yards away .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Makes you wonder if he ’ s fully healthy .
neil : That ’ s what I was thinking , too .
Though he wasn ’ t exactly the reason they won vs. Vegas earlier , either .
joshua.hermsmeyer : Cam is a special player .
He can pass you into the red zone and then run the ball in all by himself from there .
But when he ’ s off , he really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem like the messy schedule of the past couple of weeks might have caught up with the Patriots .
Salfino : That ’ s a good point , Sara .
Who knows what we make out of this season of stops and starts .
neil : If any coach would have prepared a team to deal with the COVID craziness , you ’ d think it would be Belichick .
But this seems to be bigger than even he can manage through .
In fact , maybe the “ make a new game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong one for 2020 , given that you might not really know who the next opponent even is !
joshua.hermsmeyer : That ’ s a really interesting point , Neil .
I think you ’ re right .
Salfino : Good point .
Especially with a new QB .
And really a new offense .
They probably don ’ t have that requisite mastery of all their plays .
neil : Either way , Tom definitely won the breakup on Sunday .

Aaron Rodgers Has A Bad Day, The Titans’ Offense Keeps On Chugging, And The Bears Continue To Confound
sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): Week 6 is in the books save for two games to be played today: the regularly scheduled Monday Night Football matchup between the Dallas Cowboys and Arizona Cardinals AND the rescheduled game featuring the Buffalo Bills and Kansas City Chiefs. Fun fact: After tonight, Kansas City will have played six games this season, and only two of those will have been on Sundays.
The Chiefs and Bills face big tests in their matchup, as other top-tier teams did this weekend — with varying outcomes. The Pittsburgh Steelers and Tennessee Titans stayed undefeated, though they took very different routes to get there, while the previously unbeaten Green Bay Packers were trounced by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Let’s start with the Packers: How surprised were you by that loss?
joshua.hermsmeyer (Josh Hermsmeyer, NFL analyst): I was shocked by how poorly Aaron Rodgers performed after his Hingle McCringleberry touchdown celebration was taken away from him.
Salfino (Michael Salfino, FiveThirtyEight contributor): I was shocked by Rodgers being so bad, too. But Rodgers is saying they needed a thorough whipping. What’s he going to say, though?
neil (Neil Paine, senior sportswriter): If this is the Bucs’ defense, Tom Brady will feel at home compared with his late-era Pats teams. They DOMINATED defensively.
Salfino: Rodgers was thoroughly abused. And it was shocking to me after watching the Bucs’ game last week, against Chicago, that the Packers couldn’t lay a glove on Tom Brady. Maybe the Bears’ pass rush is that good.
joshua.hermsmeyer: It was Rodgers’s third game this season with an off-target throw percentage of 16 percent or more, so perhaps those throws were bound to catch up to him.
sara.ziegler: Rodgers also seemed to be suffering from not having a good No. 2 option to throw to.
neil: They had been making due without Davante Adams, though — then he comes back and Rodgers struggles badly.
Salfino: I figured those struggles in prior weeks were due to the absence of Adams. But maybe he’s just feasted against bad defenses mostly.
sara.ziegler: They’re clearly missing Allen Lazard. (My Iowa State reference for the week, guys.)
neil: Gotta sneak that in somehow.
Salfino: Sara, what’s the break-even point on soybeans?
neil: 😂
sara.ziegler: LOLOL — if I didn’t know that before last week, I sure do now.
neil: I do think we have to acknowledge that the Bucs’ D might also be good. It didn’t look amazing against the Chargers or Bears, but otherwise it has had some pretty impressive games — none better than this one.
sara.ziegler: And Brady played well! Nice to see the Tom-to-Gronk connection restored.
neil: Gronk got his jersey filthy and everything.
Salfino: Rob Gronkowski’s play was more shocking to me than the Packers’ performance. I thought he was basically an in-line blocker now. He sort of looked like the Gronk of old.
And Ronald Jones gives Brady a running threat, which I think he needs now. Jones seems explosive. He looks like a second-round pick suddenly.
neil: Ronald won the Jones-vs.-Jones RB matchup decisively Sunday.
sara.ziegler: We haven’t talked about the Steelers much this year — I had been a little suspect of their opposition up to this week. But they beat a Browns team that was itself coming off a good win. What do you guys make of the Steelers so far this year?
neil: They seem like you might have expected the best-case scenario to be going into the season: still a great defense, and a much-improved passing game with Big Ben back.
Salfino: I think that the Steelers are generating enough points to mask the obvious fact that Ben Roethlisberger is no longer the same QB. This is not remotely an explosive passing offense, despite a lot of wide receiver talent.
neil: I’m not sure it needs to be, though. He just needed to be better than Mason Rudolph and Duck Dodgers (or whatever his name was) for them to improve a lot.
