fivethirthyeight--2020-06-24--What Path Is The Trump Presidency On Now?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly politics chat .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
sarah ( Sarah Frostenson , politics editor ) : Soon after President Trump was inaugurated , FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver laid out 14 possible paths his presidency might take — ranging from him shifting to the middle and emerging as a fairly popular unifier to him resigning in disgrace or being impeached .
And while going through all 14 paths at this point is a little overwhelming , it ’ s still a useful way to think about the trajectory Trump finds himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a real question of whether the economy will have sufficiently recovered from a recession ( Scenario 9 ) by November .
But by the same token , it seems pretty unlikely that Trump cedes control to anyone in his administration in any meaningful way ( Scenario 5 ) .
If anything , the fact that former National Security Advisor John Bolton is the latest former administration official to speak out against him underscores just how comfortable Trump is with not listening to anyone .
So maybe the answer is Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 and 6 , where he defies conventional norms and jeopardizes democratic values ( firing Geoffrey Berman , the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York , is just the latest example ) .
But will it be in a way where he still manages to appeal to enough of the electorate to win reelection ?
His approval rating and recent polls would suggest this may not be a winning tactic , but with his recent rally in Tulsa , we ’ re definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path is Trump on now ?
nrakich ( Nathaniel Rakich , elections analyst ) : So I think we should start with the caveat that , clearly , Trump isn ’ t on any one specific path .
The last three and a half years have just been too unpredictable .
But I think there are elements of several of Nate ’ s paths that have come true .
For example , “ 1 .
Trump keeps on Trumpin ’ and the country remains evenly divided ” seems pretty accurate , but Nate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ sort of work ” and would “ make for a very competitive 2018 and 2020 ” does not seem to be coming true .
nrakich : LOL , Sarah , have you met me ?
julia_azari ( Julia Azari , political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : I am here to out-cop-out Nathaniel and point out two important variables in the 14 scenarios : Trump himself , and the rest of the political environment .
And I don ’ t think they play an equal role in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nate ’ s original framework to think about how the Trump administration has shaped up and also what ’ s happened in the rest of politics .
That being said , I think we should still consider the “ things fall apart ” genre and why what ’ s happening now looks a bit different , as well as Nate ’ s original Scenario 8 — “ Trump is consumed by scandal.
” nrakich : Exactly , Julia .
Trump has faced a lot of scandals .
He has presided over a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violated democratic norms and values .
He was impeached .
But Trump ’ s popularity hasn ’ t cratered in response ( although it is dipping ) .
Nate ’ s scenarios kind of assumed that if bad things happened under Trump ’ s watch , he would become extremely unpopular .
But that hasn ’ t happened in these polarized times .
( He ’ s only pretty unpopular . )
sarah : I agree .
Scenario 8 in Nate ’ s original article implied scandal would sink Trump , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as you ’ re saying , Nathaniel , it doesn ’ t mean Trump ’ s approval rating is indestructible — even if it is weirdly steady .
This passage from Geoffrey Skelley ’ s piece on Trump ’ s latest dip in his approval rating has really stuck with me .
The downward movement in his approval rating belies the notion that nothing matters when it comes to public opinion of this president — his actions and events can , in fact , affect his standing .
And for that reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in real danger .
julia_azari : Right , so things have kinda fallen apart : We have a recession .
We have a pandemic .
A few weeks ago we had national protests with curfews and Trump making some very authoritarian statements .
And at one point , I think Trump might have entertained going fully authoritarian — which was a path in Nate ’ s original scenarios — but the rest of the political system pushed back .
I don ’ t mean to suggest that anyone is here to save norms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen in the Trump presidency is that systems are resistant to change , and a lot of people have incentives to push back against changes .
The political system has worked largely as expected , too .
For instance , party loyalty kicked in as we expected during the impeachment process .
perry ( Perry Bacon Jr. , senior writer ) : That ’ s key here — congressional Republicans and the party overall have been so loyal to Trump .
Trump has had scandals and mistakes that I think rival or perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
Everything with Ukraine .
But my perception is that prominent Republicans have been less willing to criticize Trump than they were with Bush .
Party loyalty under Trump has been extremely strong .
He is fairly unpopular overall , but very popular within the Republican Party .
For instance , Trump is way down in the polls right now , yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking the same stance as Trump on Confederate monuments — that too many of them are being taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position for a party trying to win elections .
julia_azari : Right , the party environment has changed .
nrakich : ( Yeah , as a side note , I was thinking about this chat we did in December 2019 about the most consequential episodes in Trump ’ s presidency .
That was only six months ago , and yet it feels like the list we settled on is totally defunct . )
sarah : Something I think we ’ re all dancing around now is that Trump has fewer paths to choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had outlined 14 potential paths , but Trump ’ s options feel far more limited now .
julia_azari : Yeah .
I mean , the path where Trump pivots is not happening — which was evident very early on .
nrakich : The Trump-controlled part of his path seems to be more or less decided at this point .
The thing that ’ s left is the political-environment-controlled part .
And , of course , whether he wins reelection , which will be a part of how we assess whether Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quibble with even that characterization .
If something doesn ’ t work for 3.5 years but then we have a fast economic recovery or something and he hits 47 percent approval just in time to win reelection … did his path really “ work ” ?
julia_azari : So in one of the pivot scenarios , Nate wrote that maybe one conclusion from the 2016 election was that Trump is actually pretty good at politics .
I think this deserves some unpacking — Trump is clearly good at building a base , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative coalition-building , national politics , etc .
perry : Trump has been brilliant in terms of consolidating power within the Republican Party .
For example , he basically pushed Sen. Jeff Flake out of the Senate .
He has interjected himself into gubernatorial primaries to get his favorites to win .
He has forced people out of his administration who would not do his bidding .
Being a Republican is about being loyal to Trump in a way that being a Democrat was not about being loyal to Obama from 2009 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you take out the Republican Party , the results fall apart pretty quickly .
perry : In a country this divided , I would argue being good at base politics is quite important .
The media and other institutions in American politics , like the courts , are always trying to remain nonpartisan .
So Trump ’ s approach basically forces out intra-party critics .
It means the media can ’ t easily say , “ Even Republicans think Trump is doing something strange here.
” That gives him more power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the Republican Party .
julia_azari : Right , but power to do what ?
Trump governs mostly by executive order , in part because Congress is divided and in part because even when it wasn ’ t , no one could clarify an agenda and turn slogans into an actual governing coalition .
nrakich : I agree that Trump may care most about being loved by a segment of the population and having Republicans depend on him for their political livelihood .
But I think Trump is bad at politics .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal following ( this was always true , by the way — it was his MO as a reality TV star ! )
, but that ’ s not the same as governing effectively or winning elections .
perry : And for three and a half years , he was close to maintaining power for eight years in America .
julia_azari : So I think the sum total of what you ’ re both saying is that Trump has mostly succeeded at his goals , and those goals were pretty tangentially related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been fairly effective at what Trump wanted to do , which is hold power .
nrakich : I think we need to be more specific than just “ power.
” That word can mean a lot of things .
But I get what you ’ re saying .
perry : What I ’ m saying is pre-pandemic , Trump was at slightly below 50/50 odds of winning reelection .
And that was not because he was good at governing — as defined as achieving policy goals — but because he commanded 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate or so .
So if Trump is only going to lose reelection because of the pandemic and the recession , then that means he wasn ’ t too bad at politics .
nrakich : Perry , we ’ ve had this discussion before , but I think Trump was an underdog even before the pandemic .
sarah : Yeah , I was going to ask… how much do we actually think the pandemic , the recession and now the protests have altered Trump ’ s reelection odds ?
They definitely don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point .
nrakich : The events of the last month — which are probably impossible to disentangle — seem to have meaningfully hurt Trump ’ s reelection odds .
We don ’ t have a model yet , but I can give it to you in terms of a polling average .
On May 24 , Biden led by 5.8 points in national polls .
As of Tuesday , he led by 9.3 points .
perry : Trump ’ s reelection odds , it seems to me , went from like 45 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In April , The New York Times ’ s Nate Cohn , who is a great elections analyst , wrote about Trump ’ s strength in swing states .
And the entire Democratic primary seemed to be , “ Who can beat Trump , ” which suggests to me not everyone perceived him as easy to defeat .
So it really does seem to me that the pandemic and the resulting recession have rewritten his entire presidency .
Trump was running on economic success , which he claimed credit for even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
And that was an argument that was kind of working .
So in some ways , Trump ’ s path was to do crazy things but focus on the economy and say , “ Whatever I tweet , I get things done.
” And that was a decent path until COVID-19 .
nrakich : I think the fact that electability was such a big deal during the primary reflects the perception — among Democrats , maybe you ’ d call it paranoia — that Trump would be a formidable opponent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ down by around 6 points to Biden .
sarah : Huh , so maybe Trump isn ’ t that bad at politics .
Maybe the external environmental factors have just become too much for Trump to course-correct in any real way ?
nrakich : I certainly agree with Perry that the pandemic and recession have rewritten Trump ’ s presidency .
But things have just gone from bad to worse for him .
The economy used to be a plausible thing for him to campaign on , although it was really the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t even have that .
perry : Trump is not great at politics — he barely won in 2016 .
But he if loses in a landslide in 2020 , that may be more about COVID-19 than his political skills .
julia_azari : Right .
I think it ’ s worth noting that Jeb Bush , Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton would all be struggling politically right now .
They probably would not have dismantled the unit in the National Security Council dedicated to pandemic preparedness and might have had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited control over events like the political environment , particularly when a recession is involved .
That ’ s an interesting question , Nathaniel .
What could change between now and November ?
nrakich : Seems to me like quite a bit ?
The pandemic could be totally under control and the economy could be roaring back .
Or we could be in the middle of a second wave and the unemployment rate could be in the 20s .
Not to mention , all the possibilities that exist in a normal year : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God forbid , a terrorist attack .
sarah : So how much does Trump ’ s path matter moving forward ?
Do external factors matter more ?
nrakich : Yeah , Sarah , I think at this point external factors matter more .
Trump has shown us who he is and how he ’ s governing .
perry : I think the most important thing is not any actual event , but rather how many Republican elites and voters decide to break with Trump .
Will more of each say “ this incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incident was similar to something Trump did in 2017 ?
I don ’ t think Trump will do anything different , but I think people might react differently to his behavior , with four more years of his presidency looming .
julia_azari : Yeah .
I agree that this is a big variable , and not the focus of the original paths .
perry : If it ’ s clear the ship is going down , people will want to get off of it .
Loyalty to the king does not matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dethroned .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.
sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Soon after President Trump was inaugurated, FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver laid out 14 possible paths his presidency might take — ranging from him shifting to the middle and emerging as a fairly popular unifier to him resigning in disgrace or being impeached.
And while going through all 14 paths at this point is a little overwhelming, it’s still a useful way to think about the trajectory Trump finds himself on now. For instance, there’s a real question of whether the economy will have sufficiently recovered from a recession (Scenario 9) by November. But by the same token, it seems pretty unlikely that Trump cedes control to anyone in his administration in any meaningful way (Scenario 5). If anything, the fact that former National Security Advisor John Bolton is the latest former administration official to speak out against him underscores just how comfortable Trump is with not listening to anyone.
So maybe the answer is Trump is verging on some hybrid version of Scenarios 1 and 6, where he defies conventional norms and jeopardizes democratic values (firing Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in charge of investigating major crimes in the influential Southern District of New York, is just the latest example). But will it be in a way where he still manages to appeal to enough of the electorate to win reelection? His approval rating and recent polls would suggest this may not be a winning tactic, but with his recent rally in Tulsa, we’re definitely in full-swing reelection phase.
So what path is Trump on now?
nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): So I think we should start with the caveat that, clearly, Trump isn’t on any one specific path. The last three and a half years have just been too unpredictable. But I think there are elements of several of Nate’s paths that have come true.
For example, “1. Trump keeps on Trumpin’ and the country remains evenly divided” seems pretty accurate, but Nate’s supposition that that path would “sort of work” and would “make for a very competitive 2018 and 2020” does not seem to be coming true.
sarah: That feels like … a cop-out.
nrakich: LOL, Sarah, have you met me?
julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I am here to out-cop-out Nathaniel and point out two important variables in the 14 scenarios: Trump himself, and the rest of the political environment.
And I don’t think they play an equal role in each scenario. So I would actually adjust Nate’s original framework to think about how the Trump administration has shaped up and also what’s happened in the rest of politics.
That being said, I think we should still consider the “things fall apart” genre and why what’s happening now looks a bit different, as well as Nate’s original Scenario 8 — “Trump is consumed by scandal.”
nrakich: Exactly, Julia. Trump has faced a lot of scandals. He has presided over a pandemic and civil unrest. He has routinely violated democratic norms and values. He was impeached. But Trump’s popularity hasn’t cratered in response (although it is dipping).
Nate’s scenarios kind of assumed that if bad things happened under Trump’s watch, he would become extremely unpopular. But that hasn’t happened in these polarized times. (He’s only pretty unpopular.)
sarah: I agree. Scenario 8 in Nate’s original article implied scandal would sink Trump, but it really hasn’t. That said, as you’re saying, Nathaniel, it doesn’t mean Trump’s approval rating is indestructible — even if it is weirdly steady. This passage from Geoffrey Skelley’s piece on Trump’s latest dip in his approval rating has really stuck with me.
The downward movement in his approval rating belies the notion that nothing matters when it comes to public opinion of this president — his actions and events can, in fact, affect his standing. And for that reason, his reelection chances could now be in real danger.
julia_azari: Right, so things have kinda fallen apart: We have a recession. We have a pandemic. A few weeks ago we had national protests with curfews and Trump making some very authoritarian statements.
And at one point, I think Trump might have entertained going fully authoritarian — which was a path in Nate’s original scenarios — but the rest of the political system pushed back.
I don’t mean to suggest that anyone is here to save norms, but one thing we’ve seen in the Trump presidency is that systems are resistant to change, and a lot of people have incentives to push back against changes. The political system has worked largely as expected, too. For instance, party loyalty kicked in as we expected during the impeachment process.
perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): That’s key here — congressional Republicans and the party overall have been so loyal to Trump.
Trump has had scandals and mistakes that I think rival or perhaps even top George W. Bush’s. His handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Everything with Ukraine.
But my perception is that prominent Republicans have been less willing to criticize Trump than they were with Bush. Party loyalty under Trump has been extremely strong. He is fairly unpopular overall, but very popular within the Republican Party. For instance, Trump is way down in the polls right now, yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking the same stance as Trump on Confederate monuments — that too many of them are being taken down.
This is not a great position for a party trying to win elections.
julia_azari: Right, the party environment has changed.
nrakich: (Yeah, as a side note, I was thinking about this chat we did in December 2019 about the most consequential episodes in Trump’s presidency. That was only six months ago, and yet it feels like the list we settled on is totally defunct.)
sarah: Something I think we’re all dancing around now is that Trump has fewer paths to choose from, right? Initially, Nate had outlined 14 potential paths, but Trump’s options feel far more limited now.
julia_azari: Yeah. I mean, the path where Trump pivots is not happening — which was evident very early on.
nrakich: The Trump-controlled part of his path seems to be more or less decided at this point. The thing that’s left is the political-environment-controlled part.
And, of course, whether he wins reelection, which will be a part of how we assess whether Trump’s path “worked.”
Although I would quibble with even that characterization. If something doesn’t work for 3.5 years but then we have a fast economic recovery or something and he hits 47 percent approval just in time to win reelection … did his path really “work”?
julia_azari: So in one of the pivot scenarios, Nate wrote that maybe one conclusion from the 2016 election was that Trump is actually pretty good at politics. I think this deserves some unpacking — Trump is clearly good at building a base, but I think he’s bad at legislative coalition-building, national politics, etc.
perry: Trump has been brilliant in terms of consolidating power within the Republican Party.
For example, he basically pushed Sen. Jeff Flake out of the Senate. He has interjected himself into gubernatorial primaries to get his favorites to win.
He has forced people out of his administration who would not do his bidding. Being a Republican is about being loyal to Trump in a way that being a Democrat was not about being loyal to Obama from 2009 to 2017.
julia_azari: Right. But then when you take out the Republican Party, the results fall apart pretty quickly.
perry: In a country this divided, I would argue being good at base politics is quite important.
The media and other institutions in American politics, like the courts, are always trying to remain nonpartisan. So Trump’s approach basically forces out intra-party critics. It means the media can’t easily say, “Even Republicans think Trump is doing something strange here.” That gives him more power. He has been great at accumulating power within the Republican Party.
julia_azari: Right, but power to do what?
Trump governs mostly by executive order, in part because Congress is divided and in part because even when it wasn’t, no one could clarify an agenda and turn slogans into an actual governing coalition.
nrakich: I agree that Trump may care most about being loved by a segment of the population and having Republicans depend on him for their political livelihood. But I think Trump is bad at politics. He’s good at building a loyal personal following (this was always true, by the way — it was his MO as a reality TV star!), but that’s not the same as governing effectively or winning elections.
perry: And for three and a half years, he was close to maintaining power for eight years in America.
julia_azari: So I think the sum total of what you’re both saying is that Trump has mostly succeeded at his goals, and those goals were pretty tangentially related to governing.
perry: Yes. Trump has been fairly effective at what Trump wanted to do, which is hold power.
nrakich: I think we need to be more specific than just “power.” That word can mean a lot of things. But I get what you’re saying.
perry: What I’m saying is pre-pandemic, Trump was at slightly below 50/50 odds of winning reelection. And that was not because he was good at governing — as defined as achieving policy goals — but because he commanded 100 percent loyalty with 50 percent of the electorate or so.
So if Trump is only going to lose reelection because of the pandemic and the recession, then that means he wasn’t too bad at politics.
nrakich: Perry, we’ve had this discussion before, but I think Trump was an underdog even before the pandemic.
sarah: Yeah, I was going to ask… how much do we actually think the pandemic, the recession and now the protests have altered Trump’s reelection odds? They definitely don’t seem to have helped him at this point.
nrakich: The events of the last month — which are probably impossible to disentangle — seem to have meaningfully hurt Trump’s reelection odds. We don’t have a model yet, but I can give it to you in terms of a polling average. On May 24, Biden led by 5.8 points in national polls. As of Tuesday, he led by 9.3 points.
perry: Trump’s reelection odds, it seems to me, went from like 45 percent earlier this year to 20 percent. In April, The New York Times’s Nate Cohn, who is a great elections analyst, wrote about Trump’s strength in swing states. And the entire Democratic primary seemed to be, “Who can beat Trump,” which suggests to me not everyone perceived him as easy to defeat. So it really does seem to me that the pandemic and the resulting recession have rewritten his entire presidency. Trump was running on economic success, which he claimed credit for even if he had little do to do with it. And that was an argument that was kind of working.
So in some ways, Trump’s path was to do crazy things but focus on the economy and say, “Whatever I tweet, I get things done.”
And that was a decent path until COVID-19.
nrakich: I think the fact that electability was such a big deal during the primary reflects the perception — among Democrats, maybe you’d call it paranoia — that Trump would be a formidable opponent. But he basically spent all of 2019 down by around 6 points to Biden.
(Now is the part where I insert the caveat that everything is still subject to change with more than four months until the election, regardless of whether Trump is down 9 or 6 points.)
sarah: Huh, so maybe Trump isn’t that bad at politics. Maybe the external environmental factors have just become too much for Trump to course-correct in any real way?
nrakich: I certainly agree with Perry that the pandemic and recession have rewritten Trump’s presidency. But things have just gone from bad to worse for him. The economy used to be a plausible thing for him to campaign on, although it was really the only arrow in his quiver. Now he doesn’t even have that.
perry: Trump is not great at politics — he barely won in 2016. But he if loses in a landslide in 2020, that may be more about COVID-19 than his political skills.
julia_azari: Right. I think it’s worth noting that Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton would all be struggling politically right now. They probably would not have dismantled the unit in the National Security Council dedicated to pandemic preparedness and might have had a more coherent response, but presidents have limited control over events like the political environment, particularly when a recession is involved.
That’s an interesting question, Nathaniel. What could change between now and November?
nrakich: Seems to me like quite a bit? The pandemic could be totally under control and the economy could be roaring back. Or we could be in the middle of a second wave and the unemployment rate could be in the 20s.
Not to mention, all the possibilities that exist in a normal year: A bad debate. A scandal. God forbid, a terrorist attack.
sarah: So how much does Trump’s path matter moving forward? Do external factors matter more?
nrakich: Yeah, Sarah, I think at this point external factors matter more. Trump has shown us who he is and how he’s governing.
perry: I think the most important thing is not any actual event, but rather how many Republican elites and voters decide to break with Trump. Will more of each say “this incident was the last straw” even if the incident was similar to something Trump did in 2017?
I don’t think Trump will do anything different, but I think people might react differently to his behavior, with four more years of his presidency looming.
julia_azari: Yeah. I agree that this is a big variable, and not the focus of the original paths.
perry: If it’s clear the ship is going down, people will want to get off of it.
Loyalty to the king does not matter if the king is going to be dethroned.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Progressives challenge the Democratic establishment


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-25--U.S. Team Sports Are Coming Back. Here’s What To Watch In The NWSL Challenge Cup.

It hasn ’ t been the smoothest road , but American team sports are almost back .
The first league set to return is the National Women ’ s Soccer League , which kicks off Saturday with the Challenge Cup , a special , COVID-designed tournament .
The NBA , NHL and MLS have similar tournament-style events planned to get their seasons back on track and likely will be watching the Challenge Cup closely for how it plays out .
Even before NWSL teams arrived at the host site in Sandy , Utah , the pandemic had already thrown the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , before the league ’ s nine teams departed from their preseason camps , the Orlando Pride announced they had to withdraw because six players and four staffers tested positive for COVID-19 .
Sources in the league have blamed Orlando players for breaking team social distancing protocols and going out to bars in a state — Florida — that has been among the earliest to reopen such establishments .
With Orlando ’ s withdrawal chalked up to irresponsible individual behavior and not insufficient league protocols , the Challenge Cup is full steam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s biggest stars , particularly members of the U.S. women ’ s national team , have opted out of the event over concerns of COVID-19 and the possibility of injury , including household names Megan Rapinoe and Tobin Heath .
This event , which will be broadcast on CBS and CBS All Access , will likely determine the champion of the 2020 season , given that there are no plans for a normal regular season afterward .
The FiveThirtyEight Challenge Cup prediction model had the Orlando Pride in dead last anyway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tournament doesn ’ t clearly help any single team .
Each team will play four games in the first round set by random lottery , and no one will be eliminated from that round , now that Orlando has dropped out .
Instead , the first round will be used to determine seeding for a knockout stage with the league ’ s eight remaining teams .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 27 percent For the past two seasons , the Courage have won both the NWSL Shield for the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just a quick glance at their roster helps explain it — there ’ s not a weak spot for the Courage , and unlike some other teams in this tournament , they won ’ t have any stars missing .
The Courage ’ s playing style is the soccer equivalent of a battering ram , relying on a breakneck pace and brute force to outscore opponents .
Indeed , the Courage have led the league in shots taken ( and shots on goal ) for the past two seasons .
Their shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( that honor went to the Portland Thorns for the past two seasons ) , but that ’ s not really the point .
The sheer volume of the Courage ’ s attacking waves is difficult to defend for a full 90 minutes , and it ’ s easy to see why the Courage have led the NWSL in late goals — in the final 15 minutes of games — over the past two seasons .
There ’ s not much reason to doubt the Courage can win it all in Utah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Courage have the best home record over the last two years , and the looming question is whether they can be as dominant at a neutral site .
Notable inclusions : 2019 World Cup winner Lindsey Horan , No .
1 and No .
2 overall 2020 NWSL draft picks Sophia Smith and Morgan Weaver , all-time international leader in goals Christine Sinclair .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 12 percent Considered the flagship club of the NWSL , the 2012 and 2017 champions start every season with high expectations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year and were eliminated in the playoffs , which prompted some serious roster reconstruction over the offseason .
Players like Midge Purce , Ellie Carpenter and Caitlin Foord , who played prominent roles at multiple positions for the Thorns , are gone .
Those exits plus the absence of Heath leave the Thorns without the potent wide players who were such a hallmark of the 2019 team .
Now questions linger about how the Thorns will play at the Challenge Cup .
Will they return to a three-back system with wingbacks , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will they continue their aggressive counter-pressing , swarming defensive style or go with something a bit more conservative ?
Either way , the Challenge Cup is going to be an adjustment for the Thorns , a team that typically averages around 20,000 rowdy , chanting fans per home game .
That best-in-the-league home support is part of why the Thorns have one of the best home records every season , but the Thorns will be playing in empty stadiums in Utah .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 14 percent It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stars without first talking about who they don ’ t have .
Last year ’ s NWSL Golden Boot winner and MVP , Samantha Kerr , signed with Chelsea in the offseason and leaves an Australia-sized hole in the Chicago attack .
There ’ s no like-for-like replacement for a player who scored 34 goals in her 40 appearances for the club , and the Red Stars will need more players stepping up goal-scoring production .
An injury to Alyssa Mautz , who the club announced tore her ACL earlier this week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nagasato should contribute a few goals , as should Kealia Ohai Watt , but that still doesn ’ t get close to Kerr ’ s output .
The Red Stars have a solid roster otherwise .
Defensively , Ertz and Casey Short are two of the best in the league ( and if Ertz plays as a midfielder , she ’ s one of the best at that too ) .
Midfielders Brian and Vanessa DiBernardo , who have both battled injuries , are in their best shape over the past two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from ?
It remains to be seen .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 11 percent After a last-place finish in 2017 , the Spirit have slowly been on the rise , reaching fifth last year .
But they also haven ’ t come particularly close to the upper echelon , and the club added 11 players in the offseason , including former UCLA standout Ashley Sanchez , whom the Spirit selected with the No .
4 pick in this year ’ s draft .
Notably , the club said goodbye to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still widely considered the future of the U.S. women ’ s national team but has lately struggled to hold onto a spot with the national team .
Instead , the club looked to build around players who have steadily been on the rise in Lavelle and Andi Sullivan , a duo that has built a formidable central midfield partnership for the Spirit over the years .
The Spirit tend to play a less direct style than the rest of the NWSL , with the league-best passing accuracy and the second-most passes overall in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is whether they can convert that into attacking opportunities .
The Spirit ’ s passing accuracy plummeted in the opposing half last season , and they weren ’ t potent enough in front of goal .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 11 percent Formerly called the Seattle Reign and now owned by OL Groupe , the parent company of women ’ s soccer powerhouse Olympique Lyonnais , OL Reign has gone through more changes than just its rebranding .
Vlatko Andonovski , the team ’ s coach for the 2018 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. women ’ s national team , and the club brought in former Olympique Lyonnais coach Farid Benstiti , who has never coached in the United States before .
The club has also added some notable international players , including Costa Rica ’ s Shirley Cruz and Japan ’ s Yuka Momiki , and American defender Alana Cook has joined on loan from Paris Saint-Germain .
But how it all comes together is anyone ’ s guess .
It ’ s a new era for the Reign — and in unusual circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The absence of superstar Rapinoe , who has declined to play in the Challenge Cup , won ’ t help .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 10 percent Over two-thirds of the Royals ’ goals last season were scored by one of two players : Press or Rodriguez .
Unfortunately for the Royals , Press has opted out of the Challenge Cup , which seems like a big problem for the de facto home team of this tournament .
But Press and Rodriguez often seemed to be on different pages when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good game and score goals while the other struggled .
That could allow Rodriguez to take the reins and return to her goal-scoring form that led FC Kansas City to back-to-back championships in 2014 and 2015 .
That might be asking a lot of Rodriguez , but it ’ s the Royals ’ best hope .
The Royals would have been better off had the rumored acquisition of German star Dzsenifer Marozsan not fallen through .
But midfielder Aminata Diallo , on loan from Paris Saint-Germain , and Spanish midfielder Vero Boquete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 7 percent The Dash have never quite lived up to their potential .
The second MLS-backed club to join the NWSL and the league ’ s first expansion team , Houston has perennially struggled , with a carousel of new coaches doing little to improve the situation .
It ’ s on second-year head coach James Clarkson to figure it out in Utah in a venue that could suit the Dash , who actually did better on the road than at home last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of roster changes without much time to build chemistry .
They brought in defensive veterans Megan Oyster and Katie Naughton to bolster a backline that has been a liability over the years .
Meanwhile , three of the Dash ’ s top five goal-scorers from last season are gone , with Sofia Huerta , Kealia Ohai Watts and Kyah Simon all departing in the offseason , along with longtime defender Amber Brooks .
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all : 7 percent The New Jersey-based team has been the NWSL ’ s offseason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnaround in better housing conditions and facilities after players publicly lambasted the club .
But whether they can make similar progress on the field remains to be seen .
For starters , Lloyd and new addition Pugh are both injured , dealing major blows to the Sky Blue attack .
Defender Caprice Dydasco is also out .
But Midge Purce was a workhorse last year for the Thorns and can plug in most holes around the field , so she ’ ll probably carry some of the scoring burden either up top or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t really know how Sky Blue will play .
Head coach Freya Coombe took over late last season , but it will clearly be an uphill battle .
The team conceded more shots than any other in the NWSL last year , yet was last on the other end of the field in shots taken and shot conversion .
Given their significant absences , it ’ s hard to see how they do much better this year .

Megan Rapinoe And Tobin Heath Have Opted Out. But There’s Still Lots To Root For In The NWSL.
It hasn’t been the smoothest road, but American team sports are almost back.
The first league set to return is the National Women’s Soccer League, which kicks off Saturday with the Challenge Cup, a special, COVID-designed tournament. The NBA, NHL and MLS have similar tournament-style events planned to get their seasons back on track and likely will be watching the Challenge Cup closely for how it plays out.
Even before NWSL teams arrived at the host site in Sandy, Utah, the pandemic had already thrown the return plans for a loop. On Monday, before the league’s nine teams departed from their preseason camps, the Orlando Pride announced they had to withdraw because six players and four staffers tested positive for COVID-19. Sources in the league have blamed Orlando players for breaking team social distancing protocols and going out to bars in a state — Florida — that has been among the earliest to reopen such establishments.
With Orlando’s withdrawal chalked up to irresponsible individual behavior and not insufficient league protocols, the Challenge Cup is full steam ahead. Yet some of the league’s biggest stars, particularly members of the U.S. women’s national team, have opted out of the event over concerns of COVID-19 and the possibility of injury, including household names Megan Rapinoe and Tobin Heath.
This event, which will be broadcast on CBS and CBS All Access, will likely determine the champion of the 2020 season, given that there are no plans for a normal regular season afterward. The FiveThirtyEight Challenge Cup prediction model had the Orlando Pride in dead last anyway, so the team’s removal from the tournament doesn’t clearly help any single team.
Each team will play four games in the first round set by random lottery, and no one will be eliminated from that round, now that Orlando has dropped out. Instead, the first round will be used to determine seeding for a knockout stage with the league’s eight remaining teams.
Here’s a team team-by-team primer for the NWSL Challenge Cup:
North Carolina Courage
Key players opted out: None
Notable inclusions: 2019 World Cup winners Crystal Dunn, Samantha Mewis and Abby Dahlkemper, 2016 NWSL Golden Boot winner Lynn Williams
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 27 percent
For the past two seasons, the Courage have won both the NWSL Shield for the best regular-season record and the postseason championship trophy. Just a quick glance at their roster helps explain it — there’s not a weak spot for the Courage, and unlike some other teams in this tournament, they won’t have any stars missing.
The Courage’s playing style is the soccer equivalent of a battering ram, relying on a breakneck pace and brute force to outscore opponents. Indeed, the Courage have led the league in shots taken (and shots on goal) for the past two seasons.
Their shot conversion hasn’t been the best (that honor went to the Portland Thorns for the past two seasons), but that’s not really the point. The sheer volume of the Courage’s attacking waves is difficult to defend for a full 90 minutes, and it’s easy to see why the Courage have led the NWSL in late goals — in the final 15 minutes of games — over the past two seasons.
There’s not much reason to doubt the Courage can win it all in Utah, but here’s one: The Courage have the best home record over the last two years, and the looming question is whether they can be as dominant at a neutral site.
Portland Thorns FC
Key absences: Tobin Heath (opted out), Adrianna Franch (knee injury)
Notable inclusions: 2019 World Cup winner Lindsey Horan, No. 1 and No. 2 overall 2020 NWSL draft picks Sophia Smith and Morgan Weaver, all-time international leader in goals Christine Sinclair.
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 12 percent
Considered the flagship club of the NWSL, the 2013 and 2017 champions start every season with high expectations. But they stumbled to the finish last year and were eliminated in the playoffs, which prompted some serious roster reconstruction over the offseason.
Players like Midge Purce, Ellie Carpenter and Caitlin Foord, who played prominent roles at multiple positions for the Thorns, are gone. Those exits plus the absence of Heath leave the Thorns without the potent wide players who were such a hallmark of the 2019 team.
Now questions linger about how the Thorns will play at the Challenge Cup. Will they return to a three-back system with wingbacks, or will they switch their system up? Will they continue their aggressive counter-pressing, swarming defensive style or go with something a bit more conservative?
Either way, the Challenge Cup is going to be an adjustment for the Thorns, a team that typically averages around 20,000 rowdy, chanting fans per home game. That best-in-the-league home support is part of why the Thorns have one of the best home records every season, but the Thorns will be playing in empty stadiums in Utah.
Chicago Red Stars
Key absences: Tierna Davidson (doubtful due to injury)
Notable inclusions: 2019 World Cup winners Julie Ertz, Morgan Brian and Alyssa Naeher
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 14 percent
It’s difficult to talk about the Red Stars without first talking about who they don’t have. Last year’s NWSL Golden Boot winner and MVP, Samantha Kerr, signed with Chelsea in the offseason and leaves an Australia-sized hole in the Chicago attack.
There’s no like-for-like replacement for a player who scored 34 goals in her 40 appearances for the club, and the Red Stars will need more players stepping up goal-scoring production. An injury to Alyssa Mautz, who the club announced tore her ACL earlier this week, certainly doesn’t help. Yuki Nagasato should contribute a few goals, as should Kealia Ohai Watt, but that still doesn’t get close to Kerr’s output.
The Red Stars have a solid roster otherwise. Defensively, Ertz and Casey Short are two of the best in the league (and if Ertz plays as a midfielder, she’s one of the best at that too). Midfielders Brian and Vanessa DiBernardo, who have both battled injuries, are in their best shape over the past two years.
But where will the goals come from? It remains to be seen.
Washington Spirit
Key players opted out: None
Notable inclusions: 2019 World Cup Bronze Ball winner Rose Lavelle
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 11 percent
After a last-place finish in 2017, the Spirit have slowly been on the rise, reaching fifth last year. But they also haven’t come particularly close to the upper echelon, and the club added 11 players in the offseason, including former UCLA standout Ashley Sanchez, whom the Spirit selected with the No. 4 pick in this year’s draft.
Notably, the club said goodbye to Mallory Pugh, who at 22 is still widely considered the future of the U.S. women’s national team but has lately struggled to hold onto a spot with the national team. Instead, the club looked to build around players who have steadily been on the rise in Lavelle and Andi Sullivan, a duo that has built a formidable central midfield partnership for the Spirit over the years.
The Spirit tend to play a less direct style than the rest of the NWSL, with the league-best passing accuracy and the second-most passes overall in 2019 to prove it. The question is whether they can convert that into attacking opportunities. The Spirit’s passing accuracy plummeted in the opposing half last season, and they weren’t potent enough in front of goal.
OL Reign
Key players opted out: Megan Rapinoe
Notable inclusions: 2019 World Cup winner Allie Long
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 11 percent
Formerly called the Seattle Reign and now owned by OL Groupe, the parent company of women’s soccer powerhouse Olympique Lyonnais, OL Reign has gone through more changes than just its rebranding.
Vlatko Andonovski, the team’s coach for the 2018 and 2019 seasons, was scooped up by the U.S. women’s national team, and the club brought in former Olympique Lyonnais coach Farid Benstiti, who has never coached in the United States before. The club has also added some notable international players, including Costa Rica’s Shirley Cruz and Japan’s Yuka Momiki, and American defender Alana Cook has joined on loan from Paris Saint-Germain.
But how it all comes together is anyone’s guess. It’s a new era for the Reign — and in unusual circumstances to be launching a new identity. The absence of superstar Rapinoe, who has declined to play in the Challenge Cup, won’t help.
Utah Royals FC
Key players opted out: Christen Press
Notable inclusions: 2019 World Cup winner Kelley O’Hara, former U.S. women’s national team striker Amy Rodriguez
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 10 percent
Over two-thirds of the Royals’ goals last season were scored by one of two players: Press or Rodriguez. Unfortunately for the Royals, Press has opted out of the Challenge Cup, which seems like a big problem for the de facto home team of this tournament.
But Press and Rodriguez often seemed to be on different pages when they played together — one would have a good game and score goals while the other struggled. That could allow Rodriguez to take the reins and return to her goal-scoring form that led FC Kansas City to back-to-back championships in 2014 and 2015. That might be asking a lot of Rodriguez, but it’s the Royals’ best hope.
The Royals would have been better off had the rumored acquisition of German star Dzsenifer Marozsan not fallen through. But midfielder Aminata Diallo, on loan from Paris Saint-Germain, and Spanish midfielder Vero Boquete should be able to create scoring opportunities.
Houston Dash
Key players opted out: None
Notable inclusions: U.S. women’s national team goalkeeper Jane Campbell, English forward Rachel Daly
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 7 percent
The Dash have never quite lived up to their potential. The second MLS-backed club to join the NWSL and the league’s first expansion team, Houston has perennially struggled, with a carousel of new coaches doing little to improve the situation.
It’s on second-year head coach James Clarkson to figure it out in Utah in a venue that could suit the Dash, who actually did better on the road than at home last year.
But the Dash have made a lot of roster changes without much time to build chemistry. They brought in defensive veterans Megan Oyster and Katie Naughton to bolster a backline that has been a liability over the years. Meanwhile, three of the Dash’s top five goal-scorers from last season are gone, with Sofia Huerta, Kealia Ohai Watts and Kyah Simon all departing in the offseason, along with longtime defender Amber Brooks.
Sky Blue FC
Key absences: 2019 World Cup winners Carli Lloyd (knee injury) and Mallory Pugh (hip injury)
Notable inclusions: 2011 World Cup winner Naho Kawasumi
FiveThirtyEight odds to win it all: 7 percent
The New Jersey-based team has been the NWSL’s offseason success story, thanks to a drastic turnaround in better housing conditions and facilities after players publicly lambasted the club. But whether they can make similar progress on the field remains to be seen.
For starters, Lloyd and new addition Pugh are both injured, dealing major blows to the Sky Blue attack. Defender Caprice Dydasco is also out. But Midge Purce was a workhorse last year for the Thorns and can plug in most holes around the field, so she’ll probably carry some of the scoring burden either up top or on the wings.
Still, we don’t really know how Sky Blue will play. Head coach Freya Coombe took over late last season, but it will clearly be an uphill battle. The team conceded more shots than any other in the NWSL last year, yet was last on the other end of the field in shots taken and shot conversion.
Given their significant absences, it’s hard to see how they do much better this year.
Check out our latest soccer predictions.
CORRECTION (June 25, 2020, 2:02 p.m.): An earlier version of this article gave the incorrect year of the Portland Thorns’ first NWSL championship. They won in 2013, not 2012.
CORRECTION (June 26, 2020, 11:33 a.m.): An earlier version of the photo caption in this article incorrectly placed the action in last year’s NWSL title game. The photo was taken during the Courage’s semifinal match against Reign FC.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-25--Why Biden’s Polling Lead Is Different From Clinton’s In 2016

There are still 131 days — an eternity in politics — to go before the general election , but as of right now , former Vice President Joe Biden has a commanding lead over President Trump .
Last week , we unveiled FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling average for the 2020 presidential election , which adjusts for things like the quality or recency of the poll .
( If you ’ re curious , you can read more about how it ’ s calculated here . )
And as of Wednesday , June 24 , Biden leads Trump nationally 50.9 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9.6 points ) .
So although it ’ s still early ( and the race can still change ) , we thought it would be good to set a marker for what the state of the race is at this point .
So here are a few takeaways from our polling averages : First , Biden ’ s lead has clearly widened in the past month .
He now leads by more than 9 points , but on May 25 , Biden led by an average of only 5.8 points ( 48.9 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , though , police officers killed George Floyd in Minneapolis , touching off weeks of protests nationwide .
Americans gave Trump poor marks for his heavy-handed response , such as his administration ’ s use of the military to clear protesters from in front of the White House so he could pose for a photo .
In addition , voter approval of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic continues to sink , and the president has faced several other controversies in the past week or so .
So while we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much these events might be driving Biden ’ s increasing advantage in the polls , it seems probable that recent events have hurt Trump ’ s reelection chances .
But some people have dismissed Biden ’ s lead by pointing out that Hillary Clinton also led in most polls of the 2016 election ( Clinton , obviously , ended up losing to Trump ) .
While this is true , Clinton ’ s lead was much smaller .
Applying our current polling-average methodology to 2016 polls , Clinton led national polls by an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the 2016 election , and 3.8 points on Election Day itself .
So while a normal-sized polling error was enough to throw the 2016 election to Trump , it would take a much bigger — and much unlikelier — polling error for Trump to be ahead right now .
Of course , Trump became president because he won the Electoral College despite losing the national popular vote .
But if Biden wins the popular vote by 9.6 points , his current lead , Trump would be extremely unlikely to pull off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ averages , Biden currently leads in states worth 368 electoral votes , far more than the 270 needed to win .
However , the Electoral College looks like it could still give Trump an advantage , just like it did four years ago .
It ’ s hard to see that advantage now because Biden leads in nearly every swing state , but if you look at each state ’ s polling average relative to the national polling average ( the rightmost column in the table below ) , you get a sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bluer than the country as a whole .
As you can see , by this metric , many of these states lean more toward Trump than the country does .
That means that , if the overall race tightens , those states could slide into Trump ’ s column , allowing him to once again win a majority of electoral votes even if Biden wins the national popular vote .
Right now , according to our polling averages , Florida would be the “ tipping point ” state of the election — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 270th electoral vote .
( In other words , if Biden wins every state above Florida in the table , and Trump wins every state below Florida , both would still be short of 270 electoral votes .
So whoever won Florida would win the election . )
Biden currently leads by 7.4 points in Florida , according to our polling average there , which is 2.3 points less than his national lead .
That means Trump could win the state — and therefore , the way things are set up right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden still leads the national average by up to 2.3 points on Election Day .
That said , it ’ s still early in the campaign , and the tipping point state will likely continue to shuffle around ( for example , Minnesota was the tipping-point state last week ) .
For now , though , it ’ s notable that the Midwestern swing states — namely , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — are still a bit more Democratic-leaning than the emerging swing states in the Sun Belt , like Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s a similar story to 2016 , when the election was decided in the Midwest .
But based on these early polling averages , a few states seem to have gotten a bit more Democratic since the last election ( even accounting for the bluer national environment ) .
For example , Michigan ’ s polling average almost exactly mirrors the national polling average right now , despite Michigan voting 2.3 points to the right of the nation in 2016 .
It ’ s especially surprising to see Michigan so far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table above , considering how similarly those three states voted in 2016 .
However , this could also just be noise in the data .
We ’ re still light on polls in many states ; for instance , we ’ ve seen a grand total of one Pennsylvania poll conducted this month .
So be sure to check back to see how the polling averages shift .
For now , though , things look pretty good for Biden .

There are still 131 days — an eternity in politics — to go before the general election, but as of right now, former Vice President Joe Biden has a commanding lead over President Trump. Last week, we unveiled FiveThirtyEight’s polling average for the 2020 presidential election, which adjusts for things like the quality or recency of the poll. (If you’re curious, you can read more about how it’s calculated here.) And as of Wednesday, June 24, Biden leads Trump nationally 50.9 percent to 41.3 percent (a margin of 9.6 points).
So although it’s still early (and the race can still change), we thought it would be good to set a marker for what the state of the race is at this point. So here are a few takeaways from our polling averages:
First, Biden’s lead has clearly widened in the past month. He now leads by more than 9 points, but on May 25, Biden led by an average of only 5.8 points (48.9 percent to 43.1 percent). On that day, though, police officers killed George Floyd in Minneapolis, touching off weeks of protests nationwide. Americans gave Trump poor marks for his heavy-handed response, such as his administration’s use of the military to clear protesters from in front of the White House so he could pose for a photo. In addition, voter approval of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic continues to sink, and the president has faced several other controversies in the past week or so. So while we can’t say for sure how much these events might be driving Biden’s increasing advantage in the polls, it seems probable that recent events have hurt Trump’s reelection chances.
But some people have dismissed Biden’s lead by pointing out that Hillary Clinton also led in most polls of the 2016 election (Clinton, obviously, ended up losing to Trump). While this is true, Clinton’s lead was much smaller. Applying our current polling-average methodology to 2016 polls, Clinton led national polls by an average of about 4.0 points four months before the 2016 election, and 3.8 points on Election Day itself. So while a normal-sized polling error was enough to throw the 2016 election to Trump, it would take a much bigger — and much unlikelier — polling error for Trump to be ahead right now.
[Related: Biden Has A Historically Large Lead Over Trump, But It Could Disappear]
Of course, Trump became president because he won the Electoral College despite losing the national popular vote. But if Biden wins the popular vote by 9.6 points, his current lead, Trump would be extremely unlikely to pull off the same trick. In our state-by-state polling averages, Biden currently leads in states worth 368 electoral votes, far more than the 270 needed to win.
However, the Electoral College looks like it could still give Trump an advantage, just like it did four years ago. It’s hard to see that advantage now because Biden leads in nearly every swing state, but if you look at each state’s polling average relative to the national polling average (the rightmost column in the table below), you get a sense of whether the state is redder or bluer than the country as a whole. As you can see, by this metric, many of these states lean more toward Trump than the country does. That means that, if the overall race tightens, those states could slide into Trump’s column, allowing him to once again win a majority of electoral votes even if Biden wins the national popular vote.
Biden is outpolling Trump in most swing states FiveThirtyEight polling averages as of 5:20 p.m. Eastern on June 24, 2020 State Biden Trump Margin Lean Relative to Nation Colorado 54.6% 36.9% D+17.7 D+8.0 New Mexico 54.5 40.6 D+14.0 D+4.3 Maine 53.5 39.6 D+13.9 D+4.2 Virginia 50.9 39.7 D+11.2 D+1.5 Minnesota 54.3 43.8 D+10.6 D+0.9 National 50.9 41.3 D+9.6 EVEN Michigan 50.6 41.0 D+9.6 R+0.1 Nevada 48.6 39.9 D+8.7 R+0.9 New Hampshire 50.2 42.4 D+7.9 R+1.8 Wisconsin 49.8 42.3 D+7.6 R+2.1 Florida 50.0 42.6 D+7.4 R+2.3 Pennsylvania 49.2 43.6 D+5.6 R+4.0 Arizona 48.1 43.5 D+4.7 R+5.0 Ohio 48.2 45.8 D+2.4 R+7.3 North Carolina 47.1 45.2 D+1.9 R+7.8 Georgia 47.2 45.9 D+1.3 R+8.4 Iowa 45.9 46.0 R+0.1 R+9.8 Texas 46.6 47.1 R+0.5 R+10.1 “Lean relative to nation” is how much more pro-Biden or pro-Trump a state’s polling average is than the national polling average.
Right now, according to our polling averages, Florida would be the “tipping point” state of the election — the state that will give a candidate his 270th electoral vote. (In other words, if Biden wins every state above Florida in the table, and Trump wins every state below Florida, both would still be short of 270 electoral votes. So whoever won Florida would win the election.) Biden currently leads by 7.4 points in Florida, according to our polling average there, which is 2.3 points less than his national lead. That means Trump could win the state — and therefore, the way things are set up right now, the Electoral College — even if Biden still leads the national average by up to 2.3 points on Election Day. That said, it’s still early in the campaign, and the tipping point state will likely continue to shuffle around (for example, Minnesota was the tipping-point state last week).
For now, though, it’s notable that the Midwestern swing states — namely, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — are still a bit more Democratic-leaning than the emerging swing states in the Sun Belt, like Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas. That’s a similar story to 2016, when the election was decided in the Midwest. But based on these early polling averages, a few states seem to have gotten a bit more Democratic since the last election (even accounting for the bluer national environment). For example, Michigan’s polling average almost exactly mirrors the national polling average right now, despite Michigan voting 2.3 points to the right of the nation in 2016. It’s especially surprising to see Michigan so far away from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the table above, considering how similarly those three states voted in 2016.
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
However, this could also just be noise in the data. We’re still light on polls in many states; for instance, we’ve seen a grand total of one Pennsylvania poll conducted this month. So be sure to check back to see how the polling averages shift. For now, though, things look pretty good for Biden.
Do you buy that Trump can ride a midwest path to victory in 2020?


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-25--Biden Has A Historically Large Lead Over Trump, But It Could Disappear

FiveThirtyEight ’ s general election polling averages debuted last week , showing that former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic nominee , holds a big lead over President Trump in national surveys — about 10 percentage points as of 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday .
So how does Biden ’ s lead stack up to those in previous cycles ?
We compared his standing at this point to previous presidential elections by applying our polling average methodology to polls from past cycles .
And as you can see in the chart below , both Biden ’ s average support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the largest of any contender since Bill Clinton in 1996 .
Of course , there are still four months to go until Election Day , but the fact that Biden has such a sizable lead — already bigger than Hillary Clinton ’ s largest lead over Trump , which peaked at 7.5 points in 2016 — is notable .
Heck , even Barack Obama never led by more than 8 points in our 2008 national average , and that wound up being a blowout .
It ’ s not just Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; he ’ s also only one of three candidates to crack the 50 percent mark at this point in the cycle .
( The other two were Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 , both of whom were incumbents who went on to win landslide victories by 23 and 18 points , respectively . )
It ’ s unlikely that Biden wins by that sort of margin , given our increasingly polarized politics , but it is a sign that there are fewer undecided or third-party voters for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position .
It also doesn ’ t bode well for Trump that he is in the worst position of any incumbent since Jimmy Carter in 1980 .
But before you declare Biden the winner , remember his lead is not insurmountable .
Polls closer to November could very well show a race that is tightening .
At this point in the 1988 cycle , Michael Dukakis led nationally by almost 5 points , and in 2000 , George W. Bush was up by nearly 8 points .
But Dukakis ended up losing by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowly lost the popular vote .
( He still won the Electoral College , thanks to Florida . )
So Trump still has plenty of time to recover enough ground to win in the Electoral College even if he loses the national popular vote — after all , he did it in 2016 .
That said , if Biden ’ s current national lead holds steady , it would almost certainly neutralize Trump ’ s potential edge in the Electoral College .
But as Dukakis and Bush show us , a lot can @ @ @ @ @ @

FiveThirtyEight’s general election polling averages debuted last week, showing that former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, holds a big lead over President Trump in national surveys — about 10 percentage points as of 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday.
So how does Biden’s lead stack up to those in previous cycles? We compared his standing at this point to previous presidential elections by applying our polling average methodology to polls from past cycles. And as you can see in the chart below, both Biden’s average support and margin over Trump are historically large — the largest of any contender since Bill Clinton in 1996.
Of course, there are still four months to go until Election Day, but the fact that Biden has such a sizable lead — already bigger than Hillary Clinton’s largest lead over Trump, which peaked at 7.5 points in 2016 — is notable. Heck, even Barack Obama never led by more than 8 points in our 2008 national average, and that wound up being a blowout.
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
It’s not just Biden’s margin that stands out, either; he’s also only one of three candidates to crack the 50 percent mark at this point in the cycle. (The other two were Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984, both of whom were incumbents who went on to win landslide victories by 23 and 18 points, respectively.) It’s unlikely that Biden wins by that sort of margin, given our increasingly polarized politics, but it is a sign that there are fewer undecided or third-party voters for Trump to pick up to help improve his position. It also doesn’t bode well for Trump that he is in the worst position of any incumbent since Jimmy Carter in 1980.
But before you declare Biden the winner, remember his lead is not insurmountable. Polls closer to November could very well show a race that is tightening. At this point in the 1988 cycle, Michael Dukakis led nationally by almost 5 points, and in 2000, George W. Bush was up by nearly 8 points. But Dukakis ended up losing by nearly 8 points in November while Bush narrowly lost the popular vote. (He still won the Electoral College, thanks to Florida.)
[Related: Why Biden’s Polling Lead Is Different From Clinton’s In 2016]
So Trump still has plenty of time to recover enough ground to win in the Electoral College even if he loses the national popular vote — after all, he did it in 2016. That said, if Biden’s current national lead holds steady, it would almost certainly neutralize Trump’s potential edge in the Electoral College. But as Dukakis and Bush show us, a lot can change between now and November.
Do you buy that Trump can ride a midwest path to victory in 2020?


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-25--New Polling Shows Trump’s Electoral College Advantage Is Slipping

A new batch of polls released by The New York Times Upshot/Siena College this morning has caused a stir as they gave former Vice President Joe Biden leads ranging from 6 to 11 percentage points in six key battleground states : Arizona , Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
Yet these surveys largely reinforced what our polling averages already showed : Biden has a sizable edge over President Trump in the states that are most likely to be the tipping point in the Electoral College , and he leads or is running even with Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
As a result , Trump ’ s much-ballyhooed Electoral College advantage doesn ’ t look strong enough to save him — for the moment , at least .
The Times/Siena is one of the most highly-rated pollsters in FiveThirtyEight ’ s Pollster Ratings — one of six with an A+ mark — so these new surveys did adjust our averages a bit , most notably in Pennsylvania .
There had been few high-quality polls conducted in the Keystone State , so our polling average did shift roughly 1.5 points in Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey , which found Biden up by 10 points .
It wasn ’ t just the Times/Siena survey that found Biden up , either .
We got two more polls of Pennsylvania today that showed Biden with double-digit leads .
One from GOP pollster Hodas & Associates gave Biden a 12-point lead , and one from Redfield & Wilton Strategies put him up 10 points .
The new Times/Siena polls also bumped Biden ’ s margin up about a point in three other states : Michigan , North Carolina and Wisconsin .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads in Michigan and Wisconsin now exceed his national advantage .
North Carolina , on the other hand , remains somewhat to the right of the country , but Biden still has about a 3-point lead .
This marks a big change for Wisconsin , too , as up until this point , it had been more Republican-leaning than the country as a whole despite Biden ’ s lead there .
The other thing to note here is that Biden is above 50 percent in Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these states at points in 2016 , she never crossed the 50 percent threshold .
That speaks to just how durable Biden ’ s lead might be .
But perhaps what ’ s even more significant about this batch of recent polls is that Trump ’ s possible Electoral College advantage is slipping .
Biden doesn ’ t lead by as much in most of the battleground states as he does nationally , but his leads are big enough — anywhere from 5 points in Arizona to 9 points in Nevada — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many battleground states lean to the right of the country .
Take Biden ’ s leads in Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin .
Those three Frost Belt states were each decided by less than 1 point in the 2016 election , yet Biden leads them all by at least 8 points .
That gives him a firmer grip on the Electoral College .
The race , of course , could narrow in the coming months , but as the Times/Siena surveys found , Biden also has a sizable edge in states such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if his position weakens in the Midwest — perhaps some white Republican-leaning voters come home to Trump — Biden ’ s strength in other parts of the country might be less affected and still give him a path to victory with 270 electoral votes .
And the fact that Biden now has multiple paths to the White House is the biggest problem facing Trump .
He needs a notable shift in voter sentiment that makes the national environment less favorable for Biden .
With four months to go , that ’ s quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our polling averages suggest that he ’ s in a lot of trouble .

A new batch of polls released by The New York Times Upshot/Siena College this morning has caused a stir as they gave former Vice President Joe Biden leads ranging from 6 to 11 percentage points in six key battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Yet these surveys largely reinforced what our polling averages already showed: Biden has a sizable edge over President Trump in the states that are most likely to be the tipping point in the Electoral College, and he leads or is running even with Trump in some states that leaned Republican in 2016. As a result, Trump’s much-ballyhooed Electoral College advantage doesn’t look strong enough to save him — for the moment, at least.
The Times/Siena is one of the most highly-rated pollsters in FiveThirtyEight’s Pollster Ratings — one of six with an A+ mark — so these new surveys did adjust our averages a bit, most notably in Pennsylvania. There had been few high-quality polls conducted in the Keystone State, so our polling average did shift roughly 1.5 points in Biden’s favor because of the Times/Siena survey, which found Biden up by 10 points.
It wasn’t just the Times/Siena survey that found Biden up, either. We got two more polls of Pennsylvania today that showed Biden with double-digit leads. One from GOP pollster Hodas & Associates gave Biden a 12-point lead, and one from Redfield & Wilton Strategies put him up 10 points.
The new Times/Siena polls also bumped Biden’s margin up about a point in three other states: Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin. As a result, Biden’s average leads in Michigan and Wisconsin now exceed his national advantage. North Carolina, on the other hand, remains somewhat to the right of the country, but Biden still has about a 3-point lead. This marks a big change for Wisconsin, too, as up until this point, it had been more Republican-leaning than the country as a whole despite Biden’s lead there.
Wisconsin is the latest battleground state to lean blue FiveThirtyEight polling averages as of 1 p.m. EDT on June 25, 2020 State Biden Trump Margin Lean Relative to Nation Colorado 54.5% 36.6% D+17.9 D+8.3 Maine 53.7 38.6 D+15.1 D+5.6 New Mexico 54.4 40.4 D+14.0 D+4.5 Virginia 50.8 39.4 D+11.4 D+1.9 Minnesota 54.3 43.5 D+10.8 D+1.2 Michigan 50.4 39.7 D+10.7 D+1.2 Wisconsin 50.2 40.5 D+9.6 D+0.1 National 50.6 41.1 D+9.5 EVEN Nevada 48.5 39.7 D+8.8 R+0.7 New Hampshire 50.3 41.7 D+8.6 R+0.9 Pennsylvania 50.5 42.3 D+8.1 R+1.4 Florida 49.1 42.2 D+6.8 R+2.7 Arizona 47.5 42.7 D+4.8 R+4.7 North Carolina 47.3 44.1 D+3.2 R+6.3 Ohio 48.2 45.5 D+2.7 R+6.8 Georgia 47.1 45.7 D+1.4 R+8.1 Iowa 45.9 45.5 D+0.4 R+9.2 Texas 46.5 46.9 R+0.4 R+9.9 “Lean relative to nation” is how much more pro-Biden or pro-Trump a state’s polling average is than the national polling average.
The other thing to note here is that Biden is above 50 percent in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. This is significant because even though Hillary Clinton led in these states at points in 2016, she never crossed the 50 percent threshold. That speaks to just how durable Biden’s lead might be.
But perhaps what’s even more significant about this batch of recent polls is that Trump’s possible Electoral College advantage is slipping. Biden doesn’t lead by as much in most of the battleground states as he does nationally, but his leads are big enough — anywhere from 5 points in Arizona to 9 points in Nevada — that it won’t matter that many battleground states lean to the right of the country.
Take Biden’s leads in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Those three Frost Belt states were each decided by less than 1 point in the 2016 election, yet Biden leads them all by at least 8 points. That gives him a firmer grip on the Electoral College. The race, of course, could narrow in the coming months, but as the Times/Siena surveys found, Biden also has a sizable edge in states such as Arizona and Florida, which means even if his position weakens in the Midwest — perhaps some white Republican-leaning voters come home to Trump — Biden’s strength in other parts of the country might be less affected and still give him a path to victory with 270 electoral votes.
And the fact that Biden now has multiple paths to the White House is the biggest problem facing Trump. He needs a notable shift in voter sentiment that makes the national environment less favorable for Biden. With four months to go, that’s quite possible, but at the moment, our polling averages suggest that he’s in a lot of trouble.


fivethirthyeight--2020-06-25--Why Statistics Don’t Capture The Full Extent Of The Systemic Bias In Policing

Across the U.S. , demonstrators have spent the past few weeks protesting against racial disparities in the country ’ s criminal justice system .
There ’ s plenty of data to back them up : Black and Hispanic people are stopped more frequently , including traffic stops , and are more likely to be arrested .
Once stopped , police are more likely to use force against , shoot and kill Black citizens .
And then once in jail , Black defendants are more likely to be denied bail , which in turn makes conviction more likely .
And when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black defendants , with Black defendants more likely to be incarcerated .
The data seems to overwhelmingly point to a criminal justice system riven by racial bias .
But , remarkably , it could be even more overwhelming than some studies make it seem .
That ’ s because of a statistical quirk called “ collider bias , ” a kind of selection bias that means that the crime data that shows racial bias is , itself , biased by racist practices .
If you thought crime data showed clear evidence of racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these analyses might make it even clearer .
To understand how all this works , we ’ re going to get mathy .
In particular , we ’ re going to be talking a lot about denominators , which , if you ’ ll remember your fourth grade math lessons , are the numbers on the bottom of a fraction .
For our purposes , though , you can think of them as the universe of people who are being studied .
Police engage with only a small subset of the population they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistics about those interactions , the stats we get are informed by that smaller sample .
And if there ’ s bias in who the police choose to interact with — if it ’ s not a random sample — that can change the relationships you see in the data .
There are two main ways that researchers approach this problem — by using a “ population denominator ” and an “ encounter denominator.
” The former , for example , compares the fraction of Black people in the general population who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for white people .
That ’ s how you get studies that show 96 out of 100,000 Black men and boys will be killed by police over the course of their lifetimes , compared to 39 out of 100,000 white men and boys — a risk that is 2.5 times higher .
Seems straightforward enough .
But because Black and white people encounter the police at different rates to begin with , using population denominators might not lend itself to an apples-to-apples comparison ; being more likely to encounter police means that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force , too .
For this reason , many researchers choose to look at the set of people who have encountered the police .
This is the “ encounter denominator.
” The setup is simple : You look at all the people who had recorded encounters with police — data which is not always easy to obtain — and calculate the proportion that involved the use of force .
But this approach has a different issue , as a recent paper pointed out — if there ’ s bias in who gets stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at discrepancies in the resulting interactions won ’ t give you the full picture .
This is because of something called “ collider bias.
” “ The vast majority — 99.9 percent of the data — we never get to see , ” said Dean Knox , a professor of politics at Princeton and one of the authors of the study .
“ We just don ’ t see all the times when police officers are encountering civilians on the street .
And that ’ s a huge problem , because among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the stops , and the arrests , and the use of force that officers record — those are already contaminated , because officers have discretion in who they choose to engage.
” The fact that researchers ’ data comes from a biased sample — who the police choose to stop — rather than the full sample of possible stops might skew the conclusions we draw from it .
“ If we ’ re using administrative data , we always need to be aware of what world those data capture , and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Allison P. Harris , a political science professor at Yale who studies racial disparities in the criminal justice system .
“ With policing , we just can never know what there ’ s no record of.
” [ Related : Why It ’ s So Rare For Police Officers To Face Legal Consequences ] One example of an encounter denominator approach is a 2019 study by Roland Fryer , an economist at Harvard .
He found that police shoot white , Black and Hispanic Americans whom they ’ ve stopped at equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would seem like evidence that the police are not racially biased — every demographic is being treated equally , after all .
But we know that police officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic people than white ones — and that more of those stops are unfounded .
Researchers measure this with something called the “ hit rate , ” or the rate at which contraband is actually found on the people who were stopped .
A lower hit rate implies bias because it means that the decision to search someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people stopped in New York City , for example , were more likely to be carrying a weapon than Black and Hispanic people who were stopped .
White drivers stopped by the police were more likely to have contraband than Black and Hispanic drivers nationally .
As political scientists Knox , Will Lowe and Jonathan Mummolo , among others , have pointed out , that complicates Fryer ’ s findings .
All of a sudden , what at first appeared to be equal treatment actually suggests unequal treatment .
Because of the initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sample of stopped people isn ’ t the same across races .
The different hit rate indicates that stopped white people are actually more likely to have contraband , on average , than stopped Black people .
In other words , in a world without discrimination in who was stopped — if the Black and white people who were stopped were equally likely to be engaged in criminal activity — you ’ d see an even bigger disparity in outcomes .
It ’ s unintuitive , I know , but let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data we have pick up halfway through the encounter , after officer bias very likely has already exerted an effect , ” said Mummolo , a professor at Princeton .
And without knowing the racial composition of the people who are sighted by police but aren ’ t stopped , it ’ s impossible to fully correct for the bias .
The paper provides a suggestion for how to estimate bias in one part of the chain — use of force in encounters — but it doesn ’ t capture any of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the encounter likelier .
So if racial bias in police stops makes it hard to estimate racial disparities in how people are treated while stopped , you might be wondering : well , doesn ’ t this affect all of the other components of the chain , too ?
“ We need to think about this as this complex system , ” said Knox .
There are biases layered on biases — social decisions like how society allocates resources in education versus policing , and individual decisions like who police choose to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or convicted .
“ It just compounds all the way down the line , ” Knox said .
[ Related : The States Taking On Police Reform After The Death Of George Floyd ] The thing about systemic racism is it ’ s just that : systemic .
Ultimately , the fact that these biased events build on each other should be a reminder that we ’ re not capturing the entire process surrounding the stats we ’ re looking at .
Essentially , all the discrimination we can actually measure at each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much is actually happening .
How cable news is talking about the protests — and why it matters | FiveThirtyEight

Across the U.S., demonstrators have spent the past few weeks protesting against racial disparities in the country’s criminal justice system. There’s plenty of data to back them up: Black and Hispanic people are stopped more frequently, including traffic stops, and are more likely to be arrested. Once stopped, police are more likely to use force against, shoot and kill Black citizens. And then once in jail, Black defendants are more likely to be denied bail, which in turn makes conviction more likely. And when convicted, sentencing is also biased against Black defendants, with Black defendants more likely to be incarcerated.
The data seems to overwhelmingly point to a criminal justice system riven by racial bias. But, remarkably, it could be even more overwhelming than some studies make it seem. That’s because of a statistical quirk called “collider bias,” a kind of selection bias that means that the crime data that shows racial bias is, itself, biased by racist practices. If you thought crime data showed clear evidence of racism before, understanding how collider bias affects these analyses might make it even clearer.
To understand how all this works, we’re going to get mathy. In particular, we’re going to be talking a lot about denominators, which, if you’ll remember your fourth grade math lessons, are the numbers on the bottom of a fraction. For our purposes, though, you can think of them as the universe of people who are being studied.
[Related: Is Police Reform A Fundamentally Flawed Idea?]
Police engage with only a small subset of the population they see, so if we look at statistics about those interactions, the stats we get are informed by that smaller sample. And if there’s bias in who the police choose to interact with — if it’s not a random sample — that can change the relationships you see in the data.
There are two main ways that researchers approach this problem — by using a “population denominator” and an “encounter denominator.”
The former, for example, compares the fraction of Black people in the general population who are arrested or harmed to that same statistic for white people. That’s how you get studies that show 96 out of 100,000 Black men and boys will be killed by police over the course of their lifetimes, compared to 39 out of 100,000 white men and boys — a risk that is 2.5 times higher. Seems straightforward enough. But because Black and white people encounter the police at different rates to begin with, using population denominators might not lend itself to an apples-to-apples comparison; being more likely to encounter police means that you’re more likely to encounter police force, too.
For this reason, many researchers choose to look at the set of people who have encountered the police. This is the “encounter denominator.” The setup is simple: You look at all the people who had recorded encounters with police — data which is not always easy to obtain — and calculate the proportion that involved the use of force. But this approach has a different issue, as a recent paper pointed out — if there’s bias in who gets stopped in the first place, then looking at discrepancies in the resulting interactions won’t give you the full picture. This is because of something called “collider bias.”
“The vast majority — 99.9 percent of the data — we never get to see,” said Dean Knox, a professor of politics at Princeton and one of the authors of the study. “We just don’t see all the times when police officers are encountering civilians on the street. And that’s a huge problem, because among the data that you do get to see — the stops, and the arrests, and the use of force that officers record — those are already contaminated, because officers have discretion in who they choose to engage.”
The fact that researchers’ data comes from a biased sample — who the police choose to stop — rather than the full sample of possible stops might skew the conclusions we draw from it. “If we’re using administrative data, we always need to be aware of what world those data capture, and what they don’t capture,” said Allison P. Harris, a political science professor at Yale who studies racial disparities in the criminal justice system. “With policing, we just can never know what there’s no record of.”
[Related: Why It’s So Rare For Police Officers To Face Legal Consequences]
One example of an encounter denominator approach is a 2019 study by Roland Fryer, an economist at Harvard. He found that police shoot white, Black and Hispanic Americans whom they’ve stopped at equal rates. At first blush, that would seem like evidence that the police are not racially biased — every demographic is being treated equally, after all.
But we know that police officers are more likely to stop Black and Hispanic people than white ones — and that more of those stops are unfounded. Researchers measure this with something called the “hit rate,” or the rate at which contraband is actually found on the people who were stopped. A lower hit rate implies bias because it means that the decision to search someone was made with less evidence. White people stopped in New York City, for example, were more likely to be carrying a weapon than Black and Hispanic people who were stopped. White drivers stopped by the police were more likely to have contraband than Black and Hispanic drivers nationally.
As political scientists Knox, Will Lowe and Jonathan Mummolo, among others, have pointed out, that complicates Fryer’s findings. All of a sudden, what at first appeared to be equal treatment actually suggests unequal treatment. Because of the initial discrimination in who gets stopped, the sample of stopped people isn’t the same across races. The different hit rate indicates that stopped white people are actually more likely to have contraband, on average, than stopped Black people. In other words, in a world without discrimination in who was stopped — if the Black and white people who were stopped were equally likely to be engaged in criminal activity — you’d see an even bigger disparity in outcomes.
It’s unintuitive, I know, but let’s break it down visually.
“The data we have pick up halfway through the encounter, after officer bias very likely has already exerted an effect,” said Mummolo, a professor at Princeton. And without knowing the racial composition of the people who are sighted by police but aren’t stopped, it’s impossible to fully correct for the bias. The paper provides a suggestion for how to estimate bias in one part of the chain — use of force in encounters — but it doesn’t capture any of the potential disparities that occur beforehand that make the encounter likelier.
So if racial bias in police stops makes it hard to estimate racial disparities in how people are treated while stopped, you might be wondering: well, doesn’t this affect all of the other components of the chain, too?
“We need to think about this as this complex system,” said Knox. There are biases layered on biases — social decisions like how society allocates resources in education versus policing, and individual decisions like who police choose to stop or arrest and who is ultimately charged or convicted. “It just compounds all the way down the line,” Knox said.
[Related: The States Taking On Police Reform After The Death Of George Floyd]
The thing about systemic racism is it’s just that: systemic.
Ultimately, the fact that these biased events build on each other should be a reminder that we’re not capturing the entire process surrounding the stats we’re looking at. Essentially, all the discrimination we can actually measure at each specific stage is an underestimate of how much is actually happening.
How cable news is talking about the protests — and why it matters | FiveThirtyEight