Salfino: Sure, the passing game is much improved from last year, though it’s much worse than it was in 2018.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Part of the lack of explosion comes from Ben’s inability — or lack of desire — to run play-action. The Steelers are once again last in the league in the best play type in football.
neil: Why do you think that is, Josh? Just that it clashes with his QB style?
joshua.hermsmeyer: Some have speculated that he doesn’t like to turn his back to the defense. And honestly, I can’t really blame a QB for that. But play-action is a lot to give up.
Salfino: Maybe this is meaningful regarding play-action? (Note that this is old data.)
Remember when Ben Roethlisberger used to get sacked constantly? His sack rate has progressively plummeted over the years as his throws from shotgun have progressively increased. #Steelers pic.twitter.com/O5IOhuuZnp — Mike Clay (@MikeClayNFL) February 16, 2018
I’ve been wondering if there’s a difference in play-action under center vs. in shotgun. I can’t imagine that play-action works as well in shotgun.
neil: You’re right this season, Mike:
According to ESPN’s Stats & Information Group, the average QBR for play-action under center is 76.2; for shotgun, it’s 65.1. (With the usual caveats about sample size and selection bias, etc. etc.)
Salfino: If only I weren’t color blind:
EPA of under-center vs shotgun play-action pass vs air yards. It shows that besides under center pass has a longer air yards, it is also more efficient for pass with same air yard pic.twitter.com/jelACao5BW — 903124 (@903124S) July 14, 2020
neil: Intuitively, it makes sense. Although the quality of the runner doesn’t seem to improve play-action effectiveness, the credibility of the threat to run in general does.
(And the time you have to recover if you overcommit.)
Salfino: In shotgun, a defense with the run would seem to me to be in wait-and-see mode. Again, intuitively.
joshua.hermsmeyer: The Steelers would be pretty scary if they did run more play-action, so I think their division-mates are quite happy they don’t run more of it.
sara.ziegler: OK, so are you buying or selling the Steelers going forward?
Salfino: I’m buying their defense. The Steelers offense is still at least fine. To me, they’re the rich man’s Bears.
neil: Yeah. I’m selling if the question is whether they are Super Bowl favorites now. But they look solid.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Our model has them as the fourth-best team in the league, and I think that’s about right. Though I have some nagging worries about Baltimore at No. 2 if their passing offense doesn’t improve.
So the Steelers could ascend.
Salfino: I can see the Steelers either beating every team (except the Chiefs) or losing to them. To get to be a real favorite, Roethlisberger and their passing game needs to find their 2018 form.
neil: The Tennessee game on Sunday should be VERY interesting.
sara.ziegler: What a good segue, Neil.
neil: Haha
I aim to please!
sara.ziegler: The Titans had to withstand a furious comeback from the Houston Texans to win in overtime and stay undefeated. Are the Titans actually any good?
Salfino: What do we make of the Titans’ insane red-zone efficiency? What do you do when a stat that screams regression refuses to regress?
neil: Derrick Henry probably helps with that. But traditionally, that stat does regress pretty hard to the mean.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Agreed, I wouldn’t expect it to continue. But to me the biggest crack in the Titans’ armor is their defense: They’re allowing 6.2 yards per play, 28th in the league.
Salfino: Arthur Smith has to be the hottest coordinator in the league when it comes to the coaching carousel, right?
As Josh says, their offense is carrying them.
neil: Kind of like the anti-Steelers, who are 5-0 more because of their defense.
(Although I think the Titans’ D is worse than the Steelers’ offense is middling.)
Salfino: They’re also lucky — tied for seventh in point differential.
sara.ziegler: Well, I’ll ask the same question I did with the Steelers: Are you buying or selling the Titans?
joshua.hermsmeyer: I’m buying the Titans, even if they have a system QB. Their offense does everything just right in my view.
sara.ziegler: Interesting!
Salfino: I always buy the good offenses, and I think the Titans — with the tandem of Henry and Ryan Tannehill — are very good on offense. But the injury to tackle Taylor Lewan is a problem. Fox’s Jay Glazer says he tore his ACL.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Yikes.
neil: Oooof. Yeah. And Ryan Tannehill playing well is so important to them going forward. Gotta protect him — he has the third-lowest sack rate of any QB this year.
Salfino: Tennessee’s OL is so good. They’re the new Cowboys.
And look at Tannehill’s sack rate historically. This has been transformative. Sacks are basically punts.
sara.ziegler: Gotta admit, I was not expecting you all to be so high on the Titans.
A team that almost loses to the Vikings does not seem great to me! (The Seahawks excluded.)
joshua.hermsmeyer: LOL
neil: I can no longer make excuses for the Vikings. My goodness.
sara.ziegler: My self-care in 2020 is not watching Vikings games.
Salfino: Are the Vikings in the Trevor Lawrence sweepstakes? Kirk Cousins had a terrible first half. They may be heading for a divorce.
sara.ziegler: Anyway, let’s talk about the one-loss teams that won this week: the Baltimore Ravens and the Chicago Bears. We expected the Ravens to be in roughly this position; we, uh, did not expect that of the Bears. What is going on in Chicago?
neil: I would love to credit Nick Foles, but it’s really just the defense. This is the same Bears Formula as ever.
Salfino: I think these teams are very similar, along with the Steelers. I don’t really believe in any of their offenses, which seems crazy given how the Ravens are scoring. It’s just that Baltimore’s passing game is practically nonexistent.
neil: I guess Foles has a positive VOMiT: Value Over Mitch Trubisky.
sara.ziegler: OMG
Salfino: That’s Undefeated in 2020 Mitch Trubisky.
It’s funny how there seems to be an NFL rule that when the Bears are good, their defense has to carry them.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Even their defense hasn’t been dominant, though. They’re sixth in yards per play allowed, which is good, but it doesn’t explain that 5-1 record. They’ve just been weirdly lucky, and it’s why I think they’re the most fraudulent five-win team in the league (small group, but still).
Salfino: That’s quasi-dominant, Josh. It passes for dominant in 2020. The key for them is that they get pressure without blitzing. Their four-man rush is the best in the game. This makes playing defense much easier.
neil: The Bears and Bills stand apart among the potentially fraudulent one-loss teams, for sure.
Bears: Bad offense, good defense. Bills: Bad defense, good offense.
sara.ziegler: Interesting comparison to the Bills, Neil. I found this tweet from Aaron Schatz instructive:
Right now the 2019 Bills are the worst 5-1 team in DVOA history (-5.4%) but the 2020 Bears will probably surpass them. Still, it's better to be 5-1 than to be 3-3 with a good DVOA rating. — Aaron Schatz 🏈 (@FO_ASchatz) October 18, 2020
neil: If the Bears and Bills merged their best parts, they might be Super Bowl favorites. If they merged their worst parts, they’d be the Jets.
sara.ziegler: Hahahahaha
Salfino: That’s an interesting tweet. At this stage of the season, I think I’d rather be predictably good than descriptively good (by wins and losses). Maybe this is nerdy.
neil: Never too nerdy!
Salfino: What do you guys think about that question? Is it better to be 5-1 on paper or in the standings now?
neil: I agree that it’s better to be good in the predictive stats now. Get me at least halfway through the season with good descriptive stats, though, and I’m in decent shape.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Aaron is right, I guess, that wins are better than losses, but I agree with Mike. I’d much rather be the team coming up than the one that knows it’s just been barely getting by and gotten all the good bounces.
That seems like a special kind of hell in the NFL.
neil: Although I will say the flip-side — 1-5 but good on paper — isn’t a nice place to be either.
Salfino: Is there a team like that?
neil: The Texans? LOL.
(No.)
Salfino: The Texans are another one of the good-offense, no-defense teams. This is a 2020 trend.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Maybe the Texans are substantially better than their record, but who knows.
neil: The Patriots are probably the best sub-.500 team.
sara.ziegler: The Patriots game was the other big surprise to me this week.
neil: We’re definitely not used to seeing the Patriots lose at home to a team like Denver.
sara.ziegler: They’re under .500! 2020 is wild.
Salfino: The Patriots are not good on offense. What’s happened to them after playing Seattle in Week 2 has been shocking. Cam Newton’s throwing was ghastly. They lost without giving up a TD after being 39-0 when that happened under Bill Belichick.
neil: That is a shocking stat. (Not that they had been so good, but that they couldn’t continue it Sunday.)
joshua.hermsmeyer: I wanted them to pass more, but as I look at their numbers, their pass EPA per play for the game was -0.35 vs -0.04 per rush. They threw short and did so ineffectively, which is pretty hard to do.
Salfino: And Denver’s defense was banged up and bad. Cam was throwing the ball into the ground 5 yards in front of his receiver, 10 yards away.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Makes you wonder if he’s fully healthy.
neil: That’s what I was thinking, too. Though he wasn’t exactly the reason they won vs. Vegas earlier, either.
joshua.hermsmeyer: Cam is a special player. He can pass you into the red zone and then run the ball in all by himself from there. But when he’s off, he really looks off.
sara.ziegler: It does seem like the messy schedule of the past couple of weeks might have caught up with the Patriots.
Salfino: That’s a good point, Sara. Who knows what we make out of this season of stops and starts.
neil: If any coach would have prepared a team to deal with the COVID craziness, you’d think it would be Belichick. But this seems to be bigger than even he can manage through.
In fact, maybe the “make a new game plan for each opponent” strategy is the wrong one for 2020, given that you might not really know who the next opponent even is!
joshua.hermsmeyer: That’s a really interesting point, Neil. I think you’re right.
Salfino: Good point. Especially with a new QB. And really a new offense. They probably don’t have that requisite mastery of all their plays.
neil: Either way, Tom definitely won the breakup on Sunday.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